Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions)

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The principle of the Coronavirus Act is that it underpins so many of the actions that are necessary. To vote down the Act and not to renew it would lead to an undermining of the actions that we need to take to keep this country safe.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I have a lot of sympathy with what the Secretary of State is saying, but may I also support what was said by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), not only about the wedding industry but about the exhibitions and events industry? Will my right hon. Friend at least bear in mind that good sense from careful people who seek to be covid-sensible and compliant would enable him to exercise some flexibility in the very inflexible rules that currently govern those two important industries, which are flat on their backs?

[Matt Hancock]

We are always happy to look at the evidence on how these things can be done—absolutely. I would be very happy to talk to my right hon. Friend about how we can take this forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Graham Brady]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is important to say that those of us on both sides of the House who put our names to that amendment were seeking to be eminently reasonable and accept the difficult constraints under which the Government are operating, and it is important that the Government accepted that in those terms. We believe that it was in good faith, and we will, of course, hold the Government to that.

It is also important, following this change of approach signalled by the Secretary of State, that the public—the people whom we represent—will rightly be in a position in the future to judge us, as Members of this House, on the balance that we seek to strike in the protection of their liberty, the safety of the public and their ability to support themselves and their families.

[Mr Mitchell]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has done an extremely good job, and a great service to our constituents, in the work that he did in respect of his amendment. Will he confirm that the aim of this amendment was not to confront the Government in any way, but to try to ensure that the Government use the wisdom across this House in tackling this very serious problem?

[Sir Graham Brady]

I absolutely agree. Those were two wonderful interventions from former Chief Whips; I wonder whether there are any more in the House. That is precisely the point: it is our belief that this House can work with the Government, and that our collective knowledge and the difficult questions we will ask will improve the quality of the Government’s actions and governance.

Coronavirus

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

As the hon. Gentleman outlined in his question, we have put an enormous amount of testing into Manchester. There is availability in Manchester because there is a prioritisation on testing. Because it is such an outbreak area, we have put in a huge quantity of tests. As I have said repeatedly, there are operational challenges, but thousands of people are being tested in Manchester every day, to get a grip of the outbreak there.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has my sympathy and support as he discharges his duties. He is well aware of the position across the west midlands and, in particular, in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where we do have testing difficulties. I am very concerned to hear today that Ley Hill Surgery has no fewer than four GPs who are having to self-isolate and cannot get a test. May I make two points to him? First, I join with those who want an exemption for informal childcare, so that parents in certain circumstances can still go to work. Secondly, I ask him to look at a system whereby all Members of Parliament get access to regular infection rate details both by local government wards and by postcodes?

[Matt Hancock]

I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support. I am working very closely with him and with the other Birmingham MPs, because there is a serious challenge in Birmingham and in other parts of the west midlands. On the point about getting the data down to a ward level, I will absolutely ensure that he gets that data. We look at it down to a lower super-output area level, and we publish that data weekly. I will ensure that it gets to him and that we get the full details of exactly how many cases there are in each part of Birmingham. I recognise that, while Sutton Coldfield is in the Birmingham local authority, it has a distinct geography within that area. As he knows, both from our discussions and from how we have acted in other parts of the country, we will take action on a sub-local authority area where that is supported by the data. Unfortunately, for now, we do have that local action in Sutton Coldfield, but we keep it constantly under review.

Coronavirus and Care Homes

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely it is important to learn from everywhere around the world. This epidemic has had a different shape in different parts of the world and, as the hon. Lady knows, a significant impact throughout Europe.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) [V]]

It is good to see my right hon. Friend bearing up so well under the considerable burdens of his office. Can he reassure me that the PPE supply into the UK and within the UK is now flowing into all care homes in a timely and comprehensive manner? I am concerned that those who are running our care homes so well in Sutton Coldfield should have the security of knowing that they can rely on continuous supply.

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I can reassure my right hon. Friend—I thank him for what he said about the work we are doing in the Department—first, that supplies of PPE into the country and buying around the world have improved significantly, and we have put huge amounts of effort into improving that. Secondly, the supply, once the equipment is in the country, out into the care homes and where it needs to be is improving all the time. The number of care homes reporting that they are within 48 hours of a stock out, which is the measure we use, has been falling and is less than half what it was a month ago, but we of course keep working to get that number down. When a care home is within two days of a stock out, we immediately work to get it the PPE that it needs.

Coronavirus Bill

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I can confirm that the Bill is to deal with the current coronavirus emergency, and that is an important point. But I would also say that although the world has changed in the past three weeks in ways that many could not have imagined, every measure that has been taken by the Government has been part of the action plan that we published three weeks ago. Of course, the Bill has been drafted over a long period, because it started on the basis of the pandemic flu plan that was standard before coronavirus existed and has been worked on over the past three months at incredible pace by a brilliant team of officials right across Government. The Bill is consistent with the action plan, so while some people might have been surprised by each of the measures we have taken, they have all been part of the plan that we set out right at the start. I can confirm that it is only for coronavirus.

I also want to give further detail to my previous answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), which is that section 21 does not specify what it defines as a gathering or an event. It is deliberately broad, so it could include a care home, should we need it to, and that would be defined in secondary legislation should that be necessary.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I am sure the whole House will want to support my right hon. Friend and the provisions in the Bill. I just want to reinforce two points. The first is that I was very concerned to see the two-year provision, which is why I put my name to new clauses 1 and 6, and I am very pleased to hear what the Government have said about the six-month review. Notwithstanding what he just said about the period of time in which this has been produced, it is a heroic effort— 321 pages of legislation which may well be subject to changes in the next few weeks and months as this crisis develops. I hope, therefore, that he will see the six-month review not just as a rubber-stamping effort, but as a chance to improve the legislation, should it require that improvement.

[Matt Hancock]

We could consider that. The proposal is to have a debate and vote as opposed to a whole new piece of legislation and, of course, only to renew it if the measures in the Bill are still necessary. Then, of course, they will fall after two years. I understand the concern of my right hon. Friend and his wisdom. I know that as Secretary of State he dealt with some of these issues, albeit not here but around the world, and he knows the sorts of measures that are needed, which are contained in the Bill.

NHS and Social Care Commission

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Is not the key point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and that the House should consider today, that all parties support the NHS and that, therefore, it simply will not work to have one party chart the future? It would be much better, therefore—this is why I support his motion—to have a cross-party commission, although not a royal commission that would kick it into touch for three years, to try to bring everyone together to face what he rightly describes as an existential challenge to health in this country for the future?

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he absolutely makes the case. Incidentally, I think that it is massively in the Government’s interests to respond positively, because any solution has to carry public support and support across the political spectrum.

Consider these points. Does it still make sense to maintain the divide that was originally put in place in 1948 between the NHS and the social care system? Is that serving patients effectively, particularly given that the big challenge of this century will be people living with long-term, chronic conditions, often multiple conditions, and often a mix of mental and physical health conditions? For those people, a divide between different organisations with different pools of money and different commissioning arrangements does not seem to make much sense. I think that that needs to be looked at.

Too often, the system gives the impression of being rather dysfunctional. For example, last October there were 160,000 bed days resulting from people whose discharges were delayed. These are predominantly older people, often with dementia, who remain stuck in hospital long after they are ready to go home or somewhere closer to home. This is not good care. We are letting people down by keeping them in hospital for longer than they need to be, which also makes it harder for them to become independent again. The figure went down a little in November, but it is still the second highest since the data on delayed discharges started to be recorded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Lady—that is a very good point. I fundamentally believe in openness. It is much better if everyone understands what is going on, and then there can be a much more informed debate.

One of my big concerns is that despite some of the very good policy positions that have been taken nationally, too often, across the country, crisis management prevails. Because areas are so focused on propping up acute hospitals that are under the intense pressure I described, more and more money ends up being pumped into those hospitals while the preventive parts of the system are losing out and being cut further. It becomes a vicious circle, because the more we cut back on preventive care within NHS community services, general practice and social care, the more pressure we end up putting on hospitals. We cannot escape from this, and that is why we need the long-term solution that I have talked about.

In health and social care, demand keeps rising. This is unusual in public service terms when compared with, say, police and schools. Demand has risen at 4% a year throughout the post-war period. We all know the causes: we are living longer, new medicines and new technologies come on stream, we face challenges like obesity, and so forth. The cost pressures just keep going up. It is a well-established position that by 2020 there will be a £30 billion gap in NHS funding. The Health Foundation has said that in social care the gap will be £6 billion. Those are enormous figures, and they take no account of the £1 billion additional cost from increasing the minimum wage. In responding, the Government have identified an extra £10 billion for the NHS, but that leaves a £20 billion shortfall. This is based on scenarios set out in the forward view. However, the scenario of a £20 billion shortfall involves efficiency savings that are completely unheard of in the whole history of the NHS. Virtually everyone one speaks to—not just people who refuse to accept the need for efficiencies—says that achieving efficiency savings of 2%, rising to 3%, is unachievable between now and 2020.

[Mr Mitchell]

Is it not the case—I think this is a cross-party point—that although the NHS is under very great financial pressure, and we are trying, in effect, to get a quart out of a pint pot and have been doing so for many years, the people who work in the service are also under very great pressure? Whatever one thinks about the junior doctors’ situation, the information that has come out from across the service, and from across the junior doctors, is testament to the fact that they work under enormous pressure. This is not just a financial issue; it is also about the fact that the staff in the NHS are under unprecedented pressure that is not set to get any easier.

[Norman Lamb]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. Indeed, the staff are working under impossible pressure.

Incidentally, the assumptions about the funding gap by 2020 do not take into account the work that the right hon. Gentleman and I have done together to make the case for equality of access for people who suffer from mental ill health. This is about a historical injustice that has to be dealt with. Paul Farmer, who has led a taskforce for NHS England, has concluded that mental health will require an extra £1.2 billion a year by 2020 in order to ensure equal rights of access with everyone else. It is very hard to deny the justice of that cause and the right of people to get access to social care in the same way as everyone else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification. I agree that we are looking for a process to which everyone can commit. We are not looking for a commission that will go away and examine the problems. We know the issues, which have been set out in very stark terms. The King’s Fund’s excellent independent Barker commission set out the whole range of options. What we have always lacked is the political buy-in and determination to move forward. I would join in making a request for any process that will make that happen, but not for something that pushes it away for three years, because, as we all know, the closer we get to a general election, the more challenging it will be to have a genuine political agreement. It therefore needs to happen as rapidly as possible.

[Mr Mitchell]

I am not sure that there is that big a difference between my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). My point is that as well as getting all the political parties to focus on this issue now, we need an extremely long-term approach. The House of Commons used to accept that we had to have a long-term, all-party approach to pensions, because of the length of time involved in such important decisions. We also need that in relation to this issue: as well as getting everyone to focus on it, we need to get them to focus on the importance of reaching agreement because this is such a long-term issue.

[Dr Wollaston]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. However, in parallel with the process of looking at long-term funding arrangements and settlements, we must get on—here and now—with changes that are needed in the short term. I want to touch on a few such areas.

The first area is prevention. I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for North Norfolk that it is bad practice to cut money from public health, simply because of the challenges we face. If we look at the NHS budget, we can see that 70% of it goes on helping those living with long-term conditions. We know that many future problems are brewing here and now.

Let us just take childhood obesity, which we discussed at length last week. A quarter of the most disadvantaged children now leave primary school not just overweight, but actually obese. Given the problems that that is saving up, in the personal cost to those children and the wider costs to the NHS—nearly 10% of the entire NHS budget already goes towards treating type 2 diabetes—how can we not be grasping that nettle as a matter of urgent prevention to save money for the whole system?

Mental Health

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger]

I am fully aware of the research that my hon. Friend mentions. It was carried out by a number of academics from the University of Liverpool, including one of my constituents. I have studied the research very carefully. It highlights many areas of concern, particularly the changes and reforms made by the Department for Work and Pensions that have had a negative impact. I will address the very point she raises later in my remarks.

Nowhere is this gap between Ministers’ rhetoric and the reality more evident than when we look at investment in our mental health services. Only last year, funding for mental health trusts was cut by 20% more than that for other hospitals. In 2011-12, total investment in mental health dropped for the first time in a decade. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the same year the Government stopped publishing how much they invest in mental health.

Last year, I had to use freedom of information requests to get to the bottom of how much clinical commissioning groups were allocating to mental health: 67% of those who responded spent less than 10% of their budget on mental health, despite the fact that mental health accounts for 23% of the total burden of disease. This year, the Minister for Community and Social Care promised to do something about this. He said he would ensure that investment in mental health by clinical commissioning groups increased in this financial year in line with the increase in their overall budgets. However, as the Government do not publish a central record of these data, I had to use the Freedom of Information Act to find out for myself. Over the past summer, I found that more than one in three CCGs were not meeting the Government’s expectation. That is just one of many Government pledges on mental health that have not been translated into reality.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an important speech, but may I encourage her to be as bipartisan or as all-party in her approach as possible on this vital issue? It is very good to see the Leader of the Opposition and the Heath Secretary in their places, both of whom have a long-standing interest in this issue. Will the hon. Lady at least accept that the all-party campaign led by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—very substantially assisted by Alastair Campbell, who has some considerable expertise in this area—was successful, beyond the scenes, in persuading the Chancellor to produce an extra £600 million for mental health? All of us will try to ensure that that money is spent well, but let us try to do so with an all-party or bipartisan approach.

[Luciana Berger]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has worked hard on these issues, as have many Members across the House. My job is to hold the Government to account for the promises they have made, and that is what I am endeavouring to do. Where there are opportunities for us to work together we should be keen for that to happen, but the Government have not delivered on their previous pledges. I am keen to know the detail of how that £600 million will be allocated and over what period, and we look forward to that information coming forward.

The spend of clinical commissioning groups is just one pledge on mental health that has not translated into reality, and—unfortunately—another is the commitment to spending £250 million on child and adolescent mental health services this year. In response to a parliamentary question, the Government have admitted that there will be a £77 million shortfall on what they have pledged to spend this year. With those spending promises so far unfulfilled, Labour Members are concerned about the lack of transparency on mental health spending. That is why we are calling on the Government to reinstate the annual survey of investment in mental health services.

It is not only in funding that equality for mental health has yet to be achieved, because a huge disparity remains at the heart of our NHS. The NHS constitution sets out the rights to which patients, the public and staff are entitled, and the pledges that the NHS is committed to achieving. The constitution enshrines our rights to access drugs and other treatments, but it does not extend that right to talking therapies. Recently, the Government consulted on adding a right to psychological therapies to the NHS constitution, but they decided not to include it in its latest version. That decision reinforces the existing bias in the system against mental health, and if the Government are serious about fair access to cost-effective mental health treatment, they must address that fundamental disparity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

If the hon. Gentleman has listened to what I have been saying, he will know that I have been very honest about the problems and about the gap between what we want to deliver and what we are delivering. I shall come on to talk about some solutions, but it is important that Opposition Members recognise that we have had a real and specific focus on mental health over the last five years, during which very important progress has been made. If we continue to broaden out our focus, we hope we can make progress in other areas as well.

Let me talk openly about where more progress needs to be made. First, we have far too much variation in the quality of services across the country, and opacity about where services are good and where they are unsatisfactory. It is wrong that I, as the person responsible for the health service, cannot tell people in simple terms the relative quality of mental health provision in North Shropshire versus South Shropshire or in Cirencester versus Sheffield. We need to know that. We know from other areas of the health service that once we can be transparent about the variations in care, people will measure themselves against their peers and huge improvement can be made.

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend deserves great praise for not only the content but the tone of his speech. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), does my right hon. Friend agree that while any gap between reality and rhetoric is to be regretted, what really irritates our constituents is the making of bogus party political points on the subject? I hope that he will ensure that his tone and his content are reflected by his Department. I wish him every success in working with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who clearly cares deeply about this matter, to ensure that we have an all-party approach to it.

[Mr Hunt]

My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right, and I think we do a great disservice to the many people suffering from mental health conditions if we allow this to become a partisan issue. Of course Oppositions must hold Governments to account for their promises, but we should never try to suggest that one side of the House cares more about this issue than the other or that the efforts on one side have somehow been compromised by a lack of interest in or commitment to the issue. It is clear from the number of Members of all parties speaking in today’s debate that the determination to improve mental health provision is shared right across the House.

We urgently need to address other issues, including the increase in eating disorders such as anorexia, which can be a killer. Between 5% and 20% of anorexia sufferers tragically die, and we have to do something urgently about that. We need to deal, too, with the pressures on child and adolescent mental health services, with which all Members will be familiar through their constituency surgeries. Referrals were up 11% last year, and we need to make sure that CAMHS is able to deal with that extra demand, as well as looking at what can be done to improve early intervention so that we reduce the increase in those referrals.