UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Health

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2020 Speech on the Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

    Jeremy Hunt – 2020 Speech on the Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative MP for North West Surrey, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2020.

    It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). It is the first time I have heard him speak from the Front Bench and it was a very thoughtful contribution. I hope we hear more from him.

    I thank the shadow Health Secretary for having this debate and, indeed, for mentioning my article in The Daily Telegraph. If I ever was on the Prime Minister’s Christmas card list, that mention will be sure to get me taken off it—[Laughter.]

    I particularly want to congratulate the Minister of State on leading this debate for the Government. As a veteran of many Opposition day health debates, I can say that she elicited a much calmer response from the Opposition than I ever did, and she deserves many congratulations for that.

    We need to start this important debate by recognising that, as a country, we are in a transformed position because of recent changes to our response to the pandemic. We are now contacting around three quarters of the people we identify as testing positive for coronavirus and 90% of their contacts are being asked to isolate. That is the basis of South Korean test and trace, and it is incredibly important that we are in that position. I am sad in this respect that the Health Secretary is not here himself, because that would not have been possible if he had not taken the courageous decision to set the target of 100,000 tests a day at the start of April. Indeed, yesterday’s announcement about the gradual easing of our national hibernation would itself not have been possible if that had not been in place, and we need to recognise that.

    The challenge we now have is that we do not know where about two thirds of new infections are happening, so we cannot feed them into the test and trace process. That is a challenge, because SAGE’s advice is that we ask about 80% of potential coronavirus contacts to isolate, and we are still some way off that. In fact, we are contacting about 700 people a day to get their contacts and there are about 2,500 daily new infections. If we do the maths, assuming that each person with coronavirus has about nine contacts, which is the current figure, that is up to a quarter of million people since the process started whom we would have liked to have asked to isolate but we have not been able to do so.

    How do we meet that challenge? Well, the answer is to do something that the Government have already shown they are very good at, which is a dramatic ​expansion of testing capacity. The city of Beijing has about a third of the population of the United Kingdom, but its daily testing capacity is nearly double ours at around 400,000 a day, and many of those tests come back within 24 hours. We look forward to the triumphant announcement next week that we are meeting the Prime Minister’s target for all non-postal tests to come back within 24 hours by the end of this month, because speed matters.

    If we expand our testing capacity dramatically, we can use it, for example, to deal with localised outbreaks, such as the one we have had in Ynys Môn, where my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) is doing such a fantastic job in supporting her affected constituents. We can use it at airports instead of the quarantine policy, by testing people on arrival. We can use it for high-risk groups such as taxi drivers, who are particularly at risk. Most of all, we can use it for our frontline health and care staff. If we had Beijing levels of testing in this country, we would, in addition to the testing we are currently doing, be able to test every NHS frontline worker once a week. If we got it up another 200,000, we would be able to test every frontline care worker once a week as well.

    Why does that matter? It matters because, according to the evidence submitted to SAGE on 20 April, up to 25% of the coronavirus patients in our hospitals caught coronavirus in the hospital. When we add on the people who catch their infection in care homes, what we end up with is that about a third of new infections are likely to be in healthcare settings—so-called nosocomial infections, which is one of the many new words we have learned over the course of this crisis.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a superb speech, and I agree with every word. I was struck by the Minister’s response to me when she made the point that the Government’s position is based on the advice of the chief medical officer. I would entirely understand if the Government said, “The resources are not quite there yet. We have not quite got capacity there. We need to build up capacity before we can test all the millions of NHS staff.” I think everyone would have thought that a reasonable position, and we would be urging the Government to go further. However, if the advice to the Government from the CMO is not the correct clinical approach, will the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps through his chairmanship of the Health and Social Care Committee, ask the CMO whether they will provide the Committee with that advice, and could that advice be shared across the House?

    Jeremy Hunt

    That is a reasonable question. I will certainly take that away. In fact, the CMO is coming before the Health and Social Care Committee in a few weeks’ time, and I am sure we will ask that question. My understanding is that the concern in the clinical advice is the question of false positives—people who get told that they have coronavirus when they have not. Those people might be in a very important frontline clinical role and be asked to isolate, and that might take them off very important work. To me the obvious answer is to give them a second, confirmatory test to establish whether they really do have the virus.

    Weekly testing matters and is so important not only because, with around a third of new infections happening in healthcare settings, it will save a lot of patients’ lives ​and save the lives of frontline healthcare workers, but because it is the critical thing stopping the NHS getting back to its normal levels of activity.

    Last week, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, whom the shadow Secretary of State quoted, talked about the mountainous backlog we face in, for example, orthopaedic surgery. He said that the thing holding the NHS back is the time it is taking to set up what he calls “covid-lite” facilities, where there is a low risk of people having coronavirus. That is why testing is essential.

    I do not want to take up any more time than I need to, but I want to make this point. Korea, Taiwan and Germany are all held up as examples of places that have been particularly effective in tackling coronavirus. All of them introduced test and trace, but they all did it when the virus was at an earlier stage with much lower levels of community transmission. If we want test and trace to be effective here, we need to introduce mass testing, starting with health and care staff, and we must not delay.

  • Richard Thomson – 2020 Speech on the Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

    Richard Thomson – 2020 Speech on the Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Thomson, the SNP MP for Gordon, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2020.

    I record my thanks on behalf of the Scottish National party group of MPs for the work that NHS staff and care staff have done throughout these islands during the course of the pandemic to date. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that theirs has been a superhuman effort, for which some have given everything they could, including, sadly, their lives. We remember the 312 staff UK-wide who have lost their lives in the service of others, including the seven healthcare workers and the 12 social care workers in Scotland. There are no words of mine, or, I suspect, anyone else that can thank them enough for their work. We should not underestimate the toll it has taken and will continue to take in the months ahead.

    Throughout this time, we have clearly seen the value of public service and our public services. The weekly clap for carers showed people’s genuine gratitude and thanks to those who work to care for us and restore us to health. However, clapping is not enough. As we move towards what we generally term the new normal, I think the public would expect that new normal to be much better than the old normal that we came to take for granted.

    My party is committed to the principle of fair working and does everything it can to ensure the safety and welfare of Scotland’s health and social care workforce. Work is taking place to provide a range of staff wellbeing services and to share that with people working in the health and social care sector. I will give some brief examples. On 11 May, the Scottish Government launched the national wellbeing hub, PRoMIS, which was created in partnership with key agencies, professional bodies and trade unions and will support all health and social care staff in Scotland.

    My party has long advocated a real living wage, and since 2011 the Scottish Government have paid the real living wage to all their staff, including NHS workers, and that has recently been extended to all adult social care workers. Scotland was the first country in the UK to announce a death-in-service provision for NHS staff for covid-19-related deaths, including for frontline permanent and fixed-term staff, NHS locums, GP locums and NHS bank staff who are not included in the coverage provided by the pension scheme. Last month, the Health Secretary in Scotland also announced a scheme for care workers in respect of sick pay and ​death-in-service benefits, whereby a one-off lump sum of £60,000 will be payable to a named survivor, and that will be retrospective.

    We are seeing infection rates reduce because of the way that people have heeded the strong message to stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives. That message has, at times, seemed to be under threat—not least when the Prime Minister, given a choice between protecting his chief adviser and the integrity of the public health messaging, inexplicably came down on the side of his chief adviser. I see the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) in his place. I am certain that he will have quite a bit to say later with which I will struggle to agree, but I want to record my respect for him saying publicly what many of his colleagues must have been saying in private, which he left the Government in order to do.

    Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)

    As this debate is largely about testing, could the hon. Member perhaps get back to how the Scottish Government are doing on testing, given that they are only meeting a third of the capacity for daily testing?

    Richard Thomson

    I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I will come to that, if he is patient.

    I am not privy to the scientific advice that the Prime Minister has access to, but the apparent ease with which some have been prepared to prioritise short-term economic considerations or individual liberty ahead of the need for collective wellbeing and avoiding a potentially disastrous second wave makes me glad that the rules being followed in Scotland are being decided in Scotland. I very much hope to be wrong, but the potential for a second wave of infection in parts of England seems very real right now, and I get the growing impression that if that is to be avoided, it may be more by luck than by judgment.

    It is precisely because of the dedication of NHS and care staff, clear advice and the selflessness and self-discipline of millions of people that progress has been made. In Scotland, Test and Protect is fully in place, and without the boastfulness of saying that it is world-beating, it works and is in place. That has allowed Scotland to enter phase 2 of the route out of lockdown, which will allow NHS boards to begin moving out of a crisis response into the recovery phase, in line with the framework. That means that health boards will be able to start prioritising cancer surgery for those most in need of that treatment and to restart wherever possible urgent elective surgery that had previously been paused, as well as IVF treatment, following the necessary approvals. It means implementing the remobilisation plans for health boards and integrated joint boards, which deal with social care, to increase the provision in order to address the backlog of demands, to handle urgent referrals and to triage routine services. It will also see the reintroduction of some chronic disease management, including pain and diabetes services.

    Inevitably, there will be a backlog to be dealt with, but due to the professionalism of the staff, I think we can have confidence that it will be dealt with as we begin the process of recovery. I know how difficult it has been for people who have had procedures or treatments postponed due to the pandemic, but the message is clear: Scotland’s NHS is open, as it always has been, for ​those who need it. Anyone with medical concerns should not hesitate to contact their GP or NHS 24 or attend hospital if their illness merits it.

    Patient and staff welfare must be at the heart of the plan, as it has been through the emergency stage, and testing will be at the heart of that. The routine testing of the NHS workforce in Scotland will be extended from 8 July, as more services resume. That means that staff who work in specialist cancer services, provide long-term care for the elderly or work in residential mental health care will be offered weekly testing from 8 July. That builds on the routine testing, which is already offered to care home staff and aims to protect staff and patients by reducing the spread of the virus in hospitals and other healthcare settings. In addition, Healthcare Improvement Scotland will be resuming its inspection programmes.

    We have seen the value of the public services and the ethos of public service. We have seen it in those who have helped to keep our NHS and care settings open, saving lives and providing care for those who have needed it. Many of those who have made the greatest sacrifice are those who have come here from other countries to work in our NHS and our care services. Because of economic and social circumstances, many have been at far greater risk from the virus than it was reasonable for anyone to expect, and we have particularly seen the worrying outcomes of coronavirus in the black, Asian and minority ethnic community. There is likely to be a number of intersecting factors in that, but it is important that they are properly understood and that the measures that come out of that are acted on. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Social Justice Commission will look at the figures that have come out in that respect to look at how we can change to address those issues.

    In conclusion, there are things that it would be valuable for us to do. First, we need to value our public servants. It is nowhere near enough to clap: we need to care for our carers and families in life, as well as, sadly, sometimes in death. We should pay them what they are worth, provide them with the equipment that they need, show them that they are valued and give them reasons, whether financially or just in terms of plain decency, to believe that they have respect and that they are valued in what they do.

    We need to value the contribution that many from our immigrant communities make to our health and care services. Getting rid of the immigration health surcharge is a very welcome step. The commitment of those workers to the NHS in the country that they now call home is not in doubt, and it is time that the Government considered in what other ways they could work to remove any doubt that there might be about our commitment to them.

    Secondly, lest there be any doubt, for all the massive contribution of the private sector in overcoming supply chain challenges, it was a publicly owned, publicly operated, free-at-the-point-of-need health service and public services that rose to the challenge of caring for us in these times, often acting as the carer of last resort. That lesson has never been forgotten in Scotland. I wonder if it is time for this Government to remember that.​

    Thirdly, the virus has not gone away. There is no vaccine in immediate prospect. If we go too quickly, too far and too fast with easing restrictions, we risk very much undoing the good work that has been done. We need to honour the sacrifices that have been made by so many people by not rushing back to normal too soon. It would be a very bitter pill indeed if we were to do that, if we were to see a second wave and if the work done to date counted for less than it ought to.

  • Helen Whately – 2020 Speech on the Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

    Helen Whately – 2020 Speech on the Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

    Below is the text of the speech made by Helen Whateley, the Minister for Care, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2020.

    I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from “medicine” to the end and add:

    “and recognises the unprecedented action the Government has taken in its tireless efforts against Coronavirus to protect the NHS and save lives.”

    The coronavirus pandemic is the most serious public health emergency that our nation has faced for a generation and our NHS and social care system has been well and truly on the frontline. Today, I would like to outline the work we have done to protect our NHS and social care from the threat of this invisible killer, as well as our work to safely ramp up services now that this virus is in retreat.

    On protecting the NHS and social care, we have worked hard to boost the resilience of our health and care system, so it would not be overwhelmed, as we have sadly seen elsewhere across the world. A major part of this mission was our Nightingale hospitals. This was one of the most ambitious projects this country has ever seen in peacetime, building hospitals in just a matter of weeks in exhibition centres and conference venues. That hard work from so many meant that, even at the peak of the pandemic, there was more critical care capacity than there was when coronavirus first hit our shores, so our NHS was able to give outstanding critical care to everyone who needed it.

    Our social care system has also been at the heart of the pandemic, and we have worked hard to give it the support it needs. In March, we announced £1.6 billion of funding for local government and £1.3 billion of funding via the NHS. In April, we announced a further £1.6 billion, as well as our comprehensive adult social care action plan. In May, we announced a £600 million infection control fund for care providers in England, which includes funding so that social care staff can be on full pay if they have to isolate due to covid. That work is bearing fruit, thanks to the dedication, expertise and compassion of care workers throughout the country.

    Fifty-eight per cent. of care homes have had no reported cases of coronavirus. Every life lost in our care homes fills me with sorrow, whether it is from coronavirus or not. However, we are seeing a sustained reduction in the number of coronavirus deaths. This week’s Office for National Statistics figures for England and Wales show that the number of deaths in care homes has fallen once again—down from 536 to 360 in the last week.

    This has been hard, but through this crisis we have strengthened our health and care system, and we are looking to see what lessons we can take forward as we look ahead to the winter.

    Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)

    Will the Minister let me know what steps the Government are taking to protect black, Asian and minority ethnic health and care staff?

    Helen Whately

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She makes a really important point. One of the things that I have put much thought into over recent weeks is making sure that our staff of black and ​Asian minority ethnicities have the protection that they need. Both for the NHS and for the social care system, we have supported the development of risk assessment frameworks to identify the risks, with recommendations on what steps can be taken. I am working with the system to make sure that those are put into practice.

    Coming back to the lessons that we are taking forward, one of the things that has been a great success has been the adoption of new technologies such as, for instance, online GP consultations. Some 99% of GP practices now have video consultation capability, while hospitals have been doing virtual out-patient appointments and care homes have been using tablets—the digital kind of tablet!—to keep people in touch with their families. We are also seeing new ways of working to help those on the frontline to make quicker decisions and cut red tape. We will keep driving these important reforms so that we can give everyone a better experience of health and social care.

    As the Prime Minister set out yesterday in the House, we have succeeded in slowing the spread of the virus. On 11 May, 1,073 people were admitted to hospital in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with coronavirus, and by 20 June this had fallen by 74% to 283. This has reduced the pressure on the NHS so it has been able to carefully ramp up important services. Hon. Members have raised questions about two specific services in the motion, and I will address them both.

    First, coronavirus has had a real impact on many people’s mental health, so there is a lot of concern about mental health services remaining open and available. Our NHS mental health services have remained open for business throughout the pandemic, using digital tools to connect people and provide ongoing support. This has proved especially effective for young people. Throughout the pandemic, we have provided £9.2 million of additional funding for mental health charities. We understand that we may see an increased demand for mental health services in the months ahead, and we are preparing for this, together with the NHS, Public Health England and other partners.

    Secondly, hon. Members have raised questions about cancer services—another area where we are working hard to maintain care. For example, we have been operating surgical hubs where providers work together across local cancer services to maintain access to surgery. Although some cancer diagnostics and treatments have been rescheduled to protect vulnerable patients from having to attend hospitals, urgent and essential cancer treatments have continued. The latest data suggests that referrals are back to over 60% of the pre-pandemic levels, partly due to the NHS Help Us Help You campaign. This campaign has an important message that I am keen to repeat today. Anyone who is worried about chest pains, fears that they might be having a heart attack or a stroke, feels a lump and is worried about cancer, or is a parent concerned about their child should please come forward and seek help, as they always would. The NHS will always be there for us if we need it, just as it has been there for all of us throughout this crisis.

    Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)

    On that note, will the Minister also encourage people suffering from vascular disease to seek appropriate treatment as quickly as possible?

    ​Helen Whately

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), says to me that the hon. Lady is a very powerful campaigner on this subject. For that and for other conditions, people must absolutely come forward and get the help that they need. The NHS is there for that reason.

    My third and final point is on testing. Testing for the virus and tracing how it spreads is critical to containing it as we ramp up services and ease the national lockdown. This is especially important for our NHS and social care system so that we can protect our colleagues and the people they look after. We have already built an immense national infrastructure for testing. Back in March, we had the capacity across all our testing channels to conduct fewer than 2,000 tests a day, whereas yesterday we saw more than 237,000 tests carried out. As we have built capacity, we have prioritised those in need. We started with the patients who needed a test, then expanded to NHS and social care workers and their families, then to other critical key workers, before we expanded to the wider community.

    Today NHS England and NHS Improvement have written to NHS trusts and foundation trusts to outline further steps that must be taken in the NHS, including continuing to prioritise testing for all NHS staff with symptoms; extra testing of non-symptomatic staff when there is an incident, outbreak or high prevalence; and regular surveillance testing of staff which, on the advice of our chief medical officer, will be fortnightly or more frequently, depending on local or national epidemiology.

    Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)

    On the testing figures that we get every day, after we take out studies that are being done through testing, along with double testing and those tests that are sent out through the post, are we not down to just about a third of the numbers that the Government claim are taking place? How can we have any confidence in what the Government say about what they are going to be doing about testing going forwards?

    Helen Whately

    The hon. Gentleman has talked about taking out large numbers of testing; as the Minister for Care, I have seen a huge demand from the social care sector for testing through those channels, so I would not take out other forms of testing. For example, testing through tests sent to people’s homes very much counts and should be considered as part of our testing programme.

    We have put a rigorous focus on testing in care homes, too. We met our target of offering tests to all staff and all residents of care homes for over-65s and those with dementia in England by 6 June. We then announced that we were able to extend the testing programme to all adult care homes. Since the launch of whole care home testing, we have provided over a million test kits to more than 9,000 care homes, and we are now able to send out more than 50,000 test kits a day. We are also running a prevalence study to get a detailed picture of coronavirus infection in care homes. Phase 2 of that study has just gone live, meaning that 10,000 residents and staff across 100 care homes will have repeat swab and antibody tests.

    Tim Farron

    The Minister is being generous in taking interventions. Does she agree that to keep care homes safe from the coronavirus, the testing needs to happen ​regularly, not just once or even twice, and it needs to include people displaying no symptoms whatsoever? Does she also agree that, particularly for those NHS sites that are deemed to be clean and that are attempting to be covid-free, which are often the places where surgery will take place, the regular testing of staff even on a weekly basis, whether or not they display symptoms, is essential, not only, for example, to bringing back the mental health and maternity services that are currently lost to Westmorland General Hospital, but to making sure that the whole of our health service can operate as normal?

    Helen Whately

    I absolutely recognise the importance of repeat testing, both in the NHS and in social care. Our policies, and the testing programmes that we have in place and are launching and taking forward, are based on the clinical advice as to what the right programme to have in place is. I have set out the programme for the NHS, which is based on the advice of the chief medical officer, and we have sought advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies on what the repeat testing programme should be for the social care sector.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for giving way. We are trying to engage with the Government on what we think is a constructive proposal, and not to do the usual political knockabout. I did a bit of that yesterday at Health questions, as she knows, but today I am trying to adopt a different tone—

    Helen Whately

    Trying.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    Trying, yes. Just so that we can understand this, is the Minister saying that the Government’s position on weekly testing of all NHS staff, whether symptomatic or not, is that that is not an appropriate clinical intervention—as distinct from saying, “We simply do not have the testing capacity at this stage, but it is something we would like to do in future”?

    Helen Whately

    I am sure the hon. Gentleman was listening when I outlined the policy for the national health service. That is based on the chief medical officer’s advice. I think that is pretty clear. The Opposition’s position is not entirely clear, given that the hon. Gentleman started out saying “Weekly testing when necessary”, but said in his speech that it was weekly testing, whatever. On the other hand, we have been clear and the hon. Gentleman can look at the letter from NHS England and NHS Improvement to NHS trusts for further information.

    I should move to the conclusion of my remarks—[Interruption.] Hold on, I thought we were not having any more political knockabout. We have established a national testing programme on a scale and at a pace that has never been seen before in this country. We will keep expanding that so that we can use high-quality testing to give confidence and certainty to anyone who needs it.

    As I have set out today, there has been incredible action across our NHS and social care as we respond to this invisible killer. Thanks to the efforts of so many, crucial services have not been overwhelmed and all coronavirus patients who were admitted to hospital were able to receive urgent care. Because we have made such progress on slowing the spread of the virus, we ​have been able to ramp up other important services as part of our plan to get Britain back on her feet. However, we cannot be complacent and we must be ready for any increase in the rate of coronavirus infection and also for the winter, when, as hon. Members know, there is a greater risk of seasonal flu. As we keep ramping up services, we will ensure that we have the surge capacity to act quickly if necessary.

    I want to finish by thanking the incredible NHS and social care staff who have been on the frontline of the pandemic. There has been a collective effort from so many, including healthcare professionals who have volunteered to return, and medical students, allied health- care profession students and nursing students who have stepped up at this important time for our country. The whole House and the whole nation are grateful to them for their heroic work.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Labour MP for Leicester South, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That this House expresses thanks to the heroic work of frontline NHS staff who have saved lives throughout the Covid-19 pandemic; pays tribute to the at least 312 NHS and Social Care staff who have died of coronavirus in the United Kingdom; recognises the impact that coronavirus will have upon the NHS to deliver routine care including mental health care without additional Government support; notes that NHS waiting lists are projected to reach 10 million by the end of 2020, that cancer referrals fell 60 per cent during the peak of the coronavirus lockdown and that four out of five children have reported their mental health has got worse during the pandemic; further notes that there is a backlog of NHS care that needs to be tackled and that it is vital to prepare NHS services to deliver safe care alongside care for coronavirus, including preparing for winter and ensuring necessary supplies of PPE and medicine; is concerned that routine testing of NHS and Social Care staff is not currently in place; and calls on the Government to implement a routine weekly testing programme for all NHS and Social Care staff to enable NHS services to safely resume and ensure the continuity of services throughout the winter alongside a functional, national, public test, trace and isolate system.

    We have brought this motion to the House today to provide an opportunity for the House to reflect on the Government’s response in handling the pandemic, to thank our brave, hard-working NHS and social care staff for their extraordinary efforts—including, if I may say so, our student nurses who do a tremendous job on the frontline; I hope the Minister praises them and recognises their worth when she gets up to make her remarks—and to pay tribute to and remember over 300 health and social care staff who gave their lives during the pandemic. We have also tabled the motion to put to the Government a constructive, practical suggestion that we now consider necessary to prepare our national health service to meet the monumental growing burden of unmet clinical need and set out what we think is necessary to prepare us in case of a second wave of the virus.

    The key to resetting the NHS and the safe easing of lockdown measures announced yesterday is a fully effective system that finds cases, tests cases, traces contacts, isolates, and then properly financially supports those who have been asked to isolate. We believe a key element of that must now be the regular testing, weekly if necessary, of all NHS and social care staff. This is what we are suggesting to the Government today, and we hope they will accept our constructive suggestion and find a way to make it work.

    Throughout the pandemic, our concern as an Opposition has been to save lives and minimise harm. We have always thought that that means suppressing the virus, not simply managing its spread, and measures to crunch the virus down, as nations like New Zealand and Iceland have done, and not merely squashing the sombrero. It is why we on the Labour Benches called for a lockdown. Indeed, when I called for a lockdown in March not everybody in my party supported me at the time—many on our side were concerned about the extraordinary restrictions to civil liberties—but we supported the ​Government when they announced a lockdown and we co-operated with the Government in ensuring that the necessary legislation passed this House.

    I also said, however, that a lockdown was a blunt tool. I said it would buy us time while transmission in the community reduced. We always recognised that we could not stay in lockdown forever. Lockdown has huge social repercussions, especially for children. This is not a debate about schools, but I was struck by the words of UNICEF, which warned:

    “Children are not the face of this pandemic. But they risk being among its biggest victims.”

    We have always understood that there would come a moment when we need to ease out of lockdown, but it has to be done safely.

    Of course, nothing is risk-free. We can never entirely eradicate risk, as the chief scientific adviser reminded us yesterday. We cannot be complacent. This virus exploits ambivalence, and the reality is that there are many hundreds of infections every day. Globally, we have passed 9 million cases. The virus is accelerating across the world. There are outbreaks in South Korea and Germany, countries that have been far more successful than we have. The chief medical officer yesterday warned us to expect to continue to be in this situation way through the winter and way into next spring. We all know from our history books that about 100 years ago there was a deadly second wave of Spanish flu. A second wave must surely be a possibility with this virus.

    We are tracking towards one of the worst death tallies in the world: over 65,000 excess deaths, with 26,000 excess deaths in care homes. Ministers cannot run away from the realities, no matter how uncomfortable they are. Today, we call on Ministers to outline a plan for the next stage and to prepare us in case of a deadly second wave. Let me deal with the points in the motion about the NHS.

    Ministers boast that the NHS was not overwhelmed, that it coped and that 119,000 people were admitted to hospital for covid and they received exceptional care. They are right to make those claims. Thankfully, the desperate scenes in Lombardy hospitals that we witnessed on our TV screens were never repeated here. Naturally, I pay tribute to all our NHS staff involved in that and all the staff who ensured the building of Nightingale hospitals, developed new care pathways, and moved to digital care or returned to the frontline. But let us be absolutely clear: that surge capacity in the NHS, and the wider protection of the lockdown, has come at a cost, because millions are waiting for care. For those millions, this has not been a cosy hibernation, as the Prime Minister told us yesterday. It has been a time of struggle, of suffering and of distress.

    Protecting the NHS has been on the back of cancelled operations, delayed treatment, and, arguably, the biggest rationing of services in the 72-year history of the national health service. It has been on the back of shielding some of the most vulnerable in society, who remain anxious and scared today for their personal health and safety as lockdown eases. Let us remember that, when we went into this crisis, we had 4.5 million on the waiting list. We had A&E targets routinely missed. Every winter, we saw the crisis in our hospitals of trolleys lined up in corridors. We have had some of the worst cancer waiting times in history, and now the NHS Confederation is warning ​that elective waiting lists could hit 10 million by Christmas. Yes, referrals are down, as the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), recognised yesterday, but that is because of unmet need in the wider community. Indeed, experts are predicting that about 1.6 million are being added to the waiting list every month. That means ever lengthening queues in our constituencies of people in pain waiting for care. The Minister will know that at the end of January, there were 521,000 people waiting for trauma and orthopaedic surgery, including hip and knee replacements, and probably another 42,000 added to the waiting list each week. That means that thousands of our constituents are waiting in discomfort and pain, often when pain-relieving drugs are inadequate.

    Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

    I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a very important and well-presented case. In my constituency, at Westmorland General Hospital, the trust closed down the Kentmere ward, which is the adult mental health ward. It is fairly obvious that most Members will have had in their inboxes a lot of people presenting with higher degrees of mental health need than during normal times. That ward was closed down temporarily to take account of the crisis. Does he agree that now is the time, particularly with mental health issues, to look again at those temporary closures and to bring the Kentmere ward and other such wards back into service, to meet the needs of those struggling with mental health conditions?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    The hon. Gentleman puts his case persuasively. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who will be winding up the debate for the Opposition, will, I am sure, want to touch more on the mental health impact of the lockdown. It is undeniable that the lockdown has led to unquantifiable mental health problems festering in society, and statistics show an increase in anxiety and depression. There are particular issues around young people not being able to access child and adolescent mental health services. If services have closed, as happened in his constituency, then, yes, we need a plan to ensure that those services are reopened as quickly as possible.

    Another area where we have had access to services restricted is in cancer, and cancer touches everybody. It touches every family. It has touched many Members in this House very individually and personally as well.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What is happening to our cancer services is very important, as he said. Some of the figures are incredible. There are 2.1 million people waiting for breast or cervical screening tests, which is 60% higher than in April 2019. Treatment rates for chemotherapy have fallen by 70%, surgery by 60%, and radiotherapy by 90%. That underlines very critically the severe problems for those with cancer and for those needing treatment right now.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me in making the points that I was hoping to go on to make. I am not surprised that he has made those points given that he is a Leicester City fan. I am very proud to have Leicester City football club in my constituency— ​hopefully we will do better next season. He is absolutely right in what he says, because the statistics on cancer are absolutely terrible.

    Around 2 million people in England are currently waiting for cancer screening tests or cancer treatment, including chemotherapy. Today, we have a published analysis, which shows that those waiting more than six weeks for diagnostic tests—some of these will be for cancer of course—have increased from 30,000 to 469,000 as a result of the lockdown. Cancer referrals are down 60%, and 1 million people are missing out on breast, bowel and cervical cancer screening. That means that about 1,400 cases of cancer are going undiagnosed every month. In March and April alone, there were at least 500 more deaths from cancer than average, and research from University College London predicts that an estimated 17,915 additional deaths of existing and newly diagnosed cancer patients could occur in England in the next 12 months. That is why resetting our NHS and getting it started again is so vital.

    We also know that covid attacks the lungs, so this is an especially frightening time for those with serious asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema. One in four people with COPD have had a regular GP or hospital appointment cancelled, or both. Some 24% of people on pulmonary rehab programmes have had their classes cancelled, and 600,000 people with asthma or COPD have missed their annual review. The more we know about coronavirus, the more we know it is also a cardiovascular issue. Those with cardio- vascular problems are the second biggest group of those with an underlying condition dying from covid now, yet about 30,000 elective procedures for heart disease have been deferred. Referrals to stroke units have declined, and excess stroke deaths in care homes are 39% higher than the five-year average. We are making these points not in a spirit of blame, but to re-emphasise the point that lockdown has come with huge costs and will inevitably mean that people will die or develop long-term illnesses unless there is now a plan to get the NHS up, running and working again.

    Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)

    It is important that we are clear as to exactly what the Opposition are calling for today. The motion asks for “routine weekly testing”, with no ifs, ands, buts or qualifications. Yet the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks that he is seeking routine testing weekly if it is necessary. So are the Opposition calling for weekly testing, no matter what? Or are they calling for what he said in his opening remarks, which is the possibility of weekly testing?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    We are calling for weekly routine testing, as have many organisations and the Chair of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care. He penned an excellent article in The Daily Telegraph today, and I hope the hon. Gentleman has had time to study it, because it is superb. May I also take this moment to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because I know he has returned to the frontline? I am sure all of us, from across the House, are grateful for everything he is doing on the frontline.

    The other point I wish to make on this growing burden of unmet clinical need is that there is a social gradient in this, as always; there is a higher mortality ​rate among those who are poorer and more deprived. Through all these different conditions, the poorer someone is, the more likely they are to become ill quicker and die sooner. So we need urgent action from the Government to tackle this, and we believe that regular testing of NHS staff is a key part of that.

    We also need a broader plan to tackle the growing burden of sickness and unmet need. Our NHS will need more resources. We have had years of financial starvation in the NHS. The Government’s funding plan of two years ago fell short of the annual 4% increase that experts said was needed before the pandemic, and the settlement of that long-term plan is surely inadequate post pandemic. We must remember that we entered this crisis after 17,000 bed cuts and years of budget cuts to capital settlements, which have left hospitals crumbling, reliant on out-of-date equipment and grappling with a £6.5 billion repair bill. NHS land and buildings have been sold off. Last year, more than 890 hectares of NHS land was put up for sale. So we will need large-scale investment in the real estate of the NHS to allow health services to reconfigure to treat covid and non-covid patients alike.

    Ministers will say that the NHS will get what it needs, but the reality on the ground is very different. I am sure the Minister for Care will have studied today’s Health Service Journal ahead of the debate and will have seen trust chief executives complaining that the cash that they were promised has not been delivered. They need this cash now if they are to restructure any of their services ahead of the winter. I hope that she will update the House on when those chief executives are going to get the cash they were promised by her Department.

    We will also need real investment in rehabilitation services for those suffering from covid. The more we know about this disease, the more we know that those coming out of hospital are probably doing so with significant long-term chronic conditions. They are going to need support, be it respiratory, neuromuscular or psychological. Community health services are going to see a huge peak in demand now that many have moved out of the community health sector.

    Crucially, to reset services—this comes to the point that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich put to us—we need to ensure that care can be delivered safely, which is why we believe that a mass-testing infrastructure for staff is now so important. We know that around a fifth of covid infections in hospitals are caught in hospital settings. Given the levels of significant asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, we need a proper targeted testing strategy as well. All healthcare workers should be tested regularly—weekly—because a study from Imperial suggested that that would reduce transmission in healthcare settings by up to a third.

    Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

    The hon. Gentleman is eloquently outlining the challenges faced by the NHS in the wake of covid-19. Does he join me in welcoming the movement by the Scottish Government to ensure that social care workers who contract covid-19 are given additional funds on top of statutory sick pay, which is completely inadequate, in order to make sure that they do not lose out for testing positively as a result of their job?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    The hon. Lady makes a very important point, which affects the debate more broadly: those who test positive or are asked to isolate need to be ​given the financial support to do it, and statutory sick pay in many circumstances will not be enough. There are millions of workers—2 million in this country—who do not qualify for statutory sick pay, and just saying that they can apply online for universal credit is not going to be enough.

    We need more radical thinking from the Government. Other countries offer greater financial support to those who are asked to isolate. Other countries even offer hotel rooms to those who are asked to isolate if it is not appropriate for them to isolate at home because of the nature of their housing situation. The Government should be looking into those sorts of things, and I hope the Minister can respond to that.

    The point I was making is that regular testing of staff, whether asymptomatic or not, is so important not only for the safety of those staff and patients, but for building confidence in the NHS more generally. The study from Imperial suggested that it would reduce transmission of covid in healthcare settings by up to a third. We believe that this is a constructive suggestion that we are putting to the Government, which they should take on board and explore. It is disappointing that they are seeking to amend the motion to completely strip that out. They are not even prepared to take it away and look into it. They just want to pass a motion congratulating themselves on their handling of the pandemic.

    A testing strategy for staff and patients, as we are proposing today, is a demand supported by many across the NHS as key to restarting that NHS work.

    “A clear testing strategy is now more important than ever”—

    says Chris Hopson from NHS Providers.

    We

    “need rapid testing available for all staff and patients, whether showing symptoms of COVID-19 or not”—

    says Cancer Research UK.

    “It’s absolutely essential to regain public confidence that we are able to test our staff regularly”—says Derek Alderson of the Royal College of Surgeons. And, of course—the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) will not be surprised that I am going to quote him in this debate—it is a position shared by the former Health Secretary, now the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, who in today’s Telegraph makes the case with far greater eloquence than I could ever muster:

    “Until we minimise the risk of asymptomatic transmission by introducing weekly testing for all NHS and care staff, we are failing in a basic duty of care to the people most likely to die if they get the virus.”

    Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)

    May I put on record my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for praising me in this House for the very first time that I can remember on record?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    I praised him plenty of times from this Dispatch Box. The point is that this is a constructive proposal, which is not a party political point. There are clearly many people across the House who support this proposal. The right hon. Member, the former Health Secretary, also prays in aid in his article—I have it here for Members, if they have not had chance to peruse it—both Tony Blair and William Hague. So we now have a Front Bencher praising Tony Blair from the Dispatch Box—that is probably the first time it has happened on the Labour Front Bench for about 10 years.

    ​Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)

    I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman has improved his reading material. I congratulate him on securing the debate, and on his constructive tone. In that vein, in addition to the proposals that he is setting out, will he recognise that we are able to start unlocking the economy today because of the herculean efforts made in areas such as PPE, and the contribution made by the private healthcare sector, which has a valuable role to play as we move towards more of the elective care that we now need?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    I know that the hon. Gentleman is always keen to support those on his Front Bench. Indeed, he was one of the few Tory Members who actually supported Mr Cummings, tweeting:

    “Another media non-story when there are so many important ‘real’ stories of this crisis”.

    The Government were slow in getting PPE to the frontline, slow in ramping up testing, slow in going into lockdown, slow in getting tracing going and slow in protecting care homes. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises my constructive tone, but it does not mean that I will not highlight the failing of this Government in their mishandling of many aspects of the pandemic.

    I must now move on, having spent some time in this mutual love-in with the former Health Secretary. I do not want to damage his career any further, although he is probably not on the Prime Minister’s Christmas card list at the moment.

    I hope that the Government will engage seriously with our suggestion of regular testing for all NHS staff, because we believe that is a crucial part of an effective test, trace and isolate strategy. The problem is that the testing and tracing is still not as effective as it should be. Of course, we recall that testing and tracing was abandoned on 12 March, and the Government have been playing catch-up ever since. At Health questions yesterday the Secretary of State could not even tell us how many people were being tested on a daily basis. I hope that the Minister will now get us that information.

    Local authorities are still not receiving localised data, which is very serious. At Thursday’s press conference—the Prime Minister has now got rid of the press conferences—the Health Secretary casually announced, in response to a question, that Leicester is experiencing one of the highest spikes in the country. Nearly a week later, the local authority still does not have specific postcode data on where the people who have tested positive are. The Secretary of State announced that last Thursday, and today is Wednesday. We do not have that data because the data protection protocols have still not been agreed. This is shambolic. The Government cannot announce that there is an outbreak in a particular part of the country but then not provide the local authority with the data it needs to put in place the necessary measures.

    Jim Shannon

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    Given that the hon. Gentleman is a Leicester City fan, I will.

    Jim Shannon

    I am always pleased to intervene on anyone, but especially a Leicester City supporter.

    On systematic testing, the figures from Cancer Research UK are critical, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. Between 21,000 and 37,000 tests would be required ​every day across UK cancer services just to catch up. That underlines how important the testing is, and that is just for those who have cancer.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why we have brought forward this debate. I think that we all understand why a lot of elective surgery and treatment had to be paused, but now that the lockdown is being eased, Government Ministers need to tell us how they are going to start treatment again, and how people who have been waiting for treatment, whether for cancer or for heart disease, or for a hip replacement, are going to get that important care.

    We have a situation in which GPs cannot carry out tests, book tests or refer patients for tests. If someone goes to one of the Deloitte drive-through testing centres, or one of the centres where that role has been subcontracted to someone else, there is no requirement for the results to be sent back to their GP. GPs do not know who in their local area has been tested positive, because that is not going on their health records. This is shambolic. At the same time, the Government have given a £100 million contract to call centres run by Serco and Sitel, where tracers are complaining that it is chaotic and they have nothing to do. I do not know whether the Minister read the testimony, published in the British Medical Journal, of a clinician working in one of the call centres. They wrote:

    “NHS Professionals employed us as clinical tracers, but we were recruited by Capita… Sitel provided access to the tracing applications and systems, and these all required different usernames and passwords. Synergy CRM assigned cases…CTAS captured contact tracing information, RingCentral was used for voice calls, and MaxConnect was used for storing knowledge about contacts. All of these systems were accessed through Amazon Workspace.”

    This sounds a complete mess. At the same time, the chief executive of Serco is saying that this is an opportunity for it to “cement” its role in the NHS. Serco should not be an excuse for more NHS outsourcing and privatisation. Serco should be kicked out of our NHS, and local public health officials and GPs should be leading the tracing response.

    And, of course, the Secretary of State has failed to deliver on his app, with months wasted and £11.8 million confirmed as down the drain by the Minister in the Lords yesterday. We are now in the dismal situation where there is an app for the Secretary of State himself, but there is not even an app for covid. You really could not make it up, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    We believe that it is time for the Government to invest in public health services, to put GPs in the driving seat of testing, to give local authorities the localised data that they need and to begin a programme of routine testing of all NHS staff, whether symptomatic or not. We accept and understand that Ministers will have made mistakes throughout this crisis. It was an unprecedented pandemic, but Ministers have been slow, their response has been disorganised and the scale and nature of the pandemic, even though it was at the top of the risk register, at times underestimated.

    However, Ministers can learn from their mistakes. They can take the advice of the former Health Secretary and they can take the advice of their former leader and former Foreign Secretary. They can start putting in place a programme for mass testing, starting with NHS ​staff, because we need it for our national health service. Our constituents are waiting in pain, agony and distress for treatment. It is time to deliver the care they deserve, and I commend our motion, constructively, to the House.

  • Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 17 June 2020.

    I am grateful for the chance to update the House on the urgent matter of coronavirus.

    Yesterday’s treatment breakthrough shows that British science is among the best in the world. As a nation, we can be incredibly proud of our scientists. The UK is home to the best clinical trials, the most advanced immunology research, and the most promising vaccine development work of any country. We have backed the science from the start, and I am sure the whole House welcomes the life-saving breakthrough that was announced yesterday. Today, I will briefly update the House on all three aspects of that national scientific effort.

    First, on clinical trials, our recovery programme, which looks at the effects of existing treatments in real-world hospital settings, is the largest of its kind. As of yesterday, 11,547 NHS patients had been recruited to the programme, which is operating across 176 sites in all four nations. In Oxford University’s dexamethasone trial, over 2,000 NHS covid patients were given a course of the drug—a commonly used steroid—over 10 days. For patients who were ill enough to require oxygen, the risk of dying fell by a fifth, and for the most seriously ill patients on mechanical ventilators, the risk of dying fell by over a third.

    This is an important moment in the fight against this virus, and the first time that anyone in the world has clinically proven that a drug can improve the survival chances for the most seriously ill coronavirus patients. In February we began the trial, supported by £25 million of Government funding, and in March we began recruiting patients, and started the process of building a stockpile in case the trial was successful. As of today, we have 240,000 doses in stock, and on order. That means that treatment is immediately available, and already in use on the NHS. I am incredibly proud that this discovery has happened right here in Britain, through a collaboration between the Government, the NHS, and some of our top scientists. It is not by any means a cure, but it is the best news we have had.

    Throughout this crisis, our actions have been guided by the science, and that is what good science looks like: randomised control trials; rigorous and painstaking research; moving at pace, yet getting it right. The result is that we now have objective proof—not anecdotes, but proof—that this drug saves lives, and that knowledge will benefit many thousands of people all around the world.

    Seven other drugs are currently being trialled as part of the recovery process, and a further nine drugs are in live clinical trials as part of the ACCORD programme, which is looking at early-stage treatments. We look forward to seeing the results of those trials. I thank everyone involved in that process, and put on the record my thanks to our deputy chief medical officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, who led the work in Government, ​as well as to NHS clinicians, the scientific teams, and the participants in the trial who took the drug before they knew that it worked.

    Our immunology research, again, is world leading. Last month I announced a new antibody testing programme to help us understand the immunological response to the disease, and whether someone acquires resistance to coronavirus once they have had it and recovered. I am part of that programme, and as of yesterday, 592,204 people have had an NHS antibody test. The nature of immunity research means that it takes time, and we must wait to see whether someone with antibodies gets reinfected. However, with every test, we improve our picture of where the virus has been, and we grow the evidence to discover whether people who have had the disease and have antibodies are at lower risk of getting or transmitting the virus again.

    Crucially, that work will help to inform how we deploy a vaccine, and it is moving at pace. Earlier this week Imperial College began its first phase of human clinical trials, and 300 participants will receive doses of the vaccine. Should they develop a promising response, Imperial will move to a large phase-3 trial later this year. Yesterday, AstraZeneca signed a deal for the manufacture of the Oxford vaccine, AZD-1222, which is the world’s most advanced vaccine under development. Its progress, while never certain, is promising.

    None of that happened by accident. It happened because the British Government, scientists, and the NHS put in place a large-scale, programmatic, comprehensive, well-funded, systematic, rigorous, science-led system of research and innovation. We have been working on it since the moment we first heard of coronavirus. There is more to do in this national effort, but that is how we will win the battle. We will leave no stone unturned as we search for the tools to hunt down, control, and ultimately defeat this dreadful disease.

    Mr Speaker

    May I just say to the Secretary of State that he has gone way over the allocated time? It would have been easier for him to make a statement rather than having to have an urgent question. In future, perhaps he could come forward with a statement if he needs the extra time, and I will certainly grant that and support him in doing so. Some extra time for Jonathan Ashworth as well, and for Philippa Whitford.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Comments on Test and Trace App

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Comments on Test and Trace App

    Below is the text of the comments made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Health Secretary, on 18 June 2020.

    This is unsurprising and yet another example of where the government’s response has been slow and badly managed. It’s meant precious time and money wasted.

    For months tech experts warned ministers about the flaws in their app which is why we wrote to Matt Hancock encouraging the government to consider digital alternatives back in May.

    Ministers must now urgently prioritise building a fully effective test, trace and isolate regime lead by local expertise to break the chains of transmission of this deadly virus.

  • Justin Madders – 2020 Speech on Public Health

    Justin Madders – 2020 Speech on Public Health

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justin Madders, the Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2015.

    Today marks 12 weeks since the country went into lockdown and we saw the biggest peacetime restrictions ever. Over the past 12 weeks, the public have made huge sacrifices. The vast majority of them supported and adhered to the lockdown, and it is right that we take a moment to acknowledge the sacrifices they have made in the interests of public health—the business that faces an uncertain future, the child who has missed out on crucial social and educational opportunities, and the grandparents who just want to give their grandchildren a hug. We know it has been hard, and we thank them for doing their bit.

    We also thank those in the NHS and other parts of the public sector, in social care and of course the millions of other people who have made their own contributions in the collective fight against the virus. When we have seen over the weekend images that represent the worst of this country, let us not forget that many, many more have in recent months shown us what the very best of this country can look like.

    It is also right to take a moment to remember the more than 41,000 lives that have been lost to the virus, each one a tragic loss. We mourn them all.

    We are here today to consider the third iteration of the regulations, just as further relaxations come into force to allow non-essential shops to open for the first time. Those measures are probably the single largest relaxation since lockdown was introduced—but we are not here to debate those changes. In our view, we ought to be, but instead we are here to debate the changes that came into force two weeks ago, on 1 June, and the interventions on the Minister that we have heard demonstrate why there is some anxiety.

    Changes should be debated and have democratic consent before they are introduced. I thank the Minister for acknowledging Opposition concern in respect of that, and I understand why urgent action is needed, but it should be perfectly possible for us to debate regulations at short notice. We in the Opposition stand ready to co-operate with whatever is necessary to make that happen.

    Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)

    Considering that Government have one job, and one job alone right now, which is keeping us safe and preparing for the days ahead, is it not inexcusable that they are not able to keep Parliament up to date at the same speed as they announce things to the media?

    Justin Madders

    I will come on to the discourteous way in which the Prime Minister has been announcing these things to press conferences instead of this Chamber.

    It is important that this Chamber has a role because these are not minor or consequential changes that can be nodded through without debate. They affect millions of people’s lives, and we know that if we get it wrong, the consequences will be devastating. Debating them weeks after the event, and in some cases when they have been superseded by the next set of regulations, demeans ​parliamentary democracy. Changes such as these should always be accompanied by a statement to Parliament, not just showcased at Downing Street press conferences. We are not merely a rubber-stamping exercise to create the veneer of a democratic process. We should not be debating these measures late, and we should not be debating them without seeing the full extent of the information on which the Government based their decisions. We know that the next review of the regulations must take place on or before 25 June. If that review leads to further relaxations, will the Minister commit today that any regulations introduced off the back of that will be debated here before they are implemented and not retrospectively?

    The reviews, which are legally required to happen under the regulations, took place on 16 April, 7 May and 28 May. I ask the Minister: where are they? In a written question, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would publish those reviews. I received a reply last week stating that the Department of Health and Social Care had indicated that it would not be possible to answer the question within the usual time period. Why on earth not? If the Government have conducted these reviews, why are they not in a position to disclose them? I find this absolutely incredible. Here we have the most far-reaching impositions into everyday life in this country, yet we have no idea what the Government’s own reviews of them say. These are reviews that are required under legislation.

    Sir Charles Walker

    They are far-reaching, and it is a pretty poor reflection on this Chamber that it is empty. It is probably only a third full, even with the social distancing rules in place. Where are our colleagues getting upset about the removal of people’s civil liberties? Neither side here has a great story to tell.

    Justin Madders

    If these regulations were actually going to be changed as a result of what we said here, we might see a better attendance, but the Government have shown the contempt in which they hold this place by introducing them way after the event. The question is: where are the reviews? What is it that we cannot see in them? This betrays a cavalier attitude to transparency, and it does absolutely nothing to engender confidence that the decisions that are being taken are the right ones.

    Peter Kyle

    We have to get this on to the record. My right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) want to be here engaging in the debate, but they are unable to be here because the virtual Parliament has been closed down for debates such as these, and they have to shield. The Government are telling them not to be here. That is the reason they are not here. Is that not correct?

    Justin Madders

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure there are many Members who cannot be here for good reasons but who would like to take part in the debate. They are following the Government’s advice, which is to work from home wherever possible. This just shows how confused the approach is sometimes, and it really is an affront to democracy that those Members cannot take part in important debates such as these.

    ​Mr Harper

    For the benefit of the House, I understand that that particular point about participation in legislative debates is currently being considered by the Procedure Committee. I think the Government have indicated that if the Procedure Committee can come up with a sensible way of including colleagues who need to participate remotely in legislative debate, that is something that the Government will look at favourably. I hope that is helpful to the House.

    Justin Madders

    I thank the former Chief Whip for his intervention. I would certainly welcome that development. I have not heard anything from the current Leader of the House to explain why we can take part remotely in some debates but not in others. I will not take any more interventions, because I know we are up against time.

    Turning to the regulations themselves, they include, as the Minister outlined, some relaxations including the reopening of some outdoor retail as well as various outdoor sporting activities. They also make provision for elite athletes in anticipation of the return of professional sport, including the Premier League later this week. I am sure we are all looking forward to that, although anyone who has witnessed the Arsenal back four this season may consider the definition of an elite athlete to be a triumph of hope over reality.

    It is not all one way, however, and for the first time, the regulations include a list of venues that must now close. I fail to see any logic, coherence or consistency in respect of the Government’s approach to these venues and, critically, there has been no impact assessment on those venues. The first set of regulations, despite their sweeping nature, had no impact assessment at all. We understand, of course, why that was not possible in the first instance, but we have made it clear that we do not want that to become the norm, because we know that the impact of these regulations will be huge. We are now on the third set of regulations, 12 weeks after the lockdown started, and we have still had no impact assessment. How can the Government continue to issue new laws with such sweeping powers when they cannot tell us what their impact is?

    Is there a document the Minister can point us to that sets out the Government’s own assessment of whether they have met the five tests they set themselves for relaxing the lockdown? Certainly, there is concern that the threshold for relaxation has not yet been met. Only yesterday, the World Health Organisation expressed concern that we may be coming out of lockdown too early. According to a recent University of Oxford study on each country’s level of readiness for easing lockdown, we are now fourth from bottom in the entire world.

    The questioning comes not just from outside bodies but the Government’s own joint biosecurity centre, which has not reduced the threat level—still level 4—and says very clearly that only when the threat reduces to level 3 can there be any relaxation of restrictions. I implore the Minister to set out exactly why the Government feel they can depart from the opinion of their own joint biosecurity centre.

    All these concerns matter not only because of the enormous impact of the regulations but, frankly, because the Government appear to be winging it in respect of ​which regulations they choose to apply. Take the new category of venues to be closed in schedule 2—model villages, zoos, safari parks, aquariums and so on. Clearly, that was an oversight in the original regulations, but we have seen a rapid U-turn on parts of the regulations so that, as I understand it, zoos and safari parks are no longer required to close. How have the Government got themselves into such a mess that we are debating on the Floor of the House regulations that they do not fully support? How can it possibly be consistent with the rule of law for the Government to present us with regulations and say, “Actually, we’re going to pretend that bits of this are not there”? It is an absolute shambles. To preserve the rule of law, it is vital that people do not act outside the law, but how can we expect it to be enforced properly if the Government say that bits of the regulations do not need to be followed? The changes come to us late, without any assessment of their impact, and after some of them have been pulled. That does not inspire confidence that the Government are in control of the situation or following any kind of plan.

    As we know, the WHO, the Association of Directors of Public Health and some of the Government’s own scientific advisers have said that the easing of lockdown should not occur until the testing and tracing system is proven to be more robust, but the reality is that the system is in chaos. The Government have not been able to publish the number of people tested each day for more than three weeks now. How can testing and tracing work properly if we do not know how many people are tested each day? A third set of data from the test and trace system shows that it needs a lot more work. Just over 8,000 people were tested, but only two thirds of them were contacted. Missing out a third is not what I would call an effective and robust system.

    And what of the app? It seems that the world-leading, game-changing, virus-busting app is not as important as it once was. That is a fate that probably awaits us all in here, but the app has suffered a downgrade before it has even been launched. Last month, the Secretary of State said it would be crucial and that downloading the app would be a public duty. Now we are told that it is not vital; it is more of a cherry on the cake. Which is it? Will the Minister explain how it is safe to open non-essential retail if people who might come across someone who is infected cannot be traced because there is no working app in place?

    The Government have been too slow on testing, too slow on social care, too slow on personal protective equipment, and too slow on the lockdown, and now it seems they are too slow on tracing. The Prime Minister promised a world-beating system by 1 June, but that date is long gone. Newspaper reports suggest that we may not get a fully operational system until September. When pressed in debate on the last set of regulations, the Minister could not give us a date when it will be ready.

    This matters because the restrictions are being lifted now. The Government must demonstrate that they have got a grip of the testing and tracing strategy in order to restore public confidence in their handling of the pandemic and to ensure that we do not risk another catastrophic spike of infection that will lead to a second lockdown, with all the damage that will bring. The Government have taken the decision to lift the restrictions. It is for ​them to demonstrate that they are listening to the experts and publish the full scientific evidence behind the decisions that have been taken.

    We want the Government to succeed and remain committed to working constructively with them, but that is a two-way street. I have now spoken three times on these regulations. On each occasion I have stressed the importance of the Government operating within the rule of law, following due process and providing us with a full evidence base supporting the decisions they take. On each occasion the Government have failed to listen to those concerns. They have failed to demonstrate that they are following the science, they have failed to show that they are assessing the impact of their decisions, and they have failed to show that they grasp the importance of accountability. This Parliament and this country deserve the full picture, so I hope next time we debate these issues we get just that.

  • Jo Churchill – 2020 Statement on Public Health

    Jo Churchill – 2020 Statement on Public Health

    Below is the text of the statement made by Jo Churchill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I, 2020, No. 558), dated 31 May 2020, a copy of which was laid before the House on 1 June, be approved.

    The amending regulations we are discussing today were made by the Secretary of State on 31 May and were laid before the House on 1 June. I must note that the regulations were amended again, on 12 June, with changes coming into effect between 13 June and today. Hon. Members have previously raised concerns about that sequencing, which I would like to address directly.

    Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at this early point. I can inform you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to inflict a speech on the House later and will be withdrawing from our proceedings. May I just ask the Minister briefly why the Government have chosen to use the urgent procedure with regard to the regulations?

    Jo Churchill

    I thank my hon. Friend for that. If he will allow me to go through what I wanted to say, I hope it will be clear why we have used that procedure.

    The rapid and frequent amendments to the regulations have been critical to ensuring that the Government can respond to the threat from the pandemic and its impact. The use of the emergency procedure has enabled us to respond quickly, begin a cautious return to normality and reopen the economy as soon as possible. I recognise that there may be frustrations that we have had to run parliamentary process in parallel during these unprecedented times, but I believe that we have demonstrated the advantages of our flexible constitution. I wish to make it clear that these are extraordinary times and measures, and we are definitely not setting a precedent for how the Government engage with Parliament on other matters and in more usual times. I am very grateful to all hon. Members for their patience and continued support during these difficult times.

    Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)

    May I just pick the Minister up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg)? The thrust of the amendment No. 4 regulations—I accept, if you will give me a little latitude, Madam Deputy Speaker, that they are not the ones that we are debating, but I think the Minister referred to them in her remarks—was announced on Tuesday or Wednesday last week. I do not see what would have prevented a draft of those regulations being laid for debate on Thursday, so that the House could have taken a decision on them before they came into force. Would that not have been better, particularly because they are legally quite complicated in how family support structures are translated into law? That would have been better for our legislative process.

    Jo Churchill

    I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. I will certainly take that back and feed it in, because I know that he is not alone in feeling that we could improve the time sequencing slightly, in order ​that we get to a place where these matters are debated fully. I reiterate, however, that these are unprecedented times, and being able to debate complex differences between the timings needs to be thought about.

    Mr Wragg rose—

    Jo Churchill

    If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am going to make a little progress and then I will of course take another intervention.

    All over the world we are seeing the devastating impact of this disease. It has already radically altered our way of life, and it has, very sadly, taken loved ones away. That is why the Government put in place social distancing measures to slow the spread of the virus and protect our NHS, in order to save lives, and they have been successful. Despite the tragic loss of life, the UK has slowed the spread of coronavirus. Our health system was not overwhelmed and it retained sufficient hospital beds, ventilators and NHS capacity. I am extremely grateful to the public for their continued compliance with these measures, which have been instrumental in us reaching this point.

    Now we must begin to recover and slowly rebuild our way of life. The Government’s objective is to return to our way of life as soon as possible, restarting our economy in a safe and measured way that continues to protect lives and support the NHS. On 11 May, the Prime Minister made a statement to the House outlining the Government’s road map for easing restrictions. We have entered phase 2. This involves gradually replacing the current social distancing restrictions with smarter measures that have the largest effect on controlling the epidemic but the lowest health, economic and social cost.

    Mr Wragg

    I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, to whom I pay full tribute for her incredibly hard work, for indulging me with this intervention. Would it not be possible for the Government to at least lay a written statement on their reasoning as to why some measures have been relaxed and others have not?

    Jo Churchill

    If my hon. Friend will indulge me as I go through my opening speech, I will address that in my concluding remarks. There is transparency in relation to the SAGE minutes, which are readily available and give a clear example of why decisions are being made and the scientific basis for them.

    We are very aware of the burdens that these regulations have placed on society and on individuals. The 1 June amendments play a significant role in reducing the restrictions and lifting some of that strain. It is necessary for the Government to respond quickly to the reduced rate of transmission and to protect individual rights. At all times the regulations in place must be proportionate and necessary. Following on from the small change made to the 13 May amendments, which were debated by a Committee of this House on 10 June, these amendments go a step further. We recognise the toll placed on individuals and families unable to meet loved ones, and have amended the regulations to allow for groups of six to meet outdoors. We hope that these amendments will relieve that burden to some extent.​

    I will now outline the changes made on 1 June, which include allowing increased social contact outdoors, in either public or private space, for groups of up to six people from different households; enabling elite athletes to train and compete in previously closed facilities; opening some non-essential retail while expressly providing for businesses that remain closed; ensuring that venues such as community centres can open for education and childcare services; and ensuring that those required to self-isolate on arrival in the UK can stay in hotels. We have also amended the maximum review period to 28 days. This longer review period ensures that we will be able to fully take into account the impact of any previous amendments before making further changes.

    Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)

    I have looked at the regulations. Am I right in thinking that people are still prevented from staying over at a friend’s house or a partner’s house, or has that been amended as well?

    Jo Churchill

    It is my belief that they can stay over if they are within the guidelines of the social bubble—that is, if they are a single person. There are several distinct areas and I am happy to discuss them with my hon. Friend, or to write to him to clarify them. They are clearly laid out in the regulation of what is or is not applicable.

    The Government continue to work on the process of gently easing restrictions as it is safe to do so, in line with the ambition set out in the road map. Working alongside scientists and experts, we must act swiftly to respond to current infection levels and our assessment of the five tests that have been set out previously. I am sure that we all support the aim to protect and restore livelihoods by only keeping in place restrictions that are proportionate and necessary. We of course remain ready to reimpose restrictions if the need emerges in the future, although we all hope that that will not be the case.

    Mr Harper

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. In asking her a question, may I respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker)? The reason for the confusion goes back to the point that I just made. My hon. Friend asked about what has been called the “bubbling” of households, the putting of households together, which was announced at one of the press conferences last week. It has been turned into legislation, which was laid before this House on Friday, but we are not yet debating it. So we are debating one set of amendments, but a new set has already come into force and the reason for the confusion is that we are not yet debating it. I think that rather proves my point that we should really have debated that legislation in advance of it coming into force. I hope that my hon. Friend’s confusion, and he is not a man easily confused, demonstrates the point about why that is important.

    Sir Charles Walker

    I thank my hon. Friend.

    Jo Churchill

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for the clarity with which he put that.

    I have already noted that further amendments were made on 12 June and have now come into force. Those will be debated by this House in due course. I am ​grateful to all parliamentarians for their continued engagement in this process, and for their continued scrutiny, which is rightly and importantly exercised for each set of amendments.

  • Edward Argar – 2020 Statement on Social Distancing

    Edward Argar – 2020 Statement on Social Distancing

    Below is the text of the statement made by Edward Argar, the Minister for Health, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2020.

    I thank my right hon. Friend for his important urgent question. As part of our work to slow the spread of coronavirus, the Government have put in place social distancing guidance. The guidance specifies that everyone must keep 2 metres away from people outside their household or the support bubbles that have been in place since Saturday. I am grateful for the commitment and the perseverance of the British people in following these guidelines over the past few months; I know it has entailed huge sacrifice.

    We keep all of our public health guidance under constant review to ensure it reflects the latest advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and the latest evidence that we have on the transmission of the virus. The Prime Minister has commissioned a comprehensive review of the 2 metre guidance. It will take advice from a range of experts, including the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, as well as behavioural scientists and economists. It will also receive papers from SAGE, which is conducting a rolling review of the 2 metre guidance already. The review will examine how the current guidance is working, and will look at evidence around transmission in different environments, incidence rates and international comparisons.

    Unless and until there is any change to the guidance, everyone must continue to keep 2 metres apart wherever possible, and must continue to follow our “stay alert” guidance, by washing their hands, for example, and self- isolating and getting tested if they have symptoms. I am aware there is a great deal of interest, understandably, in this matter from both sides of the House. However, I am sure that the House would agree that it would be premature to speculate about that review’s conclusions at this stage. We will, of course, keep the House updated on this work, and we will share any developments at the earliest possible opportunity.

  • Matt Hancock – 2020 Interview with Andrew Marr

    Matt Hancock – 2020 Interview with Andrew Marr

    Below is the text of the interview between Andrew Marr and Matt Hancock, broadcast on 7 June 2020.

    Andrew Marr:

    You’ll have heard Professor Edmunds there saying very, very clearly he understood it was difficult and it wasn’t easy but he wished that we had locked earlier. Do you agree with that?

    Matt Hancock:

    No.

    Andrew Marr:

    No?

    Matt Hancock:

    I think we took the right decisions at the right time and there’s a broad range on SAGE of scientific opinion and we followed – we were guided by the science which means guided by the balance of that opinion, as expressed to ministers through the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser. That’s the right way for it to have been done.

    Andrew Marr:

    I’m not saying it was an easy decision but he is absolutely clear that it cost lives not locking earlier.

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, there are others who equally make different scientific arguments and the way that this is done –

    Andrew Marr:

    Is there anyone who thinks it didn’t cost lives?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well yes. If you listen to the balance of opinion on SAGE, a hundred people on SAGE approximately, what we do as ministers is we take the scientific advice, channelled through the Chief Medical Officer on the medical side, the Chief Scientific Adviser on the broader science and then we have to – as Professor Edmund said, we have to make the balanced judgements based on that advice. And that’s the way it works. So you’ll always, in a body of a hundred people you’ll always find differing voices. It’s totally reasonable.

    Andrew Marr:

    And yet absolutely clear you are sure that locking when you did and not earlier did not cost lives?

    Matt Hancock:

    I’m sure, and as I keep looking back on that period, I’m sure that taking into account everything we knew at that moment we made the – my view is – that we made the right decisions at the right time. But the other thing I’d say, Andrew, is that I spend most of my time trying to rid this country, rid all of us of this ghastly virus and really most of my time and energy I devote to looking forwards as well of course of trying to learn lessons from what happened in the past.

    Andrew Marr:

    The reason I’m hanging over that issue about when the country locked up is because right now we’re also wondering is this the right time to unlock? And can I ask you in the same spirit, looking at exactly where the R number is, just hovering around one, whether you’re absolutely sure we’re not going a little fast.

    Matt Hancock:

    Well we’ve got to be very cautious and we’ve got to have a safety first approach. And I thought that on that Professor Edmunds expressed it exactly as I would, which is that with the R below one, the SAGE estimate taking into account all of the models, not just the one that’s been in the news a lot in the last 24 hours, but all ten of them, is that the R is between .7 and .9. That means that the number of new infections continues to fall. It’s around 5,000, 5 and a half thousand a day on the best estimates, but it’s always hard to estimate that.

    Andrew Marr:

    I was going to say this is in a sense art not science because these are old figures you’re getting, there’s a time lag and so forth. To an extent you’re flying blind on all of this and on the Cambridge figures the R number is actually above one in the North West of England.

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, it’s actually science, it’s not art. It is science on which we base these decisions and science is necessarily looking at uncertainty. Now you say it’s flying blind. That’s no longer true. Because the Office for National Statistics Survey and a separate survey by Ipsos, Mori and Imperial are both surveys of actual test results in the community right now, which is different from some of the models that are essentially model predictions.

    Andrew Marr:

    Okay. So we know we’re going ahead into a period where more shops are going to reopen, where places of worship are going to reopen and so on. What would have to happen now for the government to put the brakes on that?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well we don’t want R to go above one. We’ve been absolutely clear about that and the estimate is that R is below one and as Professor Edmunds said, the overall estimate taking into account everything we know is that R is below one in each region. I know that in the North West –

    Andrew Marr:

    What about an increase in the number of infections?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, if R goes above one then that leads to an increase to the number of infections. That is by definition, that’s the logic of R. So the reason R is important –

    Andrew Marr:

    At that point you stop the unlocking?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well the reason R is important is that if R is below one then the number of infections continues to fall and that’s what we’ve seen over recent weeks.

    Andrew Marr:

    I’m just saying you get direct data in about the number of infections as well and if that goes up do you reverse the unlocking?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well we get survey data about the number of infections. We get direct data about the number of positive test results. What I want is everybody who has the infection to come forward with a test. But addressing the substance of your question, absolutely we are open to, if we need to, to taking local action in the first instance to crack down on a local outbreak, as we’ve already done and we’re prepared to do more, and we’ve always been open to having to reverse some of the measures. But we don’t want to do that and that’s why we’re taking a cautious approach and a safety first approach which means for instance from Monday being able to – Monday next – being able to reopen private prayer. I think is incredibly important for many, many people who have been feeling a lack of that spiritual ability to pray in their place of worship. Again, that’s got to be done very carefully and safely and we’re learning as a society how to be more Covid secure.

    Andrew Marr:

    But we be absolutely clear if there’s an increase in infections the government will re-impose a national lockdown?

    Matt Hancock:

    We’ve always said that. We’ve always said if necessary and you’ve got to look at the overall approach. This isn’t the number moving about from day to day or week to week, this is the overall strategic approach where the strategy has been clear from the start and the number of those new infections has been coming down and down and down and down.

    Andrew Marr:

    There’s been a lot of talk about local lockdowns and like many people I don’t completely understand this. When you say a local lockdown does that means a small area around a care home where there might be a problem? Does it mean a town? Does it mean an entire region or city of Britain? What does it mean?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well preferably the former.

    Andrew Marr:

    So it could be very small, very localised?

    Matt Hancock:

    Absolutely. Take Weston-super-Mare. In Weston-super-Mare the action that we took when we saw a spike in the number of infections was to close the hospital to new admissions. We then put in place testing of asymptomatic people in the community around the hospital and those connected to the hospital and we found that it hadn’t led to community spread because of the action that had been taken.

    Andrew Marr:

    So you just had to close down Weston-super-Mare.

    Matt Hancock:

    Correct.

    Andrew Marr:

    We saw people on the beach so it was just around that area.

    Matt Hancock:

    Correct. Now of course we looked at that and what we might have to do, but we instead simply by stopping the hospital having new people coming in and by very, very significant infection control procedures in the hospital and with the support of the brilliant local Director of Public Health, Leader of the Council, Public Health England at a regional level and of course the NHS we managed to deal with that local outbreak.

    Andrew Marr:

    It worked.

    Matt Hancock:

    It worked. And that is a model of how we can do this elsewhere.

    Andrew Marr:

    So let’s imagine – I won’t name one – but let’s imagine a big city with a lot of people living in it and you see a spike in the R rate, you see a spike in the number of infections in that city. Is it plausible that you then actually try and cut that city off from the rest of the country? Refuse to allow people to travel from wherever it is to someone else in the UK? Do you actually impose that kind of lockdown on part of the UK or is that actually practically impossible?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, we do have the legal powers to do that but that is not our starting point and the starting point is actually much more localised than that, to try find a much more localised area within a part of a city. And remember the virus spreads by human contact and therefore if you can get this early enough and spot it early enough, then you will get quite a localised area of the outbreak, because human contact tends to be local by its nature. And so actually the focus is to get as early as possible, as local as possible and things like tackling an outbreak in one hospital or in one very small area is what we’re really aiming at here.

    Andrew Marr:

    You mentioned track and trace just now. The system’s been up and running I think for ten days now. How many people have been contacted?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well sadly, I’m not going to tell you that and the reason is because I want to ensure that the statistics authorities are very happy with how we’re collecting and publishing this data before I say anything on the record because we want to get this absolutely right.

    Andrew Marr:

    16,500 people have tested positive in the last period. Is that the kind of numbers that are actually going to be contacted, because if not, if it’s much lower than that, then the system is not working.

    Matt Hancock:

    Oh, thousands are being contacted but I won’t go into more details than thousands unfortunately until the statistics authorities are happy with exactly how these things are measured, but we will be publishing full details and a fully range of statistics once that’s all signed off by the statisticians.

    Andrew Marr:

    The app. You’re wearing your NHS badge, what’s happened to the NHS app? It was supposed to be here three weeks ago and no sign of it.

    Matt Hancock:

    Well we learnt, one of the things we learnt on the pilot on the Isle of Wight which has been very successful and on the Isle of Wight they’ve done a great job of – through the pilot. One of the things we learnt is to get in place the human based system first, that’s what we’re doing and then the technology can add to that.

    Andrew Marr:

    But we were told by you and many others that the app was going to be essential. Are you saying it’s not essential and it’s not going to come in, or what?

    Matt Hancock:

    I’m saying that it will help, it’s an advantage and it will come in but we want to make sure we get this system embedded first with the human contact tracers. After all, the key thing about test and trace isn’t just that you trace the virus, it’s that the people who you find then have to isolate for two weeks and that’s quite a big ask. The evidence is that the overwhelming majority are doing that when the NHS phones them up and asks them to but that’s a very important part of it.

    Andrew Marr:

    So we’ve talked about tracking, let’s talk about testing specifically. How many people were tested yesterday?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, the latest figures we’ve got is for Friday and it was just over 200,000.

    Andrew Marr:

    200,000 because you were giving us these figures on a daily basis, testing the number of people, and then you stopped.

    Matt Hancock:

    No, sorry. The number of tests were just over 200,000.

    Andrew Marr: Number of people tested I was asking.

    Matt Hancock:

    Well the number of people tested, we will be bringing that data back. The challenge there is that because we’ve introduced different types of testing, making sure that you ensure that you only count one person once amongst the four pillars is a complicated statistical process. So again that’s with the statisticians to sort.

    Andrew Marr:

    In short it’s a bit of a muddle at the moment. Sir David Norgrove, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority as you know said:
    ”The aim seems to be to show the largest possible number of tests at the expense of understanding. It’s not surprising given their inadequacy the data on testing is so widely criticised and often mistrusted. Did that sting?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, the thing about it is that it’s not true. There are other ways that you could measure testing to give much higher figures and we chose not to. What we chose – advised by my Permanent Secretary – are the most accurate ways to show the testing that the government is doing, which is the number of tests either directly administered or sent out, because that’s the point at which the government is doing its job. So that’s why we measured it in that way and that’s why I’m so cautious about giving further information before we’ve got this all straightened out with the statistical authorities.

    Andrew Marr:

    Has everyone living in or working in a care home now been tested?

    Matt Hancock:

    We have now managed successful to deliver tests to every care home that is eligible both for staff testing and for residents to be tested for every –

    Andrew Marr:

    So anyone in a care home across Britain watching this programme has been tested or they’re deluded?

    Matt Hancock:

    Or the tests have been delivered. So the goal we set is that the tests will be delivered by the 6th of June. That was completed yesterday I’m very glad to say, on time and what that means is that of about three quarters of a million people living in just over 9,000 eligible care homes, the tests have been delivered and –

    Andrew Marr:

    This is the programme, isn’t it, because as David Norgrove said, delivered and tested are two different things. So you can’t actually say they’ve all been tested. Which is what they were promised.

    Matt Hancock:

    No, they were promised that we would get tests to them.

    Andrew Marr:

    Okay.

    Matt Hancock:

    And this is – actually I’m being extremely precise. I have not said that we have tested everybody. What I’ve said is the tests have been delivered. Now the care homes themselves asked us to do it in this way because they say that we were right at the start of this requiring them to send back the tests within a very short space of time. They say actually if you’re running a care home sometimes you may want a couple of days to prepare the residents, to make sure you’re ready. So actually the way that we’re doing it in this way – I’m using my words very precisely – is because the care homes wanted us to do it this way. And I respect that and I think it’s very important to work with the sector.

    Andrew Marr:

    Now, we talked earlier on about community transmission. You told people not to protest yesterday about Black Lives Matter. They did protest. You’ve seen all of that. What’s your reaction? Do you agree, for instance, with Professor Edmunds, who said there is risk with that?

    Matt Hancock:

    Yes, I do. I’ve worked all my political life to tackle discrimination and to support diversity. And the problem is that
    the virus doesn’t discriminate. And there’s a reason that we have laws in place – temporarily – to say that gatherings of over six people should not happen. And that’s because the virus spreads. And the problem therefore is that – I just wish people – I really hope people make the argument, and I will support them in making that argument. I hope that they will make that case stronger. But please don’t gather in groups of more than six, because in groups of more than six that risks spreading the virus and that risks lives. So it is incredibly important – and think of it this way –

    Andrew Marr:

    Sorry, are you saying that because of those protests yesterday and they way those people gathered people will die?

    Matt Hancock:

    The way I’d put it is this: we think that about one in a thousand people has the disease in this country. And so when you
    get groups of thousands gathering, of course the likelihood is some of those people will have the disease, and we know that if you come into contact with people that risks spreading the disease. So Professor Edmunds was absolutely right to say it risks a spread, and the risk of the spread of the disease is that it then risks lives. So I bow to nobody in my support for action to make sure there is true equality of opportunity in this country for everybody, no matter their background.

    Andrew Marr:

    Do you think the police should have been enforcing the law in that case?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, I think the police did a fantastic job and I’m very proud of the British police for their professionalism, their restraint in the face of the tiny amount of violence – and I would stress it was a very small amount of violence later on in the day. And I think that we can all be proud that the British police are not like the American police in this way, and I think that that’s a very good thing.

    Andrew Marr:

    Thinking about diversity in general, when you look at this government, you look at the Cabinet, there’s a very, very stinging, very interesting piece by Sajid Javid in the Sunday Times this morning about inequality and racism in Britain, but there are still no black faces in the Cabinet are there?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, hold on, Andrew. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, are both from ethnic minority backgrounds.

    Andrew Marr:

    But not black.

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, until the latest reshuffle Kwasi Kwarteng was sitting around the Cabinet table with me. I think that this is one of the most diverse Cabinets in history, and that’s been a record under Boris Johnson and I think – I welcome that. I think that’s a really good thing. And what really matters is tackling inequality of opportunity amongst all sectors of society.

    Andrew Marr:

    So Public Health England produced a report, as you know, on why BAME people are more likely to die of this disease. But there were no recommendations in that report and a lot of MPs, mostly opposition MPs, were really, really concerned about that. Surely it’s not enough to say, ‘here’s the problem,’ you have to have some kind of answer to it.

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, we have been taking action all the way through. We didn’t wait for the report to take action.

    Andrew Marr:

    As Health Secretary what are you doing to better protect BAME people from this disease?

    Matt Hancock:

    In the first instance, the occupations that are more frequently taken by people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds are also some of those that have the biggest risks of infection. So, for instance –

    Andrew Marr:

    Cleaners, nurses, doctors.

    Matt Hancock:

    Absolutely. And – or in fact all staff in hospitals. But the thing is to protect that whole occupation and everybody in it. Also those who are critical on the frontline in public transport, for instance. Bus drivers, taxi drivers. So we’re taking forward the PHE work, we have already – PHE have done the analysis that shows that this is a very significant problem, and Kemi Badenoch, the Minister for Equalities, is taking it forward to ask exactly that question why.

    How much of it is down to occupation, for instance, how much of it is down to co-morbidities, how much of it is down to housing – because we know that housing inequality has an impact.

    Andrew Marr:

    In a very balanced response, she also said that the report had gaps and hasn’t gone far enough. ‘There was more that I was hoping to see from this review.’

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, if it had gone far enough then I wouldn’t have asked her to take the work forward with the prime minister, who obviously cares very deeply about getting this agenda right.

    Andrew Marr:

    The big picture. We’ve had 40,000 deaths and probably a lot more than that in this country, might be 55, might be 60,000. The prime minister said that he took full responsibility and the government have been doing everything they could in tackling coronavirus, ‘and I am very proud of our record.’ Can I put it to you that being very proud of our record, in terms of the number deaths that we have had in this country, is not right?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, I mourn each one of those deaths. And in a way, you know, 40,000 – the number is less important than the fact that each of these is somebody who has died, with a family who will never be the same again. And we have put unprecedented amounts of action into place, right across the board, to deal with the crisis. And we’re fully accountable for that.

    Andrew Marr:

    You’re working very, very hard, you’re probably putting your life and soul into this but are you really proud?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, my team, I’m very proud of the work my team have done. Particularly, you know, starting up of test and trace system from scratch and getting the testing system going. Making sure that we flatten the curve. Protecting the NHS, building those Nightingale hospitals, making sure the NHS wasn’t overrun. So there’s enormous amounts of things that I’m very proud of.

    Andrew Marr:

    40,000 or more dead?

    Matt Hancock:

    Well, of course nobody wants to see a pandemic at all.

    Andrew Marr:

    Matt Hancock, thanks very much indeed for talking to us
    today.