Category: Coronavirus

  • Maggie Throup – 2022 Statement on the Covid-19 Vaccination Programme (September 2022)

    Maggie Throup – 2022 Statement on the Covid-19 Vaccination Programme (September 2022)

    The statement made by Maggie Throup, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 5 September 2022.

    The covid-19 vaccination programme continues to protect the UK against the virus. As of 30 August 2022, over 126 million doses have been provided, including 45.2 million first doses, 42.6 million second doses and 33.5 million third primary and booster doses in the UK. This represents uptake of 93.5% for the first dose, and 88.1 % for the second dose.

    Vaccines remain the best protection against covid-19. Given that winter is expected to present another severe challenge from covid-19, we continue to urge everyone to play their part by taking up the covid-19 vaccine and, where eligible, the autumn booster offer without delay.

    If eligible, the NHS will invite you to come forward for your vaccine via SMS, emails and letters. If you are unvaccinated and eligible for covid-19 vaccinations, you can still come forward and book an appointment.

    The independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has published further advice on the covid-19 vaccination programme. Her Majesty’s Government have accepted this advice and I am informed that all four parts of the UK intend to follow the JCVI’s advice.

    Autumn vaccination programme:

    The JCVI advises that for the 2022 autumn booster programme, the following groups should be offered a covid-19 booster vaccine:

    Residents in a care home for older adults and staff working in care homes for older adults

    Frontline health and social care workers

    All adults aged 50 years and over

    Persons aged five to 49 years in a clinical risk group

    Persons aged five to 49 years who are household contacts of people with immunosuppression

    Persons aged 16 to 49 years who are carers

    For the 2022 autumn booster programme, the primary objective is to augment immunity in those at higher risk from covid-19 and thereby optimise protection against severe covid-19, specifically hospitalisation and death, over winter 2022-23.

    Following appropriate data to demonstrate quality, safety and efficacy, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency authorised Moderna’s BA1/wild-type bivalent vaccine for administration as a covid-19 booster vaccination on 12 August 2022 and Pfizer’s BA1/wild-type bivalent vaccine on 3 September 2022. Covid-19 bivalent vaccines target two different variants of covid-19, which broadens immunity and therefore potentially improves protection against variants of covid-19.

    The UK, following the JCVI’s advice, now intends to deploy authorised bivalent vaccines throughout the autumn programme for those eligible.

    The JCVI published advice stating that the autumn booster vaccine dose should be offered at least three months after the previous dose.

    Eligible persons aged 18 years and over may be offered booster vaccinations: 50mcg Moderna mRNA bivalent Omicron BA.1/wild-type vaccine; 50mcg Moderna mRNA wild-type vaccine (Spikevax); 30mcg Pfizer BioNTech mRNA wild-type vaccine (Comirnaty) or 30mcg Pfizer BioNTech mRNA bivalent vaccine (Comirnaty).

    Eligible persons aged 12 to 17 years may be offered booster vaccinations with: 30 meg Pfizer BioNTech mRNA wild-type vaccine (Comirnaty) or 30mcg Pfizer BioNTech mRNA bivalent vaccine (Comirnaty).

    Eligible persons aged 5-11 years may be offered booster vaccinations 10 meg Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA wild-type vaccine (Comirnaty) paediatric formulation.

    In exceptional circumstances the Novavax Matrix-M adjuvanted wild-type vaccine (Nuvaxovid) is approved for primary course vaccination in adults aged 18 years and above and may be used when no alternative clinically suitable UK-approved covid-19 vaccine is available. Deployment is expected to start at the beginning of September 2022.

    Nuvaxovid

    On 3 February 2022, the Novavax covid-19 vaccine, Nuvaxovid, was authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, authorising the deployment of the vaccine after it has generated appropriate data to demonstrate quality, safety and efficacy. The JCVI has provided deployment advice on Nuvaxovid and it is expected to be deployed at the end of September 2022. Nuvaxovid may be used “off-label” as a booster dose for persons aged 18 years and above when no alternative clinically suitable UK-approved covid-19 vaccine is available.

    The agreement to provide an indemnity as part of the contract between HMG and Novavax creates a contingent liability on the covid-19 vaccination programme. Putting in place appropriate indemnities to be given to vaccine suppliers has helped to secure access to vaccines much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.

    With the vaccine offer expanded for autumn for the groups as listed above and the deployment of Nuvaxovid in exceptional circumstances, I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG has taken on in relation to further vaccine supply via this statement and the departmental minutes laid in Parliament containing a description of the liability undertaken. The agreement to provide indemnity with deployment of further doses increases the statutory contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme.

    Deployment of effective vaccines to eligible groups has been and remains a key part of the Government’s strategy to manage covid-19. Willingness to accept the need for appropriate indemnities to be given to vaccine suppliers has helped to secure access to vaccines, with the expected benefits to public health and the economy alike, much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.

    Given the exceptional circumstances we are in, and the terms on which developers have been willing to supply a covid-19 vaccine, we, along with other nations, have taken a broad approach to indemnification proportionate to the situation we are in.

    Even though the covid-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. These vaccines have satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness and quality.

    We are providing indemnities in the very unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.

    I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines or additional doses of vaccines already in use in the UK are deployed.

  • Steve Barclay – 2022 Comments on Asymptomatic Testing

    Steve Barclay – 2022 Comments on Asymptomatic Testing

    The comments made by Steve Barclay, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 24 August 2022.

    Thanks to the success of our world-leading vaccination roll-out, we are able to continue living with Covid and, from 31 August, we will pause routine asymptomatic testing in most high-risk settings.

    This reflects the fact case rates have fallen and the risk of transmission has reduced, though we will continue to closely monitor the situation and work with sectors to resume testing should it be needed. Those being admitted into care homes will continue to be tested.

    Our upcoming autumn booster programme will offer jabs to protect those at greatest risk from severe Covid, and I urge everyone who is eligible to take up the offer.

  • Steve Barclay – 2022 Statement on Vaccines for Over 50s

    Steve Barclay – 2022 Statement on Vaccines for Over 50s

    The statement made by Steve Barclay, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 15 July 2022.

    I have accepted the independent advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to offer an autumn Covid booster to people aged 50 and over, residents and staff in care homes for older adults, frontline health and social care workers, unpaid carers, individuals aged five to 49 in clinical risk groups and household contacts of those who are immunosuppressed.

    NHS staff and volunteers provided an outstanding service to the public through the biggest and fastest vaccination rollout in England’s history, which saved countless lives and allowed us to live with this virus without restrictions on our freedom.

    Viruses spread more easily in the colder seasons with people socialising inside, so the risk of getting Covid is higher. It is absolutely vital the most vulnerable groups receive a booster vaccine to strengthen their immunity against serious disease over winter to protect themselves and reduce pressure on the NHS.

    The flu virus could also be highly infectious at this time of year, so today I am also announcing that those eligible for a free flu vaccination this year will include everyone aged 50 and over, primary school children and secondary school pupils in years 7, 8 and 9, as well as people in clinical risk groups, unpaid carers and household contacts of those who are immunosuppressed.

    If you or your child are eligible for a Covid or flu vaccine, I urge you to come forward as soon as you are invited by the NHS.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Update on Covid-19 (June 2022)

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Update on Covid-19 (June 2022)

    The statement made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    As part of our continued commitment to open up travel, on 23 June, the Government extended the International NHS covid pass letter service to allow children aged five to 11 years to get an International NHS covid pass following a positive NHS PCR test or equivalent within the past 180 days—recovery status. Prior to 23 June, children aged five to 11 could only access an international NHS covid pass if they had received a full primary course of covid-19 vaccination.

    Extending access to the International NHS covid pass to children aged five to 11 with recovery status will save families the cost of testing in countries where this is required for foreign travel and ensures that young children are able to provide proof of their covid-19 status on a par with the rest of the population. The UK has no covid certification requirements and this is to support outbound travel to a variety of countries that still have requirements.

    A person with parental responsibility for the child—such as the parent or guardian—will be able to request the letter online via the NHS website or by calling 119. The letter will only be sent to the address on the child’s GP record.

    This service is now available for children aged five to 11 resident in England and Wales. A letter based on recovery status is not available in the Isle of Man. In Northern Ireland, parents or guardians of children aged five to 11 have been able to request a digital or printed covid certificate on behalf of a dependant since January 2022. The COVIDCert NI app was updated in March 2022, to allow all those under 16 to upload the certificate—requested on their behalf—to display on the app. Anyone under 16 who tested positive for covid through an NHS PCR test prior to 1 May is able to request a recovery certificate in Scotland by phoning the covid status helpline on: 0808 196 8565.

  • Chris Whitty – 2022 Statement on Shifting Covid Level 4 to Level 3

    Chris Whitty – 2022 Statement on Shifting Covid Level 4 to Level 3

    The statement made by Chris Whitty and others, on 20 May 2022.

    Based on advice from UKHSA, we the UK Chief Medical Officers and NHS England Medical Director have recommended to ministers that COVID Alert Level should move from level 4 to level 3.

    The current BA.2 driven Omicron wave is subsiding. Direct COVID-19 healthcare pressures continue to decrease in all nations and ONS community positivity estimates continue to decrease.

    We would like to thank healthcare staff for their remarkable efforts during a challenging time. Whilst it is reasonable to expect the number of cases to increase due to BA.4, BA.5 or BA2.12.1, it is unlikely in the immediate future to lead to significant direct COVID pressures. This will continue to be kept under review.

    Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Chris Whitty

    Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland, Dr Michael McBride

    Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, Dr Gregor Smith

    Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Dr Frank Atherton

    NHS England National Medical Director, Professor Stephen Powis

  • Sir John Major – 2022 Speech at Newcastle Cathedral

    Sir John Major – 2022 Speech at Newcastle Cathedral

    The speech made by Sir John Major at the National Cathedrals Conference held at Newcastle Cathedral on Monday 16 May 2022.

    DIFFERENT COUNTRY, DIFFERENT CHURCH

    The theme of your Conference – “Different Country, Different Church” – is our national story through the ages. Both Church and Country have always evolved, but rarely as fast as now. I am now out of public life, away from partisan influences but, as an observer, would like to offer some thoughts about our future.

    THE CHURCH

    Firstly, the Church.

    Our Church faces many dilemmas, in a society that has grown to distrust authority, and is drifting to secularity.

    There are those in our nation who prize celebrity, wealth and fame more than values once believed to be inviolate.

    This cultural change presents an extraordinary challenge to a Church that does have eternal values: it is both a threat and an opportunity. But – if the opportunity is to be taken – the Church must be bold in its actions, and outspoken about its concerns.

    My father was elderly when I was born and, from the time I was nine years old, mostly bedridden. My mother cared for him, and rarely left our home.

    But the Church came to us in the form of our local Vicar, the kind and gentle J. Franklin Cheyne. My elderly and sick parents lived by the precept that God was in our house every day, and so we had no need to attend his once a week.

    This was a trite and self-serving excuse, but The Reverend Cheyne smiled and taught me, as a boy, that our Church is greater than the size of its congregations. People who are not regular church-goers can still – and do – live by Christian principles.

    Some people turn away from religion because, as someone put it to me, “Science is daily destroying the biblical bases of faith”.

    But science can’t replace faith. It can’t remove the hope and the comfort that a “Perfect Being” can exist. This is a belief shared with other faiths. Man will cling to that hope, until the last of our kind is extinct.

    The Reverend Cheyne told me that: “The best argument”, for Christ’s divinity, “is that without the support of secular power, he changed the whole world”. So he did – so far, for two thousand years. No military conqueror has ever made such a mark on our lives – nor ever will.

    And if biblical stories, often in parable form, seem unrealistic to our modern ears, the lessons they teach, and the ideals they preach, are not: they continue to appeal to the better selves within us. They are a protection against the worst our material world can throw at us.

    “The Kingdom of God”, we are told, “is within you.” We should be grateful for that: the alternative is selfishness, disorder and the advance of savagery.

    In our world of change, the Church offers stability. Many changes are beneficial – but not all of them. Sometimes change leaves values behind.

    And, in the bustle of change, where stands happiness? What value is put on peace of mind?

    Should we stand by silently when vile opinion is lauded; when truth is disposable: when authority is mocked; when tradition is trashed; when bad men hold sway in many countries?

    I think not. It may be unfashionable to speak of values, but it should not be. They should never be cast aside.

    Our churches today may be fewer in number, and less full than in years past, but their pulpits still have a distinctive voice.

    Millions of people wish to hear that voice used loudly, clearly, and often – either to uplift hearts and smooth away despair or, where necessary, to speak out on issues that depress or oppress our fellow citizens.

    A single voice can easily be shouted down – but the Church cannot.

    Some argue that the Church should “keep out of politics”, and stick to promoting faith and filling their pews. If by “politics” the critics mean partisan Party politics, I agree. But if they mean politics in its wider sense, then I do not agree.

    The Church mustn’t be pushed into the side lines of life. It must be alive in our communities. In our discourse. In our daily concerns. Politics is about how we live.

    That cannot – and should not – be ignored by the Church.

    Is not the state of our nation – politics? Are not our values – politics? How can it possibly be argued that the Church should be silent on these issues?

    Is not poverty about politics? Yes, it is – and surely the Church must speak about that too. Jesus most certainly did.

    And, if any part of our nation is lost or forgotten by authority, then surely the Church should be a voice for the weak and the voiceless.

    And, above all, the Church must remain the ultimate sanctuary for those in despair who – in our modern world – are many in number.

    What we are as a nation, and what we stand for, is a legitimate issue for the voice of the Church to be heard, and that voice must carry to the faithless as well as the faithful.

    But, if it is to deliver its message, the Church cannot ignore its own problems. I won’t trespass upon matters of conscience, only on practical issues.

    Many parishes face financial challenges, and there is doubt around whether a nationwide parochial system can be sustained.

    It is a herculean task. The Church of England – with its Cathedrals and Parish Churches – is responsible for a very large part of our architectural and cultural heritage, including no less than 45% of all Grade 1 listed buildings.

    The lion’s share of the cost of maintaining this huge community asset falls on the diminishing number of regular worshippers. This is unjust.

    Some argue that it may be necessary to close churches, reduce the number of stipendiary clergy, and sell assets. I do hope not.

    It would be a grim outlook, and I hope Christians will rally to prevent it. Churches are not only part of our lives – they are also an important part of our landscape. If lost, we would all be the poorer. And by “we” I don’t mean church-goers only – I mean everyone.

    I live in Eastern England, and John Betjeman’s famous lines come to mind:

    “What would you be, you wide East Anglian sky
    Without church towers to recognise you by?”

    Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, the Church is always there when needed. And it is more than a place of worship. It is where we may seek the comfort of community; of companionship; of solace – and of sanctuary.

    Often silently, perhaps subliminally, the Church is a guide to our lives and our conscience.

    We should be grateful that it is, and do everything we can to protect its place in our society.

    OUR COUNTRY

    Let me turn to the future of our country.

    First, I should set out some context. We are an island geographically, but in no other way. Our lives are inter-connected with, and affected by, the wider world. We have alliances for security, and trade deals for economic welfare.

    At the moment, our world is not in a state of grace: not every nation is led by men or women of good intent. Democracy has fallen back: freedom – or freedom of religion – has not grown and spread as we would wish.

    We live in uncertain times. Times in which – if good men are complacent – bad men will take advantage.

    In countries where democracy is absent, or weak – or merely under strain – nationalist and populist sentiment has taken root, and grown. Populism is self-interested and can be unscrupulous.

    It makes promises that can’t be kept; creates division; scapegoats minorities; and controls or threatens or undermines the judiciary.

    Populist leaders favour obedience over ability. Acolytes and sycophants are rewarded. Dissenters are abused and crushed. Where possible, the electoral system is perverted.

    All this is a corruption of a free society, and even the strongest democracy must guard against it.

    In our country, we view authoritarian governments with distaste and rejection. They are alien to our way of life and our instincts for freedom. But not everyone feels the same.

    People know that authoritarian rule can bring tyranny and a loss of freedom. But millions also see that economic growth in China – with her long history of autocratic rule – has improved living standards more rapidly than in any democracy.

    To those who are hungry or oppressed, or homeless, or jobless, that is attractive. If their bellies are full, and there are clothes upon their backs, their lives are improving – and millions prize that above the individual freedoms that characterise the Western democracies.

    Nor are democracies always their own best advocates. In America, the Statue of Liberty bears the inspiring inscription “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”. For generations America accepted migrants. More recently, they built a wall to keep them out.

    In England, in 1763, Lord Chancellor Henley said: “If a man steps foot in England, he is a free man.” Today, under the pressure of numbers, if that man is a refugee in a rubber boat he receives a chilly welcome, and the threat of deportation to Rwanda.

    I cannot believe that is the right way forward: such a policy is not a moral advance, and I hope the Government will look again.

    We need a policy that is Europe-wide, to contain people smuggling, and help the miserable and unfortunate victims of this trade.

    I do understand the Government’s difficulties, which are real. But – however you look at this policy – it is wrong to forcibly transport people to a far-away land, when all that most are seeking is a better life.

    I hope – in their own interests – the whole Cabinet will reject this policy. If they do not, they will stain not only their own reputation, but that of the entire Government – and, most of all, our country – for a very long time.

    Our shortcomings may be far less than others, but pragmatic self-interest tells us that we cannot simply ignore autocracies: on arms control; on climate change; on counter terrorism; democracies and autocracies must work together or we will all lose.

    The more we divide into tribes, the more likely it is we will come to blows.

    Thirty years ago, we glimpsed a better world. The Soviet Union imploded. Germany re-united. Apartheid ended. Democracy spread across Eastern Europe. The Liberal Order was dominant.

    It looked as though our values of democracy – of freedom of thought and deed – had won the battle of ideas, and that our way of life would become accepted as the general ideal. It was a time of hope.

    We were naïve. Complacent. Wrong. We forgot the human capacity for folly. We see that now in Ukraine. Freedom needs eternal vigilance. Democracy has to be protected.

    If it is not, it can be overwhelmed – value by value, freedom by freedom, country by country.

    * * * * *

    In the UK, two blockbusting events will affect our future: Brexit and Covid.

    Brexit has not presented Britain’s best face to the world. It is our modern day break with Rome – in this instance, the Treaty of Rome – and it will take years for all the implications to become apparent. Some will be positive; far more will not.

    Some applaud Brexit for reasons of democracy and sovereignty. Others deplore it on economic and social grounds. The debate was rancorous, and factually dubious.

    Brexit divided our four nations and our politics, as well as family from family, and friend from friend. If Scotland and Northern Ireland secede from the UK, Brexit must bear a part of that blame.

    The severity of Covid was surpassed only by Spanish Flu a century ago. Like Brexit, Covid was enormously expensive.

    I have made no secret that I believe that leaving the European Union will – indeed, has – weakened our country and damaged our future. But I am a realist.

    It may not be conceivable to re-enter the Union for many years.

    An early attempt to do so would fail, and worsen the ruptures in our national politics system. Nor could we re-join upon the favourable terms we once enjoyed.

    But attitudes to Europe may change when today’s young, in due time, govern our nation. All the evidence suggests they are overwhelmingly pro-European.

    If the promised benefits of leaving continue to be elusive – if not all-but-invisible – their resolve to re-join may be strengthened.

    Until then, we must try to restore links with our neighbours where it is sensible to do so, and otherwise live with the consequences of our referendum decision.

    Brexit is emphatically not done. The effects of breaking away from the richest free trade market in history will seep out, year upon year, for a very long time.

    As for Covid, the Government acted boldly in setting up furlough payments; and swiftly to ensure the vaccine roll-out.

    But there remain valid questions to be answered about advice to the public; wasteful expenditure; a lack of control over fraud; the decision to transfer elderly patients from hospital to care homes; and the slipshod manner of awarding Covid-related contracts.

    A Public Inquiry has been promised, and should not be delayed. At the very least, the country deserves an interim Report within this Parliament.

    Between them, Brexit and Covid have driven our national debt to previously unknown heights.

    The cost of Covid is estimated as equivalent to one quarter of the total cost of the Second World War. Over time, estimates suggest that the cost of Brexit could be higher yet.

    It took decades to repay the debts of War, and it will take many years to repay the cost of Brexit and Covid.

    This raises an unwelcome question. How can we pay for future policy ambitions? Demography ensures that the mega-budgets – of health, education, and social care – will increase year on year. Our national security ensures that the cost of defence will rise too.

    So will the costs of climate change, and the plans to “level up” communities to end historic injustices.

    Some people deny the existence of climate change with the same fervour with which our predecessors once insisted the world was flat.

    But the evidence can’t be put aside.

    Sea levels are rising on over 70% of the earth’s surface. Storms, hurricanes and floods are increasing in number and severity. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Across the globe, the weather is freakily unpredictable.

    We are losing whole species of plants, animals, insects. We all know the litany.

    Can we ignore this? No. Can any one nation overcome this alone? No, again. Dare we leave this for the next generation? No. It would be wrong in principle and – in any event – it may, by then, be too late, and the burden too great.

    *****

    Nor can “Levelling Up” be ignored. There are serious inequalities in our United Kingdom.

    For many years, Governments comforted themselves that – if our country was doing well – wealth would “trickle down” to lift up the poorest: it hasn’t done so. Of course, there has been improvement – but not enough.
    In times of austerity, we are told that we are “all in it together”. If so, then logically, we should “all be in it together” in times of prosperity.

    I hope the Government will devise a policy that encourages “trickle down” and shares national growth more fairly.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I certainly don’t favour some “bash the rich” policy. Wealth in our country is important to us all. We should welcome investors and innovators – as job creators, as philanthropists, as tax-payers.

    But, as a nation, we must be fairer in distributing the fruits of national growth.

    You will all remember the “key” workers, for whom we stood applauding on our doorsteps during the Covid crisis. They were mostly poorly paid. There was no “trickle down” to them – and yet it was they upon whom we relied in a crisis.

    Our values need “Levelling Up” as well as our communities.

    But we must be realistic. “Levelling Up” will take many Parliaments to complete, and will only succeed if future governments buy into the concept and the cost.

    How can all this be paid for? There are options.

    It could, over time, be met by above average growth in our economy. This is possible, but cannot be relied upon.

    If growth is insufficient, which experience suggests is probable, the cost can only be met by higher taxes, or more borrowing or cuts in other budgets.

    It is an unwelcome truth that lower taxes for everyone – and higher spending – do not go together. Hard choices must be made.

    And some hard choices must be made without delay, as inflation rises – especially on food and fuel – while growth falls, and stagflation threatens.

    Many people will be utterly unable to meet the bills that lie ahead. Help must come. And I hope it will come soon.

    As it does, it will help bring trust and respect back to our politics: electors must have trust in The State, The Government, and the independence and impartiality of The Law.

    But, if the nation is to be loyal to The State, The State must be loyal to the people – and that is why the provision of quality public services is so important.

    Everyone needs to believe that The State cares about them – and not just the interests of the powerful, the motivators, and the elite.

    If the streets are unsafe, do the people who live in them believe The State is invested in them?

    If the week lasts longer than the money, do the penniless believe The State cares about them?

    If children attend a poor school, with disillusioned teachers, do the children or the teachers feel protected and valued by The State? It is so important that they do.

    In our democracy we rely upon one another in nearly every aspect of our lives. We need to respect and protect those with whom we share a common dependence.

    * * * * *

    There is much that is good in our way of life that no previous generation has enjoyed. Personally, I know of nowhere else I would prefer to live.

    Every day, medical science is improving treatment of cancer and blood diseases. New knees and new hips can help those crippled with pain. The cure of cataracts can restore sight.

    Hope is on the horizon for sufferers of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s – not an outright cure, perhaps, but an ability to diagnose them early, and stop them in their tracks.

    We are not short of good Samaritans. The caring professions do not walk by on the other side. Nor do the millions who work for charities, or volunteer for them, or donate to them.

    There is hope in two irresistible social changes. The rise of women to prominence in nearly every field of endeavour is as staggering as it is overdue.

    We are, at last, utilising the skills of half our nation that were hidden away for far too long.

    It is odd, isn’t it? Throughout the ages men have trusted our most treasured possessions – our children – to women. But we have not trusted women to contribute more widely to society and, at times, have positively prevented them from doing so.

    Yet they bring a moderating and restraining force, to a world that is in need of these attributes.

    There is another human influence I wish to mention as an overall force for good: the young. They have grown up in a different world to their elders. They think differently. They are unburdened by old shibboleths.

    We may be wary of their music. Their dress-down style. Their habit of cutting holes in the knees of new jeans for the sake of fashion. I have no doubt that past generations have baffled their parents in similar ways.

    The legacy we leave our young includes many difficulties but – from all I have seen – this is a good generation. I have high hopes for them.

    I have enough confidence to believe that, however much longer I live, my country will be in very good hands with our young.

    And, beyond that – for me, as a Christian – the greatest consolation is that … one day … I shall be in better hands still.

    Both our Country and our Church are more precious to our very being than most either acknowledge or realise. Are they “Different” now than in the past? Yes. Will they be “Different” in the future? Of course. For – as the world around us changes – so, too, will they.

    But our Country and our Church are eternal. And my hope is they will always remain shining beacons of goodness and decency in a world that – at the moment – is badly in need of both.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments in Response to REACT-1 Report

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments in Response to REACT-1 Report

    The comments made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 6 April 2022.

    Thanks to our plan to tackle COVID-19, we are leading the way in learning to live with the virus. We have made huge progress due to the success of our world-leading vaccination programme, access to antivirals for vulnerable people and increased scientific and public understanding about how to manage risk.

    Despite high infection rates, the population now has much stronger protection against COVID-19 than at any other point in the pandemic.

    Vaccines remain our best defence and we are now offering spring boosters to the elderly, care home residents and the most vulnerable – so please come forward to protect yourself, your family, and your community, and continue to follow public health guidance if you test positive.

  • Paul Scully – 2022 Speech on Long Covid

    Paul Scully – 2022 Speech on Long Covid

    The speech made by Paul Scully, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 31 March 2022.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on opening the debate so incredibly well, and I congratulate her, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—unfortunately he could not be here—on securing this important debate on the impact of long covid in the workplace. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and all those who have taken part in the debate for their thoughtful and insightful comments.

    We heard about the ONS estimate that, in the four-week period ending 31 January 2022, 1.5 million people in the UK reported experiencing ongoing symptoms following covid. Of them, nearly 300,000 reported that their ability to undertake day-to-day activities had been significantly limited. It is therefore clear, as we have heard, that long covid presents a growing challenge for the workplace and more widely. The emergence of a completely new condition such as long covid is a real rarity and, much like our experience of the covid-19 pandemic itself, we must be and are constantly developing our understanding.

    We have put support in place for those suffering from the condition. NHS England has invested £224 million to date to provide care for people with long covid. It has established 90 long covid assessment services across England, which are assessing and diagnosing people experiencing long-term health effects as a result of covid-19 infection, whether they have had a positive test or are likely to have long covid based on their clinical symptoms, regardless of whether they were admitted to hospital during their covid-19 illness. The services offer physical, cognitive and psychological assessment and, where appropriate, refer patients to existing services for treatment and rehabilitation. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon talked about the $1 billion in the States. Not all of that has been allocated yet, while the UK is already ploughing ahead, and we are quite far ahead of other countries, including the States, in our research in the area. Of course, there is always more that we can do.

    It is clearly essential to get the right healthcare and treatment in place for individuals, for employers and for the wider economy. However, the theme of the debate is the impact of long covid in the workplace. People can suffer from many long-term health and other conditions that may affect their work. We have heard about ME, and we could talk about fibromyalgia, Guillain-Barré, Miller Fisher all those things. Indeed, there are other conditions that are not necessarily post-viral.

    Earlier this month, I gave evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee on the impact of the menopause in the workplace, and in February I responded for the Government to a Westminster Hall debate on supporting people with endometriosis in the workplace. Those are different conditions, but, none the less, they are long lasting and we need to ensure that we can get people the right treatments and adjustments. Indeed, in the case of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), a simple, natural adjustment made his working life so much easier, and for so many of these other conditions there are examples of small things that employers can do to keep people in the workplace. They do not have to be complicated, and they certainly do not have to be expensive.

    We believe that employers should play a significant role in supporting people with long-term health conditions to access and remain in work. That can certainly benefit individuals as well as bringing real bottom-line benefits to employers through, for example, avoiding recruitment costs and not unnecessarily losing experienced and valued members of staff.

    However, it is not sustainable for every condition to get different or special treatment. For employers, that could lead to confusion and complexity; likewise for employees. That is why the Government’s starting position is that, specifically in the workplace and in the overall framework for providing health support to employees, long covid should be treated the same as any other long-term health condition. Let me set out that framework, which, as hon. Members would expect, is a cross-departmental effort.

    The Government’s response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation, led by the Department for Work and Pensions, was published in July 2021. It sets out some of the measures that we will take to protect and maintain the progress made to reduce ill health-related job loss and see 1 million more disabled people in work from 2017 through to 2027.

    Debbie Abrahams

    I am listening keenly to the Minister, but the issue is that this is an infectious disease that is contracted partly as a result of exposure, and there is clear evidence that exposure happens in the workplace. It is therefore not the same as existing progressive or fluctuating illnesses; it is very much an infectious disease contracted in the workplace. That is the basis for our recommendations.

    Paul Scully

    I understand the hon. Member’s point. I am trying to set out the framework for managing long-term illness, but clearly, we still have support in the workplace for those with infectious diseases. I cited ME, fibromyalgia, Guillain-Barré syndrome and Miller Fisher syndrome, which are all post-viral infections—an infection beforehand typically leads to those other long-lasting conditions. That is why I am compartmentalising the framework, but none the less, I take the hon. Member’s point about the infections happening in the first place.

    “Health is everyone’s business” did not consult on long covid, or any other specific health condition for that matter; it looked at system-level measures to support employers and employees to manage any health condition or disability in the workplace. The measures that we are taking forward include providing greater clarity on employer and employee rights and responsibilities by developing a national digital information and advice service; working with the Health and Safety Executive to develop a set of clear and simple principles that employers would be expected to apply to support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions in the work environment; and increasing access to occupational health services, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which, as we know, are currently underserved.

    As I said, although those measures are not long covid-specific, they are key steps in our effort to change the workplace culture around health and sickness management. That will benefit those suffering from long covid in the same way as those suffering from other longer-term health issues or disability.

    As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) said, we are also responsible for flexible working. We know that that policy can be incredibly helpful to those suffering from many long-term health conditions, including long covid, as they seek to manage the symptoms, some of which we have heard about today, such as extreme tiredness, insomnia, depression and anxiety. Although flexible working does not provide the whole answer, it can be an important tool for employers and employees as they have discussions about how better to balance the demands of work and life, particularly for those managing long-term health conditions.

    The consultation on flexible working introduced plans for a future call for evidence on ad hoc flexible working; we want to explore how non-contractual flexibility works in practice. I discussed that with the Flexible Working Taskforce in February. We will ensure that the role of ad hoc flexible working to support those with long covid and other health conditions—such as the menopause and endometriosis, which I have mentioned—is part of its considerations.

    Marion Fellows

    Is the Minister looking at cutting the time before someone can apply for flexible working? At the moment, they have to have been in work for quite a long while before they can do so.

    Paul Scully

    Our manifesto committed to consult on this issue. Within that consultation, we looked at a day one right to request flexible working. That is key, because it will attract people to and keep them in a good workplace. We might as well start as we are set to carry on.

    Another significant part of the cross-departmental framework is the Government Equalities Office, which is responsible for the Equality Act 2010. That is an important part of the matrix, because it may protect those with long-term health conditions from discrimination. That Act ensures that any person with a condition that meets the definition of a disability is protected, so it should not be stigmatised. The Act describes disability as

    “a physical or mental impairment”

    that

    “has a substantial and long-term adverse effect”

    on a person’s

    “ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.

    We heard about that not least from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and during the incredibly passionate speech of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who cited the example of his family member. By the way, I know how difficult it is for an hon. Member to describe a family member who is suffering from something that we are debating, and I thank him for his personalised experience, which has informed the House and positively contributed so much to the debate.

    As I said, the disability should not be stigmatised, though some may do so. This is simply about the impairment, as we have heard loud and clear. “Long-term” is defined having lasted, or being likely to last for, at least 12 months. “Substantial” is defined as more than minor or trivial, as we have heard strongly in Members’ examples today.

    The Act makes it clear that it is not necessary for the cause of the impairment to be established, nor does the impairment have to be the result of an illness. A disability can therefore arise from a wide range of impairments. That means that any person who falls within that definition will already be protected as having a disability. That can therefore encompass some of the emerging effects of long covid, but every case will be different and should be considered on its merits.

    As well as paying tribute to the hon. Member for City of Chester, I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and ask her to pass on our regards to Andrew, Nell and Rebecca. We also heard about Julie Wells and her daughter and the caring responsibilities involved. The examples that we have had really add colour and inform the debate.

    The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw talked about statutory sick pay. We have discussed the fact that we need to look at statutory sick pay, but this is not the time to do so, particularly while we are in the middle of the pandemic. However, we also need to look at statutory sick pay in the round. She mentioned people earning under £120 a week, but many in that situation are already in receipt of other benefits. That is what I mean about not just concentrating on one issue; we need to look at the whole person and their whole personal finance.

    In summary, we are supporting people with long-term health conditions, including long covid, by working hard on the general approach to work and health, through our response to the “Health is everyone’s business consultation”, and taking steps to make some of our employment rights work a little harder to support those balancing work with other issues and challenges. All that is underpinned by the protections against discrimination provided by the Equality Act. We must also showcase the good employers, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester.

    Layla Moran

    If I understand this correctly, the consultation is happening and guidance will be provided more comprehensively for all longer-term illnesses. The issue particularly with long covid is that it is so new that many employers do not have a clue what it is. Will he consider suggesting a public health information campaign particularly targeted at businesses so that they know that it exists and where they can go for such guidance?

    Paul Scully

    I often talk about ACAS guidance, which, obviously, is available in this area. The hon. Lady mentioned what she saw as shortfalls in that guidance. We will always look at that to make sure that guidance is up to date, especially with an evolving condition such as long covid. I keep citing the example of ME, which, like fibromyalgia, is one of those diseases that is very poorly understood by so many people in the workplace and even, frankly, by health professionals. It will evolve and I am sure that we will able to push that information out to employers.

    I hope that hon. Members would agree that there is a wide-ranging set of actions to address long-term health issues in the workplace, whatever those health conditions are. We want to encourage a better culture around work and health, including for those suffering from long covid. I firmly believe that it is an important principle to have a single, consistent and clear approach to managing health in the workplace. It is unsustainable to have a number of different approaches for different conditions. I close by thanking everyone once again for this helpful and informative debate.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2022 Speech on Long Covid

    Andrew Gwynne – 2022 Speech on Long Covid

    The speech made by Andrew Gwynne, the Labour MP for Denton and Reddish, in the House of Commons on 31 March 2022.

    I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for all the work she has done on this issue, and for the way she opened this debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it and the Members who have taken part. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for his kind words. It is nice to know that my experiences have helped somebody else with theirs, and I wish his family member well for the future. I also thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who is absolutely right to draw parallels with ME both in some of the symptoms and in how that community has been treated over a number of years. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—because he is my friend—for his kind words, too.

    As colleagues will know, not least because it has been mentioned in this debate, long covid is an issue very close to my heart. Back in March 2020, I first caught covid. That was 107 weeks and four days ago, and I am still struggling with some of the symptoms of long covid all these weeks and days later. Back then, I felt rough with covid, but to my relief I avoided a lot of the more serious symptoms we were seeing on the news and hearing from friends and colleagues at that time. It was not great, but the fact that I was not hospitalised was a blessing.

    However, when my self-isolation period ended and in theory I should have been fine to return to work, I found that I could not. I found that I was perpetually exhausted, and I could not catch my breath. I would be talking to my wife, and suddenly the words would vanish. I would try to pick them out, but I could not find the right ones. I would forget things and lose track of why I had come into a room. I would sweat as though I had run the London marathon just doing routine day-to-day things such as making a cup of tea. I felt completely terrified. My symptoms were not going anywhere, but instead evolving into something different and seemingly something permanent.

    In May 2020, Elisa Perego coined the term “long covid” to describe these persistent and wide-ranging symptoms, and I felt like a bright light had been shone on what I had been going through. We now know that over 1.5 million people suffer with long covid in the United Kingdom, and that the majority of these—989,000—say it affects their daily activities. It certainly affected mine. I am very fortunate to have a brilliant team across Westminster and in my constituency of Denton and Reddish, and they stepped up on my worst days, when getting out of bed felt like running a marathon. They made sure that my constituents were still well represented, and that I was given sufficient time to rest when needed. Listening to my body was a hard lesson, too.

    However, millions of people in this country are not as fortunate as I was. We have some of the worst sick pay provision in the OECD, and we are in an age of precarious work. In that context, long covid becomes an economic as well as a health emergency. The fact of the matter is that there has been an acute failure on the part of Government to take long covid as seriously as perhaps they should, because it is not just a health issue, but an employment and a DWP issue. The Government could and, I believe, should be doing more to encourage workplaces to better support those suffering from long covid and to enable employers to understand precisely what long covid means for their workforce.

    For December 2021 to January 2022, the most recent period we have access to, it has been shown that, of the 1.5 million people currently suffering from long covid, only 2,869 had attempted to access the post-covid assessment service. Of that tiny number, 34% had been waiting for longer than 15 weeks. Something is going very wrong. Almost 1 million people are reporting long covid symptoms that are adversely affecting their day-to-day lives, yet just a fraction are attempting to access care and only a fraction of those are actually getting it. I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister set out what conversations he has had with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care about these figures, and what action the Government will be taking to ensure that those who have long covid can actually access the care they desperately need.

    This is actually quite crucial because, with the right rehabilitation package, work can become viable again for a proportion of those people. I want to share with the Minister some data I have received from Nuffield Health. Operating a free 12-week programme, it has so far helped over 1,900 people from across the UK to recover from the prolonged effects of covid-19, including breathlessness, anxiety and fatigue, and I am one of the 1,900 who have taken part in that free programme. Its results to date show that for 64% of people the programme improved mental wellbeing, for 39% it improved their functional capacity and for 39% it improved their breathlessness, while 35% saw an improvement in fitness and 30%—not an insubstantial number—were absent from work but felt they could return. This is not a silver bullet for all, because those are still minority figures, but I think that 30% being able to return to work with the right rehabilitation programme is quite encouraging.

    As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, 4% of the UK workforce currently have long covid. That is an extraordinarily high number of people, and it will no doubt be having an impact both on workplace productivity and on wider employment outcomes. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that a quarter of UK employers cited long covid as one of the main causes of long-term sickness among their staff, yet those living with long covid have had very little in the way of workplace protection.

    In my capacity as shadow Minister for public health, I have been inundated with stories of employees facing an uphill battle to have reasonable adjustments implemented in their workplaces. I have heard from doctors unable to return to work and NHS staff who have been sacked or had contracts terminated because of long covid symptoms. They are the people who carried us through the pandemic—we stood on our doorsteps for them and applauded them. We can do much better than that.

    I turn to the help that I had in returning to work. I pay tribute to Mr Speaker and the staff in the Speaker’s Office, because I am lucky enough to work in an environment where reasonable adjustments were made. When I first returned to the House in person after the summer recess, I found that I could not bob in the Chamber without becoming incredibly fatigued, and that would trigger my brain fog. After almost collapsing during a ministerial statement on Afghanistan—I had been bobbing for almost an hour—I arranged for a meeting with Mr Speaker on the basis that I could not do my job and, if I could not do a simple task like bobbing up and down, I might as well pack up and leave. Mr Speaker and his brilliant staff advised me that instead of rising on each occasion, I could simply hold up my Order Paper. That simple solution made a huge difference to my health and wellbeing. I sincerely thank Mr Speaker, and indeed you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the staff in the Speaker’s Office for being so understanding.

    However, reasonable adjustments should not just be made for Members of Parliament. The Government need to do much more to empower employees to approach their bosses and have these conversations. The problem is that, with practically zero workplace protections in place for long covid, they become incredibly difficult to have.

    The Opposition recognise the threat that long covid poses both to the health of this nation and to the British workforce. That is why we would end the postcode lottery of long covid care provision, fix the shameful state of sick pay and engage with employers to support those living with long covid. Covid has not gone anywhere, and it is profoundly irresponsible to stick fingers in ears and pretend that 1.5 million people are not still struggling. Free lateral flow testing will end tomorrow and, as a result, covid cases will rise. It will make it much harder to track the level of covid in the UK and, by extension, the number of people who may go on to develop and live with long covid.

    Layla Moran

    I am glad that the hon. Member has brought up that point. He will have heard about the difficulties that people have in accessing benefits and proving that they have long covid. People get long covid from covid, but, if they cannot get a test, how do they know if they have had covid? That makes it so much more difficult for people to prove long covid down the line and access the benefits that they deserve.

    Andrew Gwynne

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is a real concern of mine, not least because I have experienced it. I was in the first wave of covid, having caught it in the weeks when the Government said, “If you develop symptoms, you no longer need to test; just go into self-isolation.” I knew that I had covid, and I know that that led to long covid, but to this day I cannot prove it because there was no routine testing available to show it. That is a real issue.

    I am incredibly worried that getting rid of free testing is a short-term decision that will have major financial and public health implications for the foreseeable future. The Government cannot turn a blind eye to a problem that is having a devastating impact on the people of this country. One of the defining lessons of the pandemic is that we do not have the luxury of dithering and delay when it comes to public health. We urgently need a cross-departmental long covid strategy. I would support that, work on it and gladly give my experience and advice to Ministers to help develop it. We need a long covid strategy, we need proper sick pay, and we need the Government to understand that they have an important role in working with business and industry to ensure that reasonable adjustments and support in the workplace become a thing for all, not just for me.

  • Fleur Anderson – 2022 Speech on Long Covid

    Fleur Anderson – 2022 Speech on Long Covid

    The speech made by Fleur Anderson, the Labour MP for Putney, in the House of Commons on 31 March 2022.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate, and I reiterate what has been said by many: we understand that so many people are suffering from long covid, and it must be taken seriously by the Government. We understand the impact it is having not only on those individuals and their daily lives, but the workforce. This economic issue will continue to have a serious impact, and it needs to be addressed. I reiterate the main ask that we have and that the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus has in its very helpful report on long covid, which is for employer guidelines so that people are not at the whim and the mercy of different employers regarding understanding and support for their continuing in or returning to the workforce.

    I have come to this debate for two groups of people. One is all those suffering from long covid across the country—an estimated 1.5 million people, or 4.4% of the workforce. The other is those constituents who have been suffering from ME, who have learned many lessons from that and think they are relevant to working with those with long covid. They have been underestimated, not believed and not supported. When they have gone to their GP, they have been told the wrong advice—advice that makes their ME worse—and they have not been understood in schools, whether by young people or teachers, or by their employers, and they do not want anyone with long covid to go through the same. I have been disturbed to hear some of the evidence given to the APPG about workforce practices that are not conducive to helping people come back to the workforce and not the best for those individuals and our economy.

    A couple of my constituents have written to me. One said:

    “I have now had long covid for two years…We desperately need more investment in potential treatments. It is clear that the illness impacts the blood, autoimmune system, organs, brain and central nervous system. None of these mechanisms are being treated by the NHS so far. Treatments are being trialled in other countries.”

    There are questions being asked about the trials being conducted in other countries and what more could be done here.

    Another constituent said:

    “I contracted covid-19 at the very end of September. Like many people, I suffered mild symptoms…2 weeks on from my initial infection I was suddenly hit with a wave of long covid symptoms and was truly horrified at what was happening to my brain and body. I felt drained and broken, and…I felt as though a foreign body was inside my head—I could no longer hold even a conversation, yet alone work. For the last 7 months I have been unable to function in any sort of capacity.”

    Finally, my cousin has had long covid for a long time. He sent me a list of his symptoms: fatigue, concentration impairment, memory problems, cognitive loss, internal pain, chills and sweats, sleeplessness, sore throat, dizziness, shaking, anxiety, faintness and muscle aches. All these symptoms and impacts of long covid need to be understood by employers, by teachers and education settings, and by general practitioners and all medical workers, as recommended by the report of the APPG on coronavirus.

    I underline those recommendations and ask specifically for the urgent production of clear employer guidelines, otherwise there will continue to be an employer lottery in the treatment of people with long covid as they return to work. I ask for guidance to education settings, because many students with ME found it difficult to get understanding in order to continue with their education. We cannot have the same happen for those with long covid. And I ask for clear guidance to medical practitioners on children and adults with long covid so that everyone gets the proper care, support and understanding they need so that they have hope and do not add being misunderstood to their long list of symptoms, only increasing their anxiety.

    I welcome this debate, and I hope to hear some good news from the Minister about the key recommendations of this report being taken up to create a good situation for everyone with long covid.