Queen Mary’s Hospital: Urgent Care Services
Edward Argar Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate on an issue that is important to her constituents and more widely across south London and on her typically reasonable and measured tone in putting her constituents’ case so clearly and firmly. As she did, I pay tribute to the staff at Queen Mary’s, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and across our entire NHS for the amazing work they do day in, day out, but particularly during this pandemic. Thanks to their dedication and their response to the public health measures and restrictions, which have been difficult for many people, the NHS was not overwhelmed during the first covid wave, and we have put in place measures to prevent that from happening in a second wave.
As the hon. Lady said, coronavirus has brought challenges and forced us all to do things differently to manage the pandemic, protect the NHS and save lives. There is no doubt that it has led to rapid changes in the way that health and care services are delivered, as providers have refocused their efforts on tackling the pandemic, but also on providing services in a safe way for other service users. But it is important that these changes are temporary and that the NHS is working to reopen services as soon as it is safe to do so. She said that she hopes her constituents in Roehampton will not be overlooked in this place and I suspect that, as long as she is a Member of this House, they certainly will not be.
The hon. Lady was right to highlight the importance of local services so local people can access services easily, without transport or other challenges. It is regrettable that the urgent treatment centre at Queen Mary’s Hospital remains closed. I know that that decision was not taken lightly by the trust. It was taken on clinical advice by the trust to protect the safety of patients, staff and the public. I believe it has been closed since 30 March this year. As she succinctly put it, the issue is due to the requirements of social distancing and the critical importance of infection prevention and control. Therefore, given the configuration of the centre, and its walk-in aspect, it could not operate as it did before the pandemic. It is not able easily to segregate patients with respiratory problems, treat them with dedicated staff, or maintain the necessary distancing.
I am conscious that the trust has yet to set out a firm commitment to a reopening date, but I join the hon. Lady in saying that I hope it will set out its future plans as soon as possible. I am conscious that she has met the trust’s chief executive, Jacqueline Totterdell, to discuss these issues and plans for the reopening of the urgent treatment centre. Although that reopening date is still to be confirmed, I understand that the trust and local commissioners are undertaking work to agree a new covid-secure model of care before reopening, which is the right approach.
My offer to the hon. Lady is twofold and I hope it will be helpful. First, I am happy to raise the issue directly with the chief executive of the trust to consider both timescales and a date for the reopening. Secondly, if she feels it would be useful, I am happy to ask my office to get in touch with her and arrange to meet her in a slightly less formal environment than this Chamber, to discuss in more detail the urgent treatment centre and the pharmacy, which I will come to in a moment.
The hon. Lady highlighted not only the urgent treatment centre but its role in helping early diagnosis and treatment of cancers. I completely understand and recognise her concerns about the impact of the pandemic on cancer services and the importance of ensuring that cancers do not go undiagnosed. The NHS is working to restore the full operation of all cancer services, with local delivery plans being delivered by cancer alliances. Systems will be working with GPs and the public locally to increase the number of people coming forward and being referred with suspected cancer to at least pre-pandemic levels—I will come on to the performance of her local trust in a moment.
To support that, systems will help to ensure sufficient diagnostic capacity in covid-19-secure environments, through the use of independent sector facilities and the development of community diagnostic hubs and a rapid diagnostic centre. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that diagnostic capability is a considerable challenge, not least because, to put it perhaps a little bluntly, many diagnostic tests are very close and personal, and the equipment used is intimate in terms of looking inside the human body. The cleaning and infection control measures that are necessary between each patient make it challenging to see as many patients as would have been the case before the pandemic.
The cancer recovery taskforce met in September to review the status of cancer services against recovery metrics and a national recovery plan is being developed for publication shortly. In respect of the hon. Lady’s particular trust—I am afraid that I have only the figures for the overall St George’s trust, which I hope will none the less be useful—referrals in August for cancer treatment, as I understand it, were twice as high as they were in April, so a lot of work is being done to pick that up. On the basis of the latest figures that I have, which I think are for August, the trust saw 87.8% of people within the two-week target and 94.5% of those referred for treatment received that treatment within 31 days. So I put it on the record that, in very difficult circumstances, her trust is doing a very good job to bring those services back into operation.
It is important that we continue to advise people to contact their GP or to seek the help they need about a symptom that could be cancer or that could represent a risk. The hon. Lady is right that it is important that, when people do need help, they are able to access that GP service and get the advice that they need.
I turn to cancer screening, which I know is something that, although the hon. Lady did not mention it specifically, is relevant to that diagnostic capability and capacity. In some areas, providers of screening services did reschedule invitations or appointments to a later date, again to address infection control risks, but cancer screening services as well are now being restored as swiftly as it is safe to do so. I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who has responsibility for, among other things, breast cancer screening services, and I think that something like—I may not have the exact figure—80% to 85% of the backlog has now been caught up in recent months. It is important that we sustain that improvement and that the hon. Lady’s constituents see that improvement.
As the country continues to deal with covid, I want to reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to providing and ensuring access to high-quality care that meets the needs of people across England, irrespective of where they live. She is absolutely right that it is vital that her constituents are able to access and get that local medical help when they need it, and that includes the pharmacy that she mentioned. The hospital pharmacy is absolutely vital for people being able to have timely access to the medicines they need and being able to get them on site. Although people using it will have been treated and advised in hospital, they can none the less get very helpful advice from the pharmacy as well, so I share her view about the importance of that. As I have said, I include that in my offer to her—to discuss that with her and with the chief executive. I will endeavour to do that later this week, but I am afraid that, given that I think I am taking through seven statutory instruments in here tomorrow, it may be towards the back end of the week that I am able to do that. However, I will endeavour to do so.
The Government remain committed more broadly to restoring urgent non-covid services in a safe way and supporting NHS capacity to protect against the risk of a further surge in cases and, of course, the increased pressures—the hon. Lady alluded to that as the context for this—on the system during the winter. I reiterate my thanks to our NHS staff, not only for what they have done, but for what I suspect they are going to have to do in the coming months.
The hon. Lady will be aware that we have announced considerable further investment in the NHS: an extra £3 billion in July to help support the NHS, and £450 million of capital funding for urgent and emergency care services and expansions. I recognise that this is not going to her own hospital, but I would just highlight that £2.5 million is going to St George’s. Quite rightly, she will champion Roehampton, but I am sure she will welcome that more broadly as well. However, I recognise her concerns about Roehampton, which is why I am happy to meet her.
I simply reiterate that I share the hon. Lady’s view that, where services for perfectly good and legitimate clinical reasons have been temporarily closed or altered, it is extremely important that they are reopened as soon as trusts are able to do so and, where in the future any changes are proposed, that they are subject to the usual full public consultation, engagement and consideration. I do not want to see temporary measures becoming permanent by default, and she can read that as perhaps an expression of my view on what is happening in Roehampton.
As the hon. Lady knows, the next step is for the local commissioners, together with the trust, to agree the new covid-secure model of care so that the centre can reopen in a way that is safe for patients, staff and the public. I will ensure that I remind them of the need to keep her fully updated, although I suspect they will not need that, because I suspect they know that she has an extremely high level of interest in this on behalf of her constituents.
I hope that I have been able to offer the hon. Lady some reassurances today. I thank her for securing the debate, and I very much look forward to meeting her. I am afraid that, at the moment, it has to be an offer of a meeting either by Zoom or in this place, but I hope that at some point, when we are able to do so safely and without hindering the work of those working in the hospital, I may even be able to visit her hospital with her in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (EFTA States) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Edward Argar Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (EFTA States) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I suspect that this will be one of a run of such delegated legislation committees that we will consider in the coming weeks.
The regulations relate to the recognition of professional healthcare qualifications in the UK, and social work qualifications in England. They are part of the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period.
As members of the Committee will know, the Government have signed agreements with three European Economic Area European Free Trade Association states and Switzerland in relation to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU at the end of the transition period. The agreements include provisions that protect the rights of EEA EFTA state professionals with qualifications covered by the directive, and Swiss nationals living and working in the UK, and vice versa.
On 14 September 2020, the House considered legislation brought forward by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that set out arrangements for the recognition of professional qualifications from Switzerland and the EEA EFTA states. The regulations before us cover a similar area. They implement the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement and the EEA EFTA separation agreement in relation to the recognition of professional qualifications, or RPQ, as I will now to refer to it for the sake of brevity, for healthcare in the UK and social work in England. They also make some minor changes to ensure that recognition arrangements for EU health and social work qualifications continue to function effectively after the transition period.
I will remind the Committee briefly of the background to RPQ. The current system for RPQ is derived from EU law. It allows UK professionals to have their qualifications recognised in the EEA and Switzerland, and vice versa, with minimal barriers. There are seven professions where standards are harmonised under the relevant directive. That means that qualifications must comply with minimum agreed standards and, where these are met, that such qualifications are automatically recognised by regulators throughout the EU and, by virtue of additional treaties, the EEA EFTA states and Switzerland. Five of those harmonised professions are health professions: doctors, nurses, midwives, pharmacists and dentists.
The recognition arrangements under the directive have supported the movement of European health and care professionals to the UK. At the end of the transition period, the EU directive will cease to apply to the UK and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications will end. Let me be clear that this will allow for some improvements on the current system.
Last year, in preparation for the UK leaving the EU, Parliament passed regulations to amend the domestic law that implements the current EU system for RPQ, including regulations in relation to recognition arrangements for health and care professional qualifications, namely SI 2019/593. I believe that when that measure was considered in Committee by my predecessor but one, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, was the Opposition spokesman.
Today’s regulations, which will come into force at the end of the transition period, include provisions that ensure that healthcare qualifications that are currently recognised automatically continue to be so, for up to two years after exit day; protect previous recognition decisions; and allow applications for recognition submitted before exit day to be concluded after exit day on the basis that they are already in train. They also remove the provision for healthcare professionals to deliver temporary and occasional services in the UK once such current registrations come to an end.
During the period of continued automatic recognition, UK regulators of healthcare professionals will further refine arrangements for registering all international health and care professionals, including those who hold European qualifications.
Since the passing of the EU exit regulations, the Government have secured further agreements with Switzerland—the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement—and the EEA EFTA states—the EEA EFTA separation agreement. Those agreements go further than the arrangements set out in the regulations that were passed last year. The regulations before the Committee today amend the previous statutory instrument in order to implement the improved terms of the Swiss and EFTA agreements. I will briefly set out the main changes.
First, they allow Swiss nationals—and their spouses and dependants—who hold qualifications that are currently recognised automatically to have those qualifications recognised on an automatic basis where the application is made for up to four years after the end of the transition period, rather than the current two in the original SI. Secondly, they allow Swiss healthcare professionals and their dependants to continue to provide temporary and occasional services, in accordance with their contract, for up to five years after the end of the transition period, with a limit of 90 days’ service per calendar year.
In addition, for both EEA EFTA state EU-qualified professionals and Swiss nationals, the regulations will require that UK regulators co-operate with their EEA EFTA state and Swiss counterparts to facilitate the smooth completion of applications ongoing at the end of the transition period; and ensure that individuals whose professional qualifications are recognised are treated on the same basis as UK nationals. It is important to emphasise that the arrangements under this new SI will be reciprocated by the EEA EFTA states and Switzerland respectively.
I would remind the Committee that these regulations only concern the healthcare professions across the UK and social workers in England. All other regulated professions are covered by separate but similar legislation made by the different and responsible Government Departments and, where appropriate, the devolved Administrations.
For completeness, the regulations also make minor amendments to ensure that the frameworks for RPQ will function as intended after the transition period: they will ensure that GP qualifications obtained before the reference date specified in the MRPQ—mutual recognition of professional qualifications—directive are recognised in the same way as specialist medical qualifications obtained before that date, and are not eligible for automatic recognition.
On consultation, it is important to note that UK regulators of healthcare professions have been consulted on an informal basis throughout the development of RPQ EU exit legislation, including these regulations.
To conclude, the regulations are a small but necessary step forward to implement the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement and the EEA EFTA separation agreement, in respect of the recognition of professional qualifications. Those agreements were signed after the making of the previous EU exit legislation on this matter, hence this statutory instrument. The regulations enable health and social care professionals and businesses to better prepare for the end of the transition period, and represent a further degree of continuity and co-operation.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Edward Argar
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve opposite the shadow Minister, who always approaches these debates in a spirit of common sense and constructive challenge; so I am grateful to him, although I am not quite sure what I should read into his reference to me as the “current” Minister, and whether he knows something that I do not. Maybe it is a reflection on the number of my predecessors that he has seen standing in this place opposite him during his tenure.
Justin Madders
I meant that the Minister is a very talented individual, and no doubt will be elevated to higher service in the not too distant future.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is very kind, but I am not sure whether his comments will help or hinder that cause—as the Whip takes note.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the statutory instrument is dry and technical but important. It represents our taking—in co-operation with the Opposition, for whose support we are grateful—a prudent series of steps to help address concerns about what will happen for those professionals from this country who work in Switzerland and EFTA and, likewise, the reciprocal rights.
The hon. Gentleman asked several questions; I will try to respond to them all. He mentioned the timing. Everyone would wish that we were able to bring measures such as this forward as soon as possible, to give those affected as much time as possible to prepare, but in the nature of things, with all the multiple strands being negotiated, these matters came to be negotiated after the 2019 SI and we have brought them forward as soon as we could following the conclusion of those treaties.
The hon. Gentleman reflected a great deal on workforce numbers, and the impact on the workforce more broadly of the decision in the referendum to leave the EU and what steps we were taking to ensure that the NHS and social care continued to have the numbers they needed to provide the extraordinary service that all those professionals perform for people. He was right to highlight a small drop in the number of registered nurses from EU and EFTA countries—although I would point out that the number of doctors from those countries has remained broadly constant since 2016. Actually, that small reduction has been more than offset by the significant increase in the number of nurses coming from outside EU and EFTA states—an increase of around 29,500. In reply to his perfectly reasonable question on what guarantees, what reassurances, I can offer about the continued supply of nurses, doctors and social care workers to our caring services, I remind him that the Government are well on target to meet their pledge of 50,000 more nurses in the NHS in the course of this Parliament. I think—I may be slightly out—we are well over 13,000 up. While I note his point, if we look at the overall nursing, social care and medical workforce in the round, any slight reduction from EU sources has been more than offset by increases from elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there were any other costs or barriers or assessments thereof for Swiss or EFTA nationals. None has been drawn to our attention. The regulations address one of the key things that was a risk and a barrier, but if he is aware of any specific issues, I am happy for him to raise them with me.
The hon. Gentleman’s final point was on EU enforceable rights. I will endeavour to give him clarity. This answer is slightly technical, so if he feels his question is not answered fully, I am happy for him to write to me following the Committee and I will try to provide more detail. The regulations apply to both Swiss nationals with qualifying professional qualifications and to a national of a third country who has an enforceable EU right through their relationship with a Swiss national. That means, in effect, that spouses and dependants of Swiss nationals must have their health and care qualifications assessed in the same way in which a Swiss national would. There is a single exception relating to EU nationals who are spouses or dependants of particular groups. I will write to him with some of the technical points around that if he wishes, because I think he seeks a greater degree of clarity.
The hon. Gentleman also raised more broadly the long-term arrangements for the EU workforce in our health and social care sector. I would have been surprised had he not done so. My answer, which will not surprise him—I suspect it is the same one he has received from many of my predecessors—is that these are matters outwith the treaty and outwith Switzerland and EFTA. They are matters for the ongoing negotiations with the EU that we are engaging in continuously and constructively. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, but I hope that both sides can find a way forward to an agreement in the coming weeks.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Argar Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is vital that non-covid treatments are restored as quickly and safely as possible. That is what the NHS is doing. It is working to have them restored, by October, to around 90% of last year’s levels.
Dr Johnson
Thankfully, children are relatively robust in the face of coronavirus. However, children’s services, like other hospital services, were understandably reduced during the pandemic. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that paediatric services are now 100% up and running and will not be affected by a future wave of the pandemic? What is he doing to support NHS trusts in dealing with the backlog of appointments delayed by the coronavirus?
Edward Argar
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her service to her constituents both as their MP and as a paediatric clinician. She is right to raise this important issue. Restoration guidance has already been published by NHS England and NHS Improvement, setting out a framework to fully restore services in this area, which I agree is vital. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss this further.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Shotley Bridge Community Hospital
Edward Argar Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on securing a debate on this important issue. His timeliness in doing so is, as ever, perfect, as was his impressive history lesson and his relating that history of the hospital to the present.
The future of Shotley Bridge Hospital is, as my hon. Friend said, an issue that this House has become familiar with in recent months, through his regularly raising it in the Chamber on behalf of his constituents and his local campaigning on it—something well attested to on his website and well reported in recent weeks in both the Chronicle and Consett Magazine. As he said, he kindly invited me to visit his constituency to see Shotley Bridge Hospital for myself. However, I cannot blame him for upgrading last month and securing a visit instead from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although I hope I might yet enjoy North West Durham and County Durham hospitality and a welcome if my invitation still stands.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Having secured that re-invitation, I look forward to that. I would like to put on record, as he did in his speech, my thanks to all who work in Shotley Bridge Hospital and more broadly in the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust for the amazing work they have done for his constituents and more broadly during the pandemic, and indeed for the care that they all provide day in, day out, all year round, regardless of the public health context.
Shotley Bridge Hospital is, as my hon. Friend said, a key part of the local healthcare landscape in the services it provides, but he has effectively made the case that it has the potential to do even more. I know that the sustainability and transformation plan set out the long-term approach to the strategic delivery of health services in these areas, but the CCG and the trust itself have undertaken considerable work on this as well. As I say, the staff are doing an amazing job, but the current hospital faces challenges. In the last financial year—I am sure my hon. Friend will correct me if I get this wrong—it had total running costs of around £1.7 million and £570,000 annual maintenance costs simply to keep the buildings working. These annual costs are a challenge, but so too is the nature of the physical space, including its usage of the current site and the access to it.
The case for, and commitment to, the hospital is clear. As I understand it, there has already been a consultation on elements of this matter in spring 2019. I was therefore extremely pleased that my hon. Friend’s campaigning had paid off and that a new hospital for Shotley Bridge was included in the list relating to the £3.7 billion investment in 40 new hospitals to be built, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced late last week. This is a reflection of a Government delivering on their pledge to build 40 new hospitals, and it is a fantastic example of this Government delivering on their commitment to levelling up.
This new hospital for the people of North West Durham, and indeed more broadly, reflects the healthcare needs of the local population and the local context. As I understand it, the CCG and the trust are continuing to work out the details and consult further, and I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to work closely with them in that endeavour, as I believe he is doing. Let there be no doubt about what he has achieved with this announcement, less than a year after being elected and after a decade of this matter barely being raised in this House. I make an honourable exception to that, because I know that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has continued to raise it, and that he has worked with my hon. Friend. However, I know that it is my hon. Friend’s passion, as the Member for North-West Durham, that has delivered this result.
Mr Kevan Jones
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on his efforts, but a lot of work has been done on this over many years, including by many councillors. I know that the hon. Gentleman mentioned councillors, but he excluded the Labour councillors and Durham County Council, who have been working with the CCG and others to deliver this. It is something that will benefit the entire area, and yes, I congratulate him, but the important thing is that a lot of this work was done before he even knew where Consett was.
Edward Argar
I suspect that my hon. Friend has long known where Consett is, and he has been campaigning hard since his election, but I shall take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention in the spirit in which it is meant. I have alluded to his work on this, which is only right, but he is right to point out, in relation to my earlier references to the work that had been done previously during the consultation by the CCG and others, that I should also recognise the work done by councillors and other local campaigners and, indeed, by local people in that context.
The new hospital for the people of North West Durham —and the broader region, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says—will be part of a model of care developed to reflect the healthcare needs of that local population. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham, in working to understand those healthcare needs and working with others, as is his way, has secured agreement for the delivery and funding of one of his key local election pledges when he stood for this House in 2019. To answer some of his questions specifically, we will fund this new hospital, and I have no intention of that being through a PFI.
My hon. Friend has been clear, and I agree with him, that this new hospital will not only contain, as he has set out, an enhanced range of services, but, crucially, those in-patient beds that he has been so very clear about. As the trust and others work through—
Edward Argar
Mr Deputy Speaker, I should have seen that coming. As a former member of the Procedure Committee, I should have remembered it would be coming. However, I will pick up where I left off.
My hon. Friend’s commitment is clear, and I agree with him that those in-patient beds are absolutely crucial. I know, initially, there was some talk or some suggestion of no in-patient beds or of a small number. He has been very clear that the number needs to be 16, and I heed what he says.
I look forward to receiving the detailed business cases in the coming months and—presuming, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members would expect, that they meet the standards we would expect for the spending of public money and robust project delivery—to approving them and securing their approval from the Treasury. I also look forward, subject to that consent being forthcoming, to seeing construction start in 2022-23, I hope, with a swift construction so that his constituents and those of the right hon. Member for North Durham can enjoy the facilities of a new hospital as swiftly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham mentioned one other point, which was about restrictions related to tackling the covid pandemic—and, indeed, their impact on the health service and the provision of normal health services—only being in place as long as they are necessary to protect public health. I entirely agree with him. None of us wishes to see them in place a day longer than they are necessary to achieve that primary purpose, but regrettably, they do remain necessary at the moment to ensure the safety of patients and others accessing those services.
The subject of this debate is the future of Shotley Bridge Hospital. Thanks to the staff at the hospital it has a bright future and thanks to the local people, local campaigners and their passion for this hospital it has a bright future, but thanks to my hon. Friend it has an incredibly bright future. He has secured that future—that brighter future—through his campaigning and his success in his campaign. His is a plan about which, if I recall correctly, according to a survey of local residents or local constituents he undertook, 92% of those responding agreed with the approach he is proposing.
This is a Government who deliver on our pledges, and my hon. Friend is a local MP who delivers on his pledges to his constituents. They are lucky to have him representing them in this place. He is a strong voice for them, and he has played a central role in delivering that brighter future for Shotley Bridge Hospital.
Question put and agreed to.
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NO. 2) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) REGULATIONS 2020
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS) (RESTRICTIONS ON HOLDING OF GATHERINGS AND AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2020
Edward Argar Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
If Members speak in the debate, will they please email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk? The Hansard reporters can then turn your contribution into something erudite—which I am sure it will be anyway.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 863).
The Chair
With this, we will consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions on Holding of Gatherings and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 907).
Edward Argar
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dr Huq. I will start by summarising the changes to the regulations. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020, which I will refer to as the national regulations for simplicity, were laid on 4 July. There have been five changes to the national regulations, the first of which was debated and approved in both Houses before the summer recess. The second amendment was debated by a Delegated Legislation Committee on 14 September, and today’s debate focuses on the third and fourth amendments to the regulations. As the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), set out last week in a Delegated Legislation Committee, the second and third amendments to the national regulations continued to ease business closure restrictions.
To briefly recap, the second amendment to the regulations permitted the reopening of the following businesses and venues from 25 July: indoor swimming pools, including water parks; indoor fitness and dance studios; and indoor gyms, sports courts and associated facilities. Alongside the changes, the Government produced supporting guidance advising that the most high-risk activities within those businesses and venues, such as saunas and steam rooms, should not reopen at that time.
The third amendment to the national regulations allowed the following venues to open from 15 August: bowling alleys; indoor skating rinks; indoor play areas, including soft play areas, with several adjustments advised in guidance, such as the closure and removal of ball pits; casinos; and exhibition halls and conference centres, with guidance advising that this was only to enable Government-endorsed pilots at that time.
Alongside the regulatory changes are a series of non-legislative changes to allow close contact services, including treatments on the face, to resume. They include allowing socially distanced and outdoor performances to take place, pilots for large crowds in sports stadiums and business events, and the relaxation of guidance on wedding and civil partnerships to allow receptions of up to 30 people.
As I have set out, those amendments opened businesses and venues that had been required to close, with covid-secure guidance developed with industry and with medical advice to ensure they opened in a safe way. Nationally, this has meant that only nightclubs, dancehalls, disco- theques, sexual entertainment venues and hostess bars are required to remain closed. Such venues are considered to pose a high risk of transmission because of the close proximity of members of staff and customers, so they need to remain closed for now in line with the current scientific advice to control the virus.
Although we were able to successively ease business restrictions over the summer, we also now better understand how the infection is transmitted and the role of social activity within this. Between the end of June and the middle of August, the Metropolitan police responded to more than 1,000 unlicensed events. Over one of the weekends in that period, the force received information about more than 200 illegal gatherings across the city. That is why the Government have acted quickly to strengthen the enforcement and restrictiveness of social distancing measures against the backdrop of a slow but steady increase in infection levels nationally. I note, at this point, that although we are debating regulations that came into force earlier this summer, which therefore pertain to the circumstances at the time, we are all cognisant of the chief medical officer’s and the chief scientific adviser’s recent comments and we will see what the Prime Minister announces later today.
The fourth amendment to the national regulations that came into force on 28 August created a new offence of holding or being involved in the holding of an illegal gathering of more than 30 people, giving the police the power to issue a fixed penalty notice of up to £10,000. The fixed penalty notice level has been set at such a significant amount to reflect the seriousness of organising or facilitating an unlawful gathering. It was introduced because this is considered to be particularly egregious behaviour that carries a high risk of transmission of the virus by proactively gathering a large group in breach of the restrictions under the regulations. We hold the view that that level of fine is justified on the basis that this is a narrow offence that targets those holding an illegal gathering. The prospect of an accidental breach of the restrictions is highly unlikely, given it requires an active decision to organise a large event. The regulations set our how large gatherings can be lawfully organised.
I suspect that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) will raise the issue of the use of emergency powers and how the decisions are made. If he does, I look forward to responding as fully as I can in my closing remarks. We believe that it is right that we use the emergency power to amend the regulations so we can respond quickly to the serious and imminent threat to public health posed by the coronavirus. We also recognise that the national regulations have caused real disruption to people’s lives and businesses, placing restrictions on who people can see, what they can do and where they can work. Just as the Secretary of State has the legal obligation to protect public health, he is also obliged to ease restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so for businesses and others. Indeed, the Government continue to pay close attention to the measures, assessing them to ensure they continue to be necessary and proportionate and taking other steps where they are deemed appropriate. The regulations set out that a review of the restrictions must take place within 28 days. However, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care also keeps their necessity under constant consideration between review points.
The question to be considered is whether the restrictions or requirements contained in the regulations remain necessary for the regulations’ public health purposes. Each restriction must be judged by reference to its continuing necessity as the pandemic develops and based on the information available at each stage about the effectiveness and impact of the measures. That is what we are seeing at the moment with the recent updates from the Prime Minister and the chief scientific adviser. We will continue to use the best available scientific advice along with consideration of the most up-to-date data available at the time to inform decisions, and central to that continues to be a robust assessment of the rate of transmission and infection.
The Government have also undertaken significant wider analysis and evaluation of the national regulations, including consideration of economic impact, the level of compliance with the measures, the amount of enforcement needed and the impact felt by local authorities. Understanding the full impacts of the regulations is key to continuing to improve our approach to controlling the virus and we must remember we have both to protect the health of our nation and to balance that with protecting its economic health. I believe that this shows the Government’s commitment to ensuring restrictions are only in place for as long as necessary, while also showing the evolution in our understanding and approach to tackling the virus.
Throughout, the Government have moved with speed to ensure action is taken rapidly to address the needs of the population as the pandemic continues. Over the summer recess, we combined that with tightening restrictions in areas with local outbreaks, alongside the easing of some restrictions nationally. That is an important balance to be struck and we have given local authorities powers to act quickly in response to local outbreaks by closing specific premises, shutting public outdoor spaces and cancelling events. I take the opportunity here in the Committee to pay tribute to the work of local authorities and local councillors up and down this country, working in partnership with the NHS, social care providers and public health officials to protect their populations and do what is right for their areas. I am extremely grateful to them for their service, as I suspect all Members are.
In that context, we asked councils to develop dedicated local outbreak plans, giving them £300 million of additional funding to support that, and published the contain framework, providing further guidance on managing local outbreaks. Where regulations have been required, the Government have worked with local partners to develop tailored and proportionate restrictions based on the best scientific evidence available, varying from a single factory to, indeed, an entire region such as the north of England. We have seen similar approaches adopted in the devolved Administrations, including recently in Wales.
Last week, colleagues will have seen new restrictions were mandated in areas of the north-east, requiring, among other things, the closure of a range of businesses linked to the night-time economy. Such interventions continue to be underpinned by scientific evidence and local data.
On Monday 14 September, colleagues will have seen the rule of six come into effect. This change brought the gathering policy from guidance into regulation, meaning that people can only gather in groups of six. That applies both indoors and outdoors. Single households or support bubbles of more than six are still able to gather together, and there are a small number of exceptions such as for work, school, weddings and organised activities. As the Prime Minister recently announced, these measures are not a second national lockdown but are aimed at preventing the need for one.
Colleagues will also have seen that on Friday we laid new regulations for businesses, which make a number of behaviours and activities already encouraged through guidance legally mandated under the Public Health Act (Control of Disease) Act 1984. If businesses and venues do not adhere to the regulations, they could be issued with a fixed penalty notice to ensure strict enforcement of measures designed to keep customers and workers safe from the virus. We will continue to seek to ensure timely scrutiny of these changes.
I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee not only for their valuable contributions to these debates but for their continued scrutiny of the Government’s response to the crisis. We continue to learn and adapt our approach to ensure that these and all restrictions remain a proportionate and necessary public health response to the threat of coronavirus. As I have said before, it is thanks to local health officials, local councils and others that we continue to bear down on the virus, but there is clearly more to do. In this context, it would be remiss of me not to thank the public, who have made huge sacrifices to try to beat the virus. It is important that we recognise the burden that places on individuals, businesses and families and that we continue to do only what is absolutely essential to tackle this public health challenge.
I believe we have met the bar set for us in such debates thus far that the regulations are proportionate and necessary. I look forward to constructive challenge, as always, from the hon. Member for Nottingham North, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, a fellow east midlands MP, for his typically constructive tone, his well-informed and measured remarks, as ever, and his kind words about the work of Ministers in this context, even if there is political disagreement at times. As he and others will see, I am a little greyer, and there is rather less hair there than there was six months ago.
Before responding to some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman posed, which I will endeavour to answer, I reiterate the Government’s commitment to working with colleagues across the House in ensuring proper scrutiny of these regulations. I will come to his specific points in a minute. Although, as we have both acknowledged, these restrictions have been tough for people, businesses and public services, they have been absolutely necessary to protect the public, and I remain incredibly grateful for the sacrifices that people have made.
We will continue to be guided by the scientific data. I am always cautious about using the words “the science”, because as we know there are multiple views within the scientific community, and that is inevitable in the context of a new disease about which we knew virtually nothing six or seven months ago. Every day, we learn more about it. It is quite right that that debate is going on in the scientific community, because it is through that that we learn and understand more about this disease.
With the recent rule of six and the restrictions on the north-east, the Government have shown that we are willing to reimpose restrictions at a national or local level to restrict the spread of the virus where necessary. Notwithstanding the ability of the ladies and gentlemen of the press to seem to be always slightly ahead of things, I will not prejudge what the Prime Minister will say later this morning to the House. It is quite right that he does that to the House, so I will not pre-comment on what he is going to say. I would say, however—the hon. Member for Nottingham North alluded to this—that hospitality businesses, pubs and restaurants have done extraordinary work to prepare to reopen after a period of closure. We are entirely sympathetic to the impact that this has had on them. It is no fault of theirs; they have done everything they can to make their businesses, where people are in their businesses, covid secure. Of course, once people leave those premises, other challenges arise. The Prime Minister will set out in greater detail later this morning the response to what we are seeing, in terms of the infection rate.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about penalty notices and fines. I am afraid that I do not have the number of £10,000 fines that have been issued, but between 27 March and 17 August, 18,683 fixed-penalty notices for a variety of infringements of regulations were issued. That, of course, is reflective not just of the number of offences but of the efforts by the police across the country. I know that they see enforcement with a fine as a last resort; they will try in the first instance to educate, engage with people and explain why they should not be doing things and why they should change their behaviour where they are contravening regulations or guidance. I pay tribute—I am doing a lot of this today, but it is right to do so—to the police around the country, who have done amazing work in very difficult circumstances.
Before I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s points about parliamentary scrutiny and the nature of the process that we have followed, he mentioned briefly the testing system in this country. I will say two things on that. First, let us not fail to recognise the significant progress that has been made in getting a testing system up from scratch in the past six months. Per 1,000 of the population we are testing more people than France, Germany, Spain and Italy. In the latest figures I saw, which were possibly about a week and a half out of date, it was about 2.3 per 1,000 of our population, which is double what it is—it is about 1.15, I think—in France, Italy, Spain and similar countries.
It is important that we recognise that a huge amount has been done on testing, but the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight it. Being straight with people is hugely important in the business that we are all in—in public service and in politics. The Prime Minister was right to say that we have made progress, but there is a huge amount still to do and we need to do more to achieve it. That is why I welcomed the new Lighthouse lab, which has just about come onstream, very near me—and very near the hon. Gentleman—in Loughborough, to increase the lab testing and processing capacity, which is where the bottlenecks have been. Further lab capacity will be brought onstream in the coming weeks significantly to ramp up the capacity to process tests and thereby avoid those bottlenecks. He is right to highlight the importance of testing, but we are taking every step that we can to address those challenges within the system.
I recognise the concerns that colleagues across the House have sometimes expressed about the scrutiny of coronavirus regulations and the rules put in place due to the Government’s having to rely on the emergency procedures set out in section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. We have needed to move extremely fast both to tackle outbreaks of disease and to address behaviours that can lead to an increase in infection rates. Equally, as soon as we can safely ease restrictions, given the impact that they have had on individuals and businesses, it is right that we do not wait to do that either.
The arrangement of business in this House, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip, the Leader of the House and their opposite numbers and, indeed, the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman will know that Standing Order 72 prevents us from taking affirmative statutory instruments until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported on them. When regulations have to be debated, those debates take place in the light of reports from the JCSI.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the idea of our sitting day seven days a week if necessary. Although it is always a pleasure to spend time with him, and indeed with all colleagues in the House, I would gently say, as I look at the Government and Opposition Whips, that that is a matter for the usual channels. On a serious note, I am sure that they are continuing to work closely together to find ways in which we can facilitate timely discussion and debate of the regulations.
Each statutory instrument is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in line with the requirements of its parent Act, with the requirement that they are debated in both Houses within 28 days, beginning from the day when the instrument is made, unless during that period the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House. Timely scrutiny is important, and the hon. Gentleman will have heard me recognise that in my recent evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I am not a million miles away from agreeing with the reasons that he cited.
When we are taking very difficult decisions, transparency and scrutiny are hugely important in conferring legitimacy on what we are doing, and in building awareness of them and building the consent that is necessary in this country to ensure that people comply. I take his point and, as he knows, I never shy away from an opportunity to appear before the House or Committees such as this.
The hon. Gentleman rightly touched on the recess. Although I note his comments about the regulations that were made just before recess, the recess period limited our ability to introduce some of the regulations at that time. We are, however, to use his phrase, catching up a bit with the backlog. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash was sitting in the same seat, going through Delegated Legislation Committee procedure. We were debating four sets of regulations, two of which were made in September. The lag between making regulations and debating them is therefore being significantly reduced. I know that she and other colleagues—ministerial and the usual channels—are working hard to try to ensure that we can debate things in a timely fashion.
Alongside that, Ministers continue to provide oral statements and answer urgent questions in the House on the broader themes of what we are doing and how we are approaching the pandemic, and to answer questions in oral questions sessions. I believe that Westminster Hall sittings may be due to resume at some point in the near future, which will provide further opportunity for scrutiny and debate. With that in mind, I am grateful to the shadow Minister and to all colleagues, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 863).
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS) (RESTRICTIONS ON HOLDING OF GATHERINGS AND AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions on Holding of Gatherings and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 907).—(Edward Argar.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020
Edward Argar Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 822).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 898), the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 930) and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 935).
Edward Argar
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. These regulations are on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As you have indicated, I will also deal with three other sets of regulations, all of which relate to the original statutory instrument.
The regulations that we are discussing today, made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, came into force originally on 1 August. At the end of July, the Secretary of State announced that restrictions already in place to tackle the outbreak of coronavirus in Blackburn with Darwen needed to remain in place, and that due to increased transmission of covid-19 in the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area, the restrictions should apply there too.
However, the epidemiological data at that time allowed my right hon. Friend to agree to removing the restrictions previously in place in Luton. Therefore, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Luton) Regulations 2020 were revoked and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 were made in their place. That meant that certain businesses were not allowed to open and gatherings of more than 30 people in private homes or outdoor public spaces were prohibited in those two local authority areas.
These regulations were reviewed regularly, as required, and since then the amending statutory instruments that we are also debating today have been made, coming into force as follows: S.I. 2020/898 on 26 August, S.I. 2020/930 on 2 September and S.I. 2020/935 on 3 September. On Wednesday 26 August, further amendments were made, reflecting a fall in incidence rates in certain parts of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council’s area, justifying the relaxation of restrictions in those wards. Consequently, the regulations were amended to cover only specified wards in the Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council area as well as the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area, allowing those wards where the incidence rate was lower to come back into line with the ongoing national picture and national restrictions.
A similar review took place the following week, and there was evidence that the incidence rate in parts of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area had fallen, so the Secretary of State again decided that it was appropriate to remove certain wards from the regulations. On Wednesday 2 September, the protected area was amended by specifying the remaining wards in Bradford where the restrictions needed to remain in force—those where the incidence rates continued to be unacceptably high. The amendment that came into force the next day, 3 September, corrected an omission, in the previous one, to remove one further ward from the Bradford protected area.
The concern about the outbreaks in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford has been significant, and engagement with local leaders has been extensive, repeated and productive. I place on the record my thanks to the local authorities, local councillors, the local resilience forum, public health officials and the joint biosecurity centre for all their work in relation to the regulations and subsequent reviews. Like many colleagues in the House, I had the privilege of serving for many years as a local councillor before entering the House, and I think it important that we recognise the role that many local councillors and local councils across the country are undertaking at this time, in very difficult circumstances. I recognise that with our thanks.
I emphasise that the decision to take action on each occasion was not driven by numbers alone; it was a scientific judgment about the overall situation. The numbers were as follows: on 1 August, the rate in Blackburn with Darwen was over 70 per 100,000 people; by 26 August, it had fallen to 52 per 100,000 people; and by 2 September, it had fallen again to 48 per 100,000. Similarly, on 1 August the rate in Bradford was around 47 per 100,000, falling back to around 44 per 100,000 by 26 August, and remaining steady in the following week. However, those advising the Secretary of State and local public health officials also took account of the overall situation, including local insight and knowledge, in addition to the raw epidemiological data.
Action had already been taken to protect people living in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford in the weeks before these regulations came into force, such as increases in testing and public health capacity. We also gave additional funding to the upper-tier local authorities involved, enabling them to enhance the various local interventions and to support the measures put in place. It was hoped that those interventions and the work of the local Public Health England teams and other local teams would get the infection rate down without our having to take more drastic action. Regrettably, however, the rate remained unacceptably high, so we needed to impose restrictions to reduce the risk of transmission.
In general, these regulations maintain business closures in the protected areas as they were nationally before the relaxations on 25 July. At that time, the national incidence rate had fallen to a sufficiently low level for it to be agreed that more close-contact businesses and services could reopen. However, as I have already set out, the epidemiological data and understanding of the outbreaks occurring in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford did not support the removal of those restrictions in either place.
Given the urgency of the situation in both locations, we used the emergency procedure in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make the present set of regulations as soon as we could. They give effect to the decisions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In particular, regulation 3 required the following businesses to close, in addition to those required to close by the remaining national restrictions: casinos; indoor skating rinks; indoor swimming pools and water parks; indoor play areas; indoor fitness and dance studios; indoor gyms and sports courts; bowling alleys; and conference centres and exhibition halls. Regulation 4 restricted gatherings to no more than 30 people, whether in private gardens or outdoor public spaces.
These regulations must be reviewed at least every 14 days, to consider the need for the restrictions to continue. Following such reviews, the Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford regulations were amended, as I have already mentioned, on 26 August, and on 2 and 3 September, reducing the remit of the protected area each time so that the restrictions applied only to wards within the Blackburn with Darwen and City of Bradford areas where the incidence rates remained unacceptably high, allowing targeting of the restrictions. Regulations 5 to 9 in the original statutory instrument set out how the provisions will be enforced, making it a criminal offence to breach either the requirement for certain businesses to remain closed or the ban on gatherings of more than 30 people.
As with the national regulations, those who breach the regulations can be issued with fixed penalty notices, with increasing amounts to be paid by repeat offenders or those fined following conviction. To assist everyone living in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford who is or was affected by the regulations, we published guidance on the www.gov.uk website, clarifying what they can and cannot do.
Since these regulations and their amendments have been implemented, the Government have continued to monitor and review the ongoing situation. In fact, the incidence rates in both local authority areas have risen recently across most wards. The incidence rate for the seven days from 2 September to 8 September in Blackburn with Darwen has now risen to over 100 per 100,000 people, and during the same period it also rose to over 100 per 100,000 people in Bradford.
We are debating only these four SIs today, but there have been regular reviews since they were made, considering the position in each local authority’s area. As I say, we remain concerned by the continued high level of the virus across the broader areas covered by the restrictions imposed by these regulations—driven primarily, it appears, by community transmission.
We always knew that the path out of the lockdown would not be entirely smooth. It was always likely, and it was always made clear, that infections would rise in particular areas or workplaces, and that we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to such outbreaks. These restrictions have demonstrated our willingness and ability to take action where we need to. As has been the case throughout the pandemic, the Government have acted with speed in our response, moving rapidly to take the steps and action needed.
I suspect that members of the Committee—especially the hon. Member for Tooting, the shadow Minister—will wish to touch on the process by which the regulations are being scrutinised, and I will be happy to respond in my winding-up speech should she wish to do so.
We will, of course, use the experience of the restrictions in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford to continuously inform and develop our responses to any future local outbreaks. This issue has been raised in previous delegated legislation Committees where similar regulations have been discussed, but we will make public the outcome of these latest and subsequent reviews in due course. I am grateful to all Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process, and for their scrutiny of the regulations. I reiterate my gratitude to not only the local councils, local authorities and public health teams, but to Members representing seats in the area, who, regardless of party, have all behaved throughout with the very best interests of their constituents at heart.
In particular, I want to thank the people of Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford who, after national restrictions, have endured a continued period of very challenging restrictions. I know what it can be like, both as a resident and as a Member of Parliament representing such areas: parts of my constituency outside Leicester were among the first to have local restrictions. I saw then the extraordinary resilience and determination of the people of my city and constituency, just as we are seeing it in those other areas. They endure some very difficult times, and it is right that we recognise their sacrifice in doing the right thing.
Although it is unfortunate that the restrictions cannot be lifted at present, it is thanks to people’s continued efforts that it has not been necessary at this point to impose more localised restrictions, although we have seen changes at a local level in other areas. I would highlight—I am sure I do not need to—the words of the chief scientific advisor and the chief medical officer today, which sound a warning for us all that we have to continue to focus on following the rules to suppress the virus. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Edward Argar
Multiple questions were asked. I will endeavour to answer as many as I can, but where a specific figure was asked for by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tooting, or the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, if I do not have it to hand, I will endeavour to write to them with any further information.
I am grateful, as always in these meetings, for the tone adopted by the shadow Minister: while challenging, it was reasonable and pragmatic. She is quite right to highlight the importance and the focus of all Members on keeping people safe. I particularly highlight the fact that she, in her other work, goes a little bit above and beyond most Members in doing that. I thank her for that. She raised a number of points and I will try to capture them all.
The hon. Lady’s first point was around social isolation: the mental health cost and the cost on people’s lives of the national lockdown restrictions—people have seen the light at the end of the tunnel, but then local restrictions have been imposed. It will not surprise her to know that, while some of my constituents were only caught up in the local lockdown in Leicester and Leicestershire for a few weeks, I still had casework and people writing to me raising exactly that issue.
Support bubbles, while not a solution to everything, have been a big step in helping to combat loneliness for those who are single and very isolated. It is not a panacea for all of those problems, but it was an important step forward. I know the investment the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) is making in this space, and I know that she and the hon. Lady have spoken about that, certainly across the Dispatch Box and I suspect probably in the corridors of this place. My hon. Friend shares the determination of the shadow Minister to make sure that we are able to do everything we can to tackle the mental health cost of the pandemic, and she is right to highlight the impact that that can have on particular groups.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool always makes thoughtful and compassionate contributions in this House and in Committees such as this one. He is right to highlight the impact on people of a lack of visits, often for very good reasons. Before I was a Minister, I was co-chair, with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. People with dementia are another group where you can see the rapid decline that a lack of human contact can bring about. That is something, in terms of mental health, that the Government are fully seized upon, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention takes that incredibly seriously.
The shadow Minister was also right to talk, as I did in my opening remarks, about the sacrifices that people have made throughout, and it is right that we remember all of those and are grateful to everyone for what they have done to protect their fellow citizens. I do not believe that the Department has the statistics that she asked for in respect of those giving birth alone within that particular area, but I will ask that question on her behalf. I know it is something that, again, my hon. Friend the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and others across the House have been raising—quite rightly. The guidance has been updated and clarified. It is important that trusts adhere to that guidance and follow the guidance set out by the Government.
The shadow Minister talked about partnership working, as did the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. They know that I had a background in local government in London before becoming a Member of this House. As such, I am very clear that when we work in partnership with local authorities and local councils, we achieve a far better outcome, because we combine the scale and—for want of a better way of putting it—the clout of national Government with knowledge of individual communities and what works within them. In that way, we get a much better outcome than if we try to pursue one at the exclusion of the other.
The hon. Lady and the shadow Minister asked what the engagement meant in practice with regard to local authorities being consulted and engaged in the making of these regulations and the changes. Although I do not attend meetings of the Joint Biosecurity Centre or the gold meetings that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chairs, the views of local council leaders and local public health leads all feed into his work and form a clear part of his decision making and the consultations that he undertakes. This does not mean he is bound to follow exactly what those people say, but they are consulted, and he takes it very seriously. I know this because I saw it from the other side of the fence, as it were, as a constituency MP in Leicestershire. I think that that is the only sensible way to approach this, and of course, local Members of Parliament also get to feed their views into the regular review periods and review sessions that the Secretary of State undertakes.
I will clarify the figures and write to hon. Members to make sure I have the right ones, but my recollection—it is only a recollection—is that across the four tranches of support for Blackburn and Darwen, for example, about £11 million of Government support has gone to the council. However, I commit to checking that that figure is accurate and writing to hon. Members to confirm it. There is financial support to help councils cope, just as we put in in Leicester, and that support is not only to help them cope with the additional work they have to do and the local public health work, exactly as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said. Forgive me for coming back to my own city, but in Leicester, multiple languages are spoken, and one of the key things was to provide the councils there with funding to put out communications in a variety of languages and forms, to try to address the point that has been raised by all those who have spoken: it is not just about doing this work, but communicating it so that people know what is happening in a way that is accessible and clear to them. In my experience, people want to do the right thing, but it is up to us to make that as clear to them as possible. This is inevitably complex, because the regulations change, the circumstances change, and the scientific advice we receive and act on changes. However, it is incumbent on us to try to make all of those things as clear and intelligible to everyone as possible.
The shadow Minister raised the issue of test and trace. We have made it clear, as has the Prime Minister, that the UK has achieved a significant amount in terms of its testing system over the past six months. Per 1,000 people, we are testing at a higher rate than any large European country, including France, Spain, Italy and Germany. We are testing on average 2.3 people per 1,000; each of those countries is testing about 1.15 or 1 person per 1,000, so we have massively increased our testing capacity. However, it is absolutely right—the Prime Minister was very clear about this—that we are open with the British people about the fact that a lot more needs to be done, and at pace. Although we have scaled up capacity, we need to do more.
The shadow Minister asked what reassurance I could offer to suggest that we are making progress in that area. She will be aware of what the biggest bottleneck is: although demand has significantly increased, this is not about blaming people who are understandably anxious, worried or concerned, and go and get a test. Yes, it is the people who have symptoms who should get tests, but this is not about blaming people who are anxious and worried: it is just a reflection of the fact that demand has gone up significantly. The real bottleneck—the real challenge—is to make sure capacity keeps up with that demand. The lab capacity is the bottleneck that we have seen. A new lighthouse lab came on stream recently in Loughborough, near my own patch, and more are coming on stream on an almost weekly basis to meet significantly increased lab demand, with greater use of automation and machine analysis of the tests in those labs. I suspect that the shadow Minister has a greater sense of what that means in practice than I do as a non-scientist, but we are rapidly expanding lab capacity to meet that need.
Meg Hillier
The Government have committed to increase tests to 500,000 a day by the end of October. Are the Government still on target to deliver that?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, is encouraging me to nail my colours to the mast, and I will. Yes, I believe we are. The Prime Minister has been very clear that there will be 500,000 tests across the pillars by the end of October. That is a very clear target, and it is one that he intends to meet, just as we met the 100,000-tests target. It was very difficult to do that, but we did it, and I am confident that we will meet this target. In this place, it is sometimes easier to set very low targets, because we know we will hit them. That is not the way of the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who wants to set ambitious targets because he knows that if we meet them, we will be delivering what we need.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister is making thorough points, but we are all keen to understand the capacity. Certain numbers are claimed, and perhaps, as he just said, there will be 500,000 at the end of October—we will see—but there is a difference between claimed capacity and real, delivered capacity. As I said in a previous Delegated Legislation Committee, yesterday I went to the testing centre in Coventry, which supplies Coventry and Warwickshire. It is a large facility; I do not know how many facilities there are of an equal size across the UK—perhaps the Minister would confirm that in writing to me in the next couple of days. Given that only 16 tests are done in one hour, over a 10-hour period that is 160 tests. If we factor that up, even if there were 100 testing centres of that size, that is not a huge quantity, compared with the 500,000 the Minister is claiming. Perhaps the Minister can respond in writing; it is unfair to ask him to give an answer now.
Edward Argar
I will respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to get back to him in writing, and I will try to get that number for him.
Matt Western
Related to that, on the capacity in the labs, would the Minister provide the figures that are available for real capacity on the ground, and the lab capacity, which I think probably is the bottleneck?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Regardless of the capacity in car parks or testing centres, there is a limited value to doing multiple tests if they are not processed in the lab in a timely fashion because of the bottleneck of lab capacity. That is possibly why his test centre is seeing fewer people than it would have the physical capacity to process if the lab capacity were not a challenge.
My recollection, which is a couple of weeks out of date, is that the capacity to process the tests was about 165,000 for community testing across all pillars and all types of test—the swab test as well as the antibody test. In that 500,000, there are multiple pillars. The capacity to process tests and the tests done were the same, and were, I think, about 165,000 a few weeks ago. We are using the capacity that we have, but it is constrained in the labs. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that. I will check the exact question that he posed when I see the transcript of this debate, and I will try to give him as direct and detailed answer as I can to exactly what he said.
Edward Argar
Yes.
The final thing that I was going to touch on before concluding was something raised by the shadow Minister. Again, I do not have the stats on a localised level to hand, but if I can get them I will write to her. She raised the fixed-penalty notices and offences within that area. I do not have up-to-date, detailed stats for that exact area, but if I can obtain them, I am of course happy to write to her. I reiterate my gratitude to all Committee members, local councillors, local authorities and the people in the affected areas for their forbearance with the challenging restrictions to protect people.
Meg Hillier
Noting the questions that I asked, does the Minister have any comment to make about the curfew—the 10 o’clock finish for licenced premises? It would be helpful to hear the Government’s view.
Edward Argar
Oh, yes. I mentioned this previously. The challenge is not pubs and hospitality venues, which are all doing a phenomenal job to keep their customers safe and try to ensure that they function as a business. They have had a very tough time, and I pay tribute to them for what they are doing, the measures they have put in place and how diligently they are working. Pubs in my constituency outside the lockdown area, when bits of it were in, went so far as to check, when they signed everyone in, whether the postcode came from within the lockdown area, and if it was they would very politely say, “You shouldn’t be here.” I pay tribute to landlords, restauranteurs and others.
We are anecdotally hearing that if people have been in a pub or out for dinner for two or three hours—how can I put this gently?—their adherence to or recollection of the regulations can lapse after a few drinks. The regulations try to strike a balance that addresses that and reduces the risk of those contacts through groups mingling while allowing those sectors to continue to operate in as a safe way as possible. We are cognisant of the health impact and the economic impact on them if restrictions were to be much tougher, so we are seeking to strike a scientifically advised balance in addressing those issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.822).
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.898)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.898).—(Edward Argar.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.930)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.930).—(Edward Argar.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.935)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.935).—(Edward Argar.)
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Argar Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
In July this year my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced £3 billion of additional funding to help the NHS to address the challenges of winter. In addition, in August this year we set out an £300 million for the enhancement of urgent and emergency care capacity and to provide infection control measures.
Suzanne Webb
I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for the forward-thinking measures to support winter capacity in our hospitals. We should not, however, forget the work of our hospices, which have no seasons and work compassionately all year round. Will my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State join me in visiting one of the jewels in the crown of my constituency—Mary Stevens hospice, which due to covid-19 has had to delay the official opening of its day services unit?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the amazing work of hospices. She is also right to highlight the work of Mary Stevens hospice in her constituency, of which she is a great champion. I very much look forward to taking up her offer to visit.
Andy Carter
I thank the Secretary of State for the investment into Warrington A&E announced recently. An additional £4.3 million will create a treatment plaza and, most importantly, a new paediatric A&E unit for the hospital. This investment is very welcome for the short term, but will the Minister and the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the longer-term issues for our hospital—plans for a better healthcare facility in Warrington South, better parking, and, in the long term, a new hospital?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight the investment we are making in NHS infrastructure, as he did recently in his Warrington Guardian column. He is well known for his energetic campaigning, on behalf of his constituents, for a new hospital. Although such decisions are for the spending review, I would be very happy to meet him.
Tom Hunt
I welcome the extra £1.6 million the Government are investing in Ipswich Hospital’s A&E department ahead of the crucial winter period, but will the Minister build on this work by ensuring that the new plans for a £25 million A&E department at Ipswich Hospital are accelerated? If this were to happen, it would go some way towards alleviating my constituents’ concerns about the merger with Colchester Hospital.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I visited him earlier this year, he made a powerful case for the longer term for a new A&E department at his hospital—a cause that he has been a driving force behind. I know that the trust is keen to progress this, and I would hope and expect that it is engaging with him. Although the spending review will see the Chancellor’s final decision on spending on this, my hon. Friend’s voice is being heard loud and clear.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The capacity of Barnet Hospital to cope with winter pressure is being assisted by a brand-new modular ward with 35 beds. Can the Minister assure me that there will be continued investment in expanding NHS services in Barnet so that it can cope with any covid pressures this winter and also help to clear the backlog of people who have been waiting for treatment for other conditions?
Edward Argar
As my right hon. Friend highlights, the new modular 35-bed ward at Barnet Hospital will add to its capacity to cope with winter pressures. More broadly, we have invested £2.5 million in Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, of which Barnet is part. She is of course right to make the case for continued investment in longer term, with her typical effectiveness and commitment to her constituency, and I am always happy to discuss that further with her.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He and I have had the opportunity in the past to discuss his hospital trust and I pay tribute to its work. I am conscious that his trust has faced financial challenges, running a £57 million deficit a year ago. That has now been halved, meeting the financial control total. I also understand that income levels at his trust increased by 22% from 2015-16 to last year.
Martin Vickers
I thank the Minister for replying and also for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) before the recess. May I emphasise the importance of the Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital in Grimsby that serves my constituency as well? It needs £150 million to £200 million of major infrastructure work to avoid infrastructure failure. I urge him to consider that and bear in mind the pressures on the trust as he considers the additional resources?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend quite rightly raises the Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital in Grimsby. He has raised it with me before, and I give him that commitment.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
As the hon. Lady knows, the negotiations with the EU on our future relationship with it following the end of the transition period are ongoing. This Government are delivering on their pledge to respect democracy and the referendum result, with the UK engaging continuously and constructively in the negotiations. We must await the outcome of those negotiations, in which health-related aspects are very important, rather than prejudging what will emerge from them.
Kirsten Oswald
In just four months’ time, new customs bureaucracy will lead to increased drug costs for the NHS, including for insulin, which the UK does not produce. Pharmaceutical and medical supply firms report that they are struggling to rebuild last year’s stockpiles because of global shortages due to covid. How does the Minister plan to ensure that patients will not face shortages next year?
Edward Argar
The Department is putting in place a multi-layered approach to help to ensure continuity of supply of medicines and medical products in any case that might fall out of the negotiations and the end of the transition period. We are confident that we will maintain continuity of supply.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Immigration Health Surcharge Exemption: Update
Edward Argar Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Following announcements by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), earlier this week, I would like to further update the House on progress made by the Department of Health and Social Care towards implementing the immigration health surcharge exemption for health and social care staff, as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2020.
The Prime Minister’s announcement demonstrated our continued commitment to supporting our health and social care workforce and their families, not least because of the support they have provided to all of us throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
Our election manifesto included the commitment to introduce an NHS visa. As set out by the Home Secretary, next month, we will launch a health and care visa, following the fees regulations that were laid yesterday. This will make it cheaper, quicker and easier for the best health and care professionals to come and work in the UK. The launch of this new visa will also mean that for the very first time, overseas health and care staff on this visa will not need to pay the immigration health surcharge upfront, either for themselves or their dependents.
I am, however, conscious that this visa does not exempt everyone in the health and care sector who has paid the immigration health surcharge, such as the thousands of overseas staff working as direct care workers in social care, or as cleaners, porters or healthcare assistants throughout the NHS. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to reiterate what the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care confirmed in the House yesterday: that all employees working in the health and care sector that have paid the immigration health surcharge on or after the 31 March 2020 will be eligible for a reimbursement of what they have paid since that date, including those vital staffoutlined above.
This reimbursement will be paid in arrears of six-month increments. This ensures we only reimburse those workers and their families who have worked in the sector for an appropriate period of time. This will also provide an incentive to continue working in the health and care sector. I can confirm that this scheme will be launched by 1 October 2020. This is the earliest date that eligible workers and their families would be able to claim a reimbursement. My officials continue to work with colleagues across Government, the devolved Administrations, representative bodies and the health and care sector to ensure those who are eligible for reimbursement are accounted for within the scheme, and my Department will publish further details of the scheme in due course.
These are significant steps in ensuring that our health and social care workforce and their families are themselves cared for, after they have cared for and supported so many of us in incredible circumstances.
My Department will make further announcements to update the House on the progress of the immigration health surcharge exemption and the reimbursement scheme, and relevant documents will be published on www.gov.uk in advance of the reimbursement scheme launching in October.
[HCWS372]
Ipswich Hospital: Orthopaedic Services
Edward Argar Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for securing a debate on the important topic of orthopaedic services at Ipswich Hospital. His commitment to his constituency is commendable and well known. He raised this issue with me when we met very recently, and in his recent letter. I pay tribute to the persistence that he has shown in ensuring that his constituents’ voices are heard on this topic, as on all others.
If I recall correctly, when my hon. Friend last spoke in the House on this matter and I responded, he secured my commitment to visit, which I had the pleasure of doing, with him, in February, and it was a visit that I greatly enjoyed. He is undoubtedly a strong voice for his constituents. Of course, when circumstances allow it, I will be very happy to visit Ipswich once again. I also had the opportunity, that same day, to visit Colchester with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who is a similarly strong voice for the interests of his constituents, his local hospital and the needs of his county, and I pay tribute to him.
James Cartlidge
Many of my constituents use both Ipswich Hospital and Colchester Hospital, and I pay tribute to their staff for the incredible effort they have put in throughout the pandemic to look after my constituents, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, to ensure that we get through this keeping our NHS intact. We should be proud of that.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whom I have known for many years. As ever, he puts his finger on exactly the right point. I join with him in paying tribute to all the staff at Ipswich Hospital, Colchester Hospital and across our NHS for the amazing work they do day in, day out, particularly at this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich set out his case very clearly. I would say that his hospital has no greater friend than him. I reassure him that there is no question of Ipswich Hospital continuing to be anything other than the first-class hospital it is today. He highlighted in outline a little of the background on this issue. In 2015, Suffolk and North East Essex sustainability and transformation partnership concluded that change in the organisation of services was needed, particularly in orthopaedic planned surgery. Since then, East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust has been developing a proposal for an orthopaedic elective surgery centre. As he touched on, the proposal outlines that the centre would see a roughly £35 million investment in orthopaedic surgery services for the population, offering at least 48 new beds and up to six state-of-the-art ultra-clean operating theatres, providing additional capacity for emergency patients across the area. The NHS in Suffolk and Essex ran a consultation, between 11 February and 1 April 2020, on the specifics of the proposal to create an elective orthopaedic care centre in Colchester, but, as I have set out, those plans have been in genesis for many years and have been extensively and widely consulted on.
I note the points raised by my hon. Friend in his speech and, indeed, those raised in his letter to the chief officer of Ipswich and East Suffolk clinical commissioning group recently. I encourage the clinical commissioning group to take that letter seriously and to respond fully to my hon. Friend, as part of the local accountability which is so important to all our public services. Let me be clear—I will emphasise this again later—that this is a process and a proposal that is rightly driven by the NHS at a local level in his and my hon. Friends’ constituencies. He is right to commend the performance of Ipswich hospital over recent years. I appreciate that he wants to ensure that for his constituents, and, indeed, for all those who use the hospital, the reconfiguration does not in any way diminish the achievement of his hospital and its staff, or have any impact on its other services.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that in winter the number of emergency admissions is much higher than it is during the summer. One aspect of this consultation is that it seeks to address planning for that by enabling more beds across the hospitals to be used to meet that demand. I would not seek, and nor should I seek, to prejudge the decision that will be reached next week by the CCG on this matter—it is rightly its decision—but I will set out its rationale in putting the proposals forward. It states that, in practice, if the orthopaedic centre were built at Colchester, it would release 24 in-patient beds at Ipswich, where they are indeed needed. The new orthopaedic centre would be adjacent to the main Colchester Hospital, but away from the emergency department.
I greatly appreciate the insight my hon. Friend has shared from his constituents in Ipswich, who are thankful for the brilliant surgeries they have been able to access in the NHS. Indeed, that was something he highlighted again when I went to wonderful Ipswich with him. When the CCG considers this matter, I would of course expect it very carefully and respectfully to reflect on the points that he and his constituents have made. The proposals reflect the importance of the surgeries. I hope he and his constituents will welcome the fact that the proposals will not remove access to orthopaedic services at Ipswich Hospital. Of nearly 46,000 in-patient day cases and out-patient appointments completed for orthopaedic patients at Ipswich last year, only about 3% would move to the new centre at Colchester under what the trust is proposing. In its proposal, the trust sets out that day surgery, including shoulder and elbow joint replacements, would remain at Ipswich Hospital, as would services for emergency patients, such as joint replacement after a hip fracture.
As I just mentioned, my hon. Friend described the life-changing impact such surgeries have had on constituents who have been treated at his hospital. This proposal, as the trust sets out, seeks to achieve shorter waiting times for surgery and shorter stays in hospital, so that patients can seek the comfort of home more quickly, and to minimise the risk of cancellation of surgery, as the proposed centre will be built safely away from the emergency department and the knock-on impacts that a busy emergency department can have. It also seeks to achieve improved clinical outcomes in terms of reliability from the standardisation of care and provide training, education and research opportunities for clinicians. The trust maintains that it is on that clinical basis that it is putting forward the proposals, which, it states, seek to support the excellent performance of hospitals in the area by organising services in a sensible way so that necessary elective operations can take place while the system supports patients admitted in an emergency.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the merger of Ipswich and Colchester in June 2018. At the time, NHS England outlined several service improvements that the merger would bring about. As well as improvements in various services from paediatrics to emergency ambulatory care, the enlarged organisation would also have an expanded catchment area, leading to improved opportunities for training, providing a more attractive option for clinicians, resolving a number of historical recruitment and retention issues at both trusts and improving finances. It is important, however, as my hon. Friend alluded to, that the trust is held to account for those promises and that it ensures, by the merger, that both hospitals continue to improve.
I briefly touched on the consultation earlier in my remarks, and my hon. Friend raised several points about the process. He is absolutely right to say that important decisions are made with the best interests of patients from across the area in mind, and that the views of local clinicians should not be diminished. There has been much lengthy consultation. As well as the formal process, my hon. Friend highlights the petition, which has been signed by many of his constituents and, I suspect, more widely. It is absolutely right that everyone has their say, and I commend him for what he is doing to ensure that they have their say. Again, such views should be considered with respect and care when decisions are reached.
My hon. Friend also rightly raised the issue of patients and transport, and that they must be supported to travel should the plans go ahead. He has raised the need for a comprehensive plan, both locally and with Ministers, to ensure that all patients can be supported to access the right care. Access to the current patient transport scheme will, the trust states, be available for those unable to make the journey themselves. Under the proposals, pre-surgery and post-surgery appointments would still take place at the patient’s normal point of care at Ipswich or Colchester. Indeed, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for fighting his constituents’ corner, should the decision not turn out the way he wishes, and for playing an important part in highlighting that issue as well. The only change for patients would be the actual site travelled to for the planned surgical procedure, which would involve a lengthy stay of three days in hospital. I have also been reassured that local partners completely recognise that, alongside these provisions, additional support will be needed for some patients and, should the proposal be approved, further work is already under way to address that.
Being conscious of the time, I reassure my hon. Friend that the Department of Health and Social Care recognises how important these decisions are and recognises that the right accountability, consultations and people must be included in the process of discussing proposals to change services. This is, of course, not a decision for me or, indeed, for the Secretary of State. The next step, as my hon. Friend said, is the final decision, which will be made locally by the CCG on 14 July, but the proposal is not to downgrade or diminish Ipswich, but to promote an alternative way of delivering clinical services. I have no doubt that the CCG will have heard my hon. Friend’s case today, as will his constituents, in whose interests he has spoken so eloquently. I again encourage the CCG to ensure that it carefully considers his words and the representations in making its decision.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend and congratulate him on securing this debate. I also thank those other Members who have intervened. My hon. Friend has set out his case powerfully and his constituents are lucky to have him as their Member of Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Argar Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
The most recent performance data published by NHS England for April 2020 shows an 8% reduction in the size of the waiting lists compared with April 2019, from 4,297,571 to 3,942,748. However, it is important to note that reduced referrals due to covid-19 are likely to be the cause of that, and there are a number of people waiting longer.
Ruth Cadbury [V]
To address the inevitable increase in waiting times for non-covid treatments, back in March the Government contracted private health providers to supply some 8,000 bed spaces at a cost of millions of pounds to the NHS and taxpayers. It was reported that a significant proportion of that capacity has been paid for but underused. The Government are now considering further contracts with private sector hospitals. How can we be confident that money will not be wasted again and that those waiting will get the treatment they so badly need?
Edward Argar
I gently say to the hon. Lady that I do not think that contracting to ensure sufficient capacity in our NHS at all times, so that it was never overwhelmed, which it has not been, was a waste of money. In response to her substantive point, we continue to work with the independent sector and the broader NHS to get elective surgery and other non-emergency procedures restarted at pace.