Health and Care Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Three Members are standing and I want to get you all in, so we will have a four-minute time limit.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Obviously, abortion is a deeply emotional issue and we probably all know where we stand, but this is not a debate about abortion. At-home abortions were brought in as a purely temporary measure to defend women’s health. It was always the understanding that the measure would continue just as long as the pandemic continued.

There are many different arguments about this issue. I could go through the statistics that have been given to me that some people might deny, but it is undoubtedly the case that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill at home provided by the NHS in 2020 needed hospital treatment. There is therefore an issue around safety and women’s health and we need a proper debate. This amendment was brought in in the House of Lords at night-time. Barely a seventh of the Members of the House of Lords actually took part in the Division. We need a proper, evidenced debate on this issue. There is nothing more important when a human life is at risk.

Of course, we all support telemedicine; I chaired a meeting yesterday on atopic eczema and we are making wonderful steps, but as important as curing atopic eczema is, it is nowhere near as important as a situation where a life is at stake. I know that there are different views about coercion, but surely the whole point of the Abortion Act, for those who supported it, was to get abortions into a safe medical location and to get them away from the backstreets. People surely did not want them to be done at home, where there is risk. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) spoke about the case of the 16-year-old girl who delivered a foetus who, apparently, was 20 weeks old. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for Children welcomes the Government’s stance, and why children and young people will be provided with protections.

I urge hon. Members, whatever their view, to think, to consider the evidence and not to rush in. The amendment goes completely against the whole spirit of the Abortion Act. Whatever we think of that Act, the amendment would be a huge new step that I believe would put more women’s health at risk and possibly lead to coercion—we need more evidence on that. I therefore support what the Government are doing today.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I rather think that men should enter the debate on abortion with a degree of trepidation and humility. In that spirit, I will make three simple points.

First, it strikes me as absolutely right that parliamentarians in this place and in the other place should seek to use every vehicle before them to enact the improvements in our constituents’ lives that we all want. It is right and fair to say that the measures were temporary and were brought in only for a certain purpose, but it cannot be right to say that now that we have done that extraordinary experiment, seen how many women have benefited from the change in telemedicine and got the data, we cannot let the vehicle of the Bill pass us by without trying to make this improvement.

Secondly, the reason that all the expert bodies—including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Women’s Aid and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, where I have to declare that my wife works—support this approach is that they have seen the evidence. They look at that evidence as organisations that have the safeguarding of their patients absolutely at the heart of every single thing they do. They have looked at what we have done and the evidence we have gathered, and they say it is right to continue with the measures brought in for the pandemic. That is why Wales and Scotland have continued them.

We have to trust the evidence; we have to trust the science. We have to understand that we are in the position that we are in as a result of the covid vaccine programme because we trusted the science. Today, we have an opportunity to trust the science yet again. That seems to me an incredibly powerful argument.

We are not making telemedicine compulsory; we are making it a choice. Yes, we are putting a huge burden on doctors to say that the person on the other side of the screen is not someone who should have pills by post, so to speak. We are saying that they should make that calculated judgment. We ask the professionals, be they in charities or in hospitals, to make those judgments every day. We do so because they are the experts.

I say simply to hon. Members that there are issues on which we profoundly disagree—of course there are; these are fundamentally ethical issues—but if we are in favour of abortion, we should be in favour of the choice that is provided by the very safest options. We can see today from the evidence of the past couple of years that it is safer for women who are at their most vulnerable to have the option that we are talking about today. It is not compulsory; it is an option. For me, supporting that today is the definition of being pro-choice.

Elective Treatment

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady, like other hon. Members, is absolutely right to raise the importance of workforce. To deliver on this plan, of course we need to do so much more to keep increasing the workforce and make sure all the skills we need are there. Just last week, I believe, the NHS published that it has more doctors, nurses and clinicians than ever before; 40,000 people have joined the NHS over the last two years, including many more doctors and nurses. Also, as I mentioned, I have asked the NHS, with HEE, which will become part of the NHS, to come up with a long-term plan. We look forward to that plan and will invest in it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

People of a certain age, of whom, unfortunately, I am one, are terrified because they think that if something goes wrong, they might have to wait in pain for two years. We cannot wait until March 2024 to join the back of a slightly shorter queue. Then we see our friends who have private health insurance—I am not one of them; we cannot afford it—being seen within days. May I suggest a policy that would be wildly popular with many of our own supporters, which every Conservative Government until 1997 followed, which is to give tax relief to private health insurance? Why not look at every innovative solution that unleashes new money? Before the Secretary of State says that that is a matter for the Chancellor, will he at least put it at the back of his mind, so that when he next talks to the Chancellor they will at least discuss it?

[Sajid Javid]

I am always pleased to talk with my right hon. Friend about his ideas and suggestions, and I am happy to meet him to discuss this further, but I am sure he agrees with me on the importance of making sure that we invest in the NHS and the workforce so that they can deal with as many people as possible.

Skin Conditions and Mental Health

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered skin conditions and mental health.

I want to start my speech by making a point that I will make at the very end: mind and skin are linked, and we have to take action on both if we are to break the vicious cycle of psychological harm. I suppose, really, I should declare an interest right at the beginning of this debate. It is not a financial interest but a personal interest: I have rosacea, which makes one’s face red and can ultimately deform it, and I take antibiotics every day. There are many more serious conditions—I do not make a great thing of it—but only today, in relation to something else I said on a completely different subject in the House of Commons, I have already received one email accusing me of being a red gammon head and a ruddy-faced buffoon.

I take it very lightly, because I know I am already old and ugly, but for young people this kind of personal abuse about their appearance is deeply upsetting and drives many people into deep psychological harm, because mental health and physical health are intrinsically linked. Knowledge of this link has driven recent advances in NHS service delivery and underpins much of the thinking in the long-term plan. Although that has led to the development of trailblazing and new services for many people with long-term conditions, for some reason people living with skin conditions continue to have dire access to psychological services. Indeed, in 2020 the all-party parliamentary group on skin, which I chair, published a report on the mental health issues faced by people living with skin conditions. It demonstrated that the psychological impact can be severe, in terms of the effect on people’s work, education and healthcare use. We should all worry about this, as 60% of us live with some form of skin condition.

Since the publication of the report, the developing impact of the covid pandemic has inevitably made a bad situation worse. One of my colleagues—who might speak in the debate—said that he was told by his GP only recently that he might have to wait a year for an appointment about a skin condition. With many patients with inflammatory skin diseases now experiencing a 12-month wait for a first appointment with a dermatologist, the stress and anxiety experienced by many individuals has risen significantly. I therefore want to spend this debate outlining the need for commissioners and health leaders to rethink how the NHS provides psychological care for people living with a skin condition.

The APPG’s report on the mental health associated with skin conditions is available on the group’s web pages. The report was based in part on a survey conducted by dermatologists and psychologists of 500 skin patients, with evidence also collected from 100 clinicians and 16 dermatology-related charities. The report was led by experts from the British Association of Dermatologists. The survey part of the report found that 98% of skin disease patients felt that their condition affected their emotional and psychological wellbeing; yet astonishingly, all the patient representative and professional organisations providing evidence stated that the NHS mental health provision for skin was “poor” or “very poor”. In addition, over half the patients surveyed did not even realise that they could ask for help with managing the mental health impact of their skin disease. That clearly demonstrates just how under-resourced services are in this part of the NHS.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to some other worrying findings that our research for the report highlighted: 93% of patients surveyed said that their skin condition had a negative impact on their self-esteem; 83% said their skin condition negatively impacted on their sleep; 73% said their skin condition negatively impacted on their intimate relationships; and 5% said that they had contemplated suicide. Sadly, I have been informed by healthcare professionals working in our NHS dermatology services that patients living with skin conditions are at increased risk of self-harm, as we well know, and that a number of them, sadly, go on to take their own lives.

There is also a great economic impact, with the double whammy of skin disease and the psychological burden associated with it. Some patients surveyed said that their skin disease had been so distressing that they had felt they had to give up their job. Let me read a brief excerpt from a quote in the report:

“When I turned 19 it [the eczema] became so bad that I couldn’t participate in normal life anymore due to the pain…I had to give up my job as I am always too unwell.”

Of course, our skin is implicated in everything we do and it is often not understood that skin conditions affect not just the individual living with them but their wider family. As for the impact on intimate relationships, let me read out another quote from the report:

“My skin is often too painful to have intimate relations with or to even to hug or kiss my partner. I had to postpone my wedding as I can’t cope with the idea of a flare up on my wedding day.”

Recent research and evidence suggests that parenting a child with a chronic skin condition can trigger parental stress, and the all-party group’s survey also included responses from some children. Every one of the children surveyed indicated that their skin condition had negatively affected their mental wellbeing, with the vast majority reporting that it had impacted on their performance at school. One of the children is quoted in the report as saying:

“I was so depressed. I felt like I was rotting away inside an alien growth on my face. I didn’t wanna exist like that. I wanted to chop my own head off.”

All this emotional turmoil was experienced by a child living with cystic acne. Clearly, if we do not support such children, the distress that they experience in relation to their condition may have a long-term impact on their future wellbeing.

There are some good services out there. The report highlighted a few trailblazers, such as the specialist IAPT —improving access to psychological therapies—service in Sheffield and the well-established psycho-dermatology services in some London hospitals. Psychological interventions are also being tested, and approaches involving cognitive behavioural therapy, merged with mindfulness and self-compassion, are showing great promise.

Nevertheless, our report demonstrates that there is very much a postcode lottery, with many hospital dermatology services not having access to psychological services or clear pathways to refer people at risk to the support they need. Alarmingly, less than 5% of dermatology clinics across the UK are providing any level of specialist mental health support for children and young people. And believe it or not, but in Wales there are no dedicated psychological clinics, and there are certainly none in Lincolnshire. Only a very small minority of trusts have such clinics.

This is a ludicrous situation. Research shows that psychodermatology clinics are more cost-effective to run, compared with managing skin patients with psychological distress in more generalist healthcare settings. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider how funding is allocated and spent in this area. Covid has made things worse for dermatology patients, with poorer access to face-to-face consultations further preventing assessment and identification of mental health issues.

It is not just our report that stresses the need to embed in dermatology services psychological screening and access to psychological intervention. That is also a feature of most of the recent treatment guidelines that have emerged from reviews of the academic literature and consultation with experts. For example, the recent guidelines of the British Association of Dermatologists on the treatment of the depigmenting skin condition vitiligo make it clear that access to psychological support should be available.

Furthermore, while some conditions might be primarily psychological in nature, they pretty much always present in dermatology services. For instance, skin-specific delusional conditions and medically unexplained itch disorders can be devastating, and without clear access to psychological services, such patients can be put at considerable risk of having their underlying condition go untreated. Again, recent British Association of Dermatology guidelines in this area of practice make it clear that services need to be developed to meet the needs of this specific group of patients. However, investment has not been forthcoming.

As I draw to the end of this speech, let me share another disappointing fact with the House. The all-party parliamentary group has looked into the mental health of skin patients and service provision on two prior occasions, in 2003 and 2013. Our most recent report shows that, despite a general recognition of the need for better care in this area—and leaving aside the more recent impact of the pandemic—most of the recommendations of the previous reports have, I am afraid, not been acted on by Government. That seems to ne to be an indictment of those responsible for the planning and commissioning of these essential services.

What should we do? We can start by building parity of esteem between dermatology services and other long-term conditions, both in access to specialist dermatologist care—which would of itself reduce the psychological impact—and in access to psychological services.

In order to achieve that, our report makes a number of recommendations. All NHS dermatology units must have regional access to psychodermatology services, with clear pathways for patients to be referred to for appropriate psychological intervention or support. There must be a stepped care pathway that starts with good quality screening and enables patients to speedily access the most economic and effective psychological services that they require and deserve. This is already in place for many other long-term health conditions, such as diabetes, but not for skin conditions. This cannot remain the case; it is simply not good enough.

To achieve that, we need to increase staffing in dermatology services and improve the dermatology and psychological training of all NHS staff who have regular contact with patients with skin conditions. That includes training for trainees, primary care clinicians and secondary care specialists.

Research funding for psychodermatology should be prioritised. It should focus on the development, evaluation and implementation of a range of psychological and educational interventions for patients with skin conditions. The inclusion of patient support organisations in service development is critical to amplify the patient voice and to ensure that patients have clear access to some of the excellent services available in the community. NHS mental health funding provided to local commissioners must urgently be used to invest in and improve mental health services.

In conclusion, I commend our report on mental health and skin disease, which demonstrates the alarming lack of psychological support available to people living with a skin condition. It provides national policy makers, commissioners and local service providers with an expert consensus on how mental health support for people with a skin condition should be structured in a range of clinical settings. This can be delivered cost-effectively.

The report also outlines the urgent clinical need for healthcare professionals to be equipped with the necessary skills and resources to provide the holistic care that patients need. This must include patient assessments and care that treats the mind and skin together; otherwise, we will not break the vicious cycle whereby problems create psychological problems that in turn exacerbate the skin condition. We ultimately hope that through the publication of this report and debate, the need for action will be made clear to policy makers and service commissioners working in Government and the NHS. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Covid-19: Forecasting and Modelling

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. To get everybody in, I will now have to ask for a five-minute limit for speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Bob, will you calm down, please? Will everybody calm down?

[Bob Seely]

I do not appreciate being called “far right”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I want no more shouting; we are wasting time.

[Brendan O'Hara]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has twice called me a fool. Can you clarify whether that is parliamentary language?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

It is much easier as Chairman not to hear a lot of what goes on here. I am sure that nobody is foolish. [Interruption.] I respect the hon. Gentleman; all I know is that he is not a fool. I call Fleur Anderson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I will give way—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I think we need to move on.

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree, Sir Edward. Labour invested in pandemic planning in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, but the Tory Government did not continue that investment. Operation Winter Willow in 2007 involved 5,000 people from all walks of life simulating a pandemic. The need for PPE, PPE training and wide-ranging social and economic disruption was identified. The Labour Government, then led by Gordon Brown, made heavy investments in pandemic planning.

Cut to 2016, Operation Cygnus made 26 key recommendations about PPE, urgent and drastic improvements to the NHS, and the likely impact on care homes. Most of that was ignored. PPE training stopped, stocks were run down—much of it left to go out of date—and there were no gowns, visors, swabs or body bags at all. The UK pandemic plan was mothballed and we were unready for the pandemic. No wonder we had to rely so much on modelling and forecasting.

We could have been much more ready. The Cabinet Office should have stepped up to enable cross-departmental organisation, and organisation with the devolved authorities based on plans, informed by the results of exercises and earlier modelling, but it did not. I hope that the Minister will echo that, distance herself from some of the earlier comments and criticism of our scientific community and respond to the points about pandemic planning and what we can learn.

Finally, I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) has asked for an inquiry into modelling. I welcome the inclusion of that in the covid inquiry. I hope that the Government will launch that inquiry. They have appointed a chair, but that chair is waiting for the powers she needs to begin getting evidence from scientists, software engineers and everyone she needs to hear from.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Will the Minister allow a short time for closing remarks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maggie Throup]

I appreciate the point my hon. Friend is making, and I will come to a point that shows that models are just models; they are not predictions. Yes, they are sometimes proved wrong, but that is for different reasons. It could be that people change their behaviour as a result of the information that they get.

One example that I was about to come on to is a model in December that considered a range of assumptions for omicron’s intrinsic severity, ranging from between 10% and 100% of delta’s, in addition to the additional reductions in severity that vaccines and prior infection provide. Fortunately, we now know that severity is not at the upper end of this range, and models have been updated to reflect the evidence as it emerges. It is quite right that as new evidence emerges, models are adjusted to take that into consideration.

My hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) raised concerns about the Government’s reliance on modelling advice, both more generally and from individual modelling groups. I want to reassure hon. Members that encouraging a diverse range of opinions, views and interpretations of the data is all part of the process. SPI-M-O and SAGE do not rely on just one model or group but look at advice from a number of independent and world-leading institutions. Robust scientific challenge has been vital to the quality of SAGE advice, with modelling papers regularly released online and the methodology and underlying assumptions clearly laid out for everyone to challenge and bring forward other evidence—it is all out in the open. Sir Patrick Vallance has said:

“No scientist would ever claim, in this fast-changing and unpredictable pandemic, to have a monopoly of wisdom on what happens next.”

As the chief medical officer has emphasised, hard data on what is actually happening to patients and to the population as a whole is an essential part of the advice given.

Modelling is a helpful tool, but it must be considered alongside what is happening to real people at home, in schools or in hospital beds. As SAGE has been so visible and transparent in its advice, some people may think that it is the only form of advice to the Government, but this is not the case. Modelling and other advice from SAGE has been invaluable during the Government’s response to covid-19, but it is only one of the many issues we consider. Modelling helps us to understand the possible risks from the spread of covid-19 but, ultimately, this needs to be balanced against other health, economic and societal impacts.

A number of hon. Members questioned the accuracy of modelling forecasts from SAGE. I would like to reiterate that such modelling outputs are scenarios, not predictions and forecasts. As such, comparisons between past scenarios and what happened in reality should be made with caution. Comparisons must be made on a like-for-like basis, and often they are not.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Can you leave a minute at the end, Minister?

[Maggie Throup]

Yes, I will.

To be frank, what we are doing in many cases is comparing apples and pears. Nevertheless, past modelling has proved remarkably accurate in many cases.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) said that lessons must be learned, and lessons will be learned. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) mentioned that as well.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise just how appreciative we should be, and are, to the scientists, academics and Government advisers for all their hard work over the last two years. It was fitting to see this rewarded in the new year’s honours list. Finally, I would like to thank hon. Members again for their participation in today’s debate and the opportunity to discuss the matter further.

Vaccination Strategy

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup]

I also pay tribute to the staff at St Thomas’ Hospital. I visited the vaccination centre there and was really impressed by the way it is set up, with the paediatric side as well, and by all the volunteers who were there making sure that everyone felt comfortable about going forward. Some of the people there had thought for quite some time about taking the plunge and getting their first dose, so I thank the staff for their work.

The hon. Lady makes a good point when she says that we are not safe until everyone is safe. I reiterate our commitment to COVAX, not just through donating vaccines but financially as well. Just over a year ago, the first AstraZeneca vaccine jab in the world was given to a gentleman in Nottinghamshire. As a result of our collaboration with Oxford University and AstraZeneca, those jabs continue to be delivered at cost throughout the world. That is a really good outcome of the Government’s investment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Given its success, I believe we should now place our faith in the vaccination strategy and not in further controls. When I voted against plan B before Christmas, I said that more and more regulation creates more and more hypocrisy. Despite what is going on in Russia and the cost of living, we spent most of Prime Minister’s questions debating the fact that the Prime Minister wandered out of his house, where he lives and works, and had a drink with colleagues. The truth is that the Government should learn a lesson from this. We must sweep away every last vestige of telling people how to live their lives. We have had enough of it. The British people have had enough of it. These controls are actually making things worse—for example, forcing staff to isolate and putting our NHS at risk—so please, let us free the people.

[Maggie Throup]

I reassure my right hon. Friend that we will not have the restrictions in place for a day longer than necessary. He is aware that the current plan B restrictions will be reviewed on 26 January.

Covid-19 Update

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

First, I agree with the objection I think the hon. Lady had to vaccine passports as a requirement for people to be vaccinated to enter a high-risk venue. It is important that we focus on a test requirement with an exemption if one happens to have the right level of vaccination. On her question about mandatory NHS vaccination, however, I am afraid I have to tell her we will not pause what we have already announced, not least because—this is the view of the NHS leadership as well—omicron has made it even more urgent that we continue with it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Four weeks ago, I raised the matter of a family member who is aged 90, completely bed-bound, vulnerable and at home, and had still had no booster jab. I was promised action, but nothing has happened and he is still waiting. I understand that there are potentially hundreds of thousands of very old, very vulnerable people trapped in their own home still waiting for a booster jab, with carers coming in and out all day, yet we are now offering booster jabs to 18-year-olds who have virtually no chance of falling seriously ill. This is an absurd situation caused by massive delays, bureaucracy and the ridiculous rule that a doctor has to come and a nurse has to wait 20 minutes with the old person, despite a minuscule risk of harm. We need action this day. These people are in danger of dying. Will the Secretary of State now act on behalf of very old people trapped in their own home?

[Sajid Javid]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. Those who are in care homes or homebound have been prioritised. For example, I can tell him that I believe that, as of the end of November, 97% of care homes had been visited by GPs or other primary care teams to deliver vaccinations. In cases where they could visit, that was because the care home itself had a lockdown. They will all be revisited again and again. My right hon. Friend asks specifically about people who are homebound. The same approach is being taken. We will absolutely ensure that every single one of those people—as he rightly says, they are more vulnerable than others—get a visit and get their booster jab.

Health and Care Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I would like to speak to new clause 31 in my name, which would reduce the upper gestational limit for abortion in most cases to 22 weeks gestation. This time limit amendment would replace the current 24-week time limit for abortions on the ground where there is a greater risk of injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman or any of her children of proceeding with the pregnancy, under section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967. The current 24-week limit law is based on an outdated understanding of the viability of premature babies, and it needs to be updated.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Is it not absurd that in one ward of a hospital doctors can be fighting to save the life of a 22-week gestation baby while arguably, under the law, a 24-week baby can be aborted? That is ridiculous, and whatever anyone’s views on abortion, this is now the time to review this law, which is based on outdated technology and medical practices.

[Fiona Bruce]

My right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point.

Our law needs to be updated. The current 24-week limit was set over 30 years ago, in 1990. That legislation removed the previous time limit of 28 weeks. In 1990, 24 weeks was considered the point of viability outside the womb, but the scientific advances in those 31 years have been enormous. The latest guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine establishes 22 weeks gestation to be the point of viability and enables doctors to intervene to save premature babies from 22 weeks. A study from a neonatal intensive care unit in London found that survival rates for babies born at 22 and 23 weeks gestation went from zero in the period from 1981 to 1985 to 19% in the period from 1986 to 1990, and then up to 54% in the years from 1996 to 2000. We would no doubt find that the figures had increased substantially since then, were those figures available. Just in the past few weeks, we have seen the incredible story from the American state of Alabama of the birth of a baby boy at just 21 weeks old. Weighing just 14.8 ounces, Curtis Means needs oxygen support and a feeding tube, but he is in good health. New clause 31 is a probing amendment, so I will not be pressing it to a vote on this occasion. However, I would welcome the Minister’s views and I look forward to a greater debate on this issue.

I also want to take a few moments to give my support to new clause 51, in the name of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), which would clarify that abortion on the ground of the sex of the foetus is illegal. This relates to the truly awful exploitative practice whereby women can be pressurised into abortions based on the sex of their unborn child. I also support new clause 52, also in the name of the hon. Member for Upper Bann, which seeks to bring parity to the law in equalising time limits on abortions that take place on the ground of disability, so that they would be equal to the limits on most other abortions. The current law permits abortions up to birth if the baby is deemed likely to be born seriously handicapped. This is interpreted to include entirely non-fatal disabilities such as Down’s syndrome and easily surgically rectifiable conditions such as cleft palate and club foot. One of my sons was born with club foot, and I know how rectifiable it is. The law is plainly inconsistent with the disability discrimination legislation that applies after birth, and it sends a dreadful message to people who are living and thriving with disabilities about how little their lives are valued under abortion law. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views.

Covid-19 Update

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will know that masks play an important role in vulnerable settings in healthcare and social care already. He points to a suggestion by some that the requirements regarding the type of masks should be changed. I reassure him that we keep this issue under review at all times, and if such a change were necessary, we would support it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is obvious that the booster jab is essential to protect the very vulnerable. I have an elderly family member who is 90 years old and completely bedbound. He lives at home, and cannot get out of the flat and down the steps, and he has been waiting for weeks for his booster jab. He said to me on Sunday, “Where is my booster jab?”. I suspect that across the country it is quite inconvenient to get out to very elderly people who are living at home—not in care homes, but in their own home. These people are being looked after all day by care workers, coming in and out. Will the Secretary of State now give an instruction to health authorities, GPs and district nurses to get out and get the booster jabs into these very old and vulnerable people?

[Sajid Javid]

What my right hon. Friend has just said deeply concerns me. Anyone who is 90 years old and homebound should have been contacted—certainly at that age. I am assuming that it has been at least six months since the individual’s second jab. On that basis, he should have been contacted and visited by his GP. First, I would like more details about that particular case, if my right hon. Friend will supply them. I would want then to ensure that there are no other instances like that, because someone at that age who is homebound should certainly already have received their booster jab.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Although the Scottish Government provide free prescriptions, the money comes out of existing budgets, which means it is taken from elsewhere in the health service. That may be why, at the moment, three health boards in Scotland need the armed forces’ support to deal with their winter crisis.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to reduce elective procedure backlogs in the NHS.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

We have committed an additional £1 billion this year to increase elective activity and tackle the backlog, doubling the £1 billion already provided through the elective recovery fund. Over the next three years, we plan to spend more than £8 billion to fund the biggest catch-up programme in NHS history, which comes atop, of course, the record £33.9 billion increase in funding and the health and social care levy.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Before asking my question, may I make a declaration of personal interest, namely, my age? People of my generation and older are finding more and more delays in elective procedures, but the response of the Government, as we just heard, appears to be to just pump more taxpayers’ money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, resulting in ever more waste and lower productivity. Why do the Government—this Conservative Government—not use innovative private sector solutions to relieve some of the pressure on the NHS? Why do they not do what the Major Government did—hardly right-wing extremists—and give tax relief for private health insurance?

Health and Care Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 14th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman as he raises a very important issue. In this Bill, as I will come to, one of the central themes is integration. When I come to that, I hope he will see how that integration between NHS and social care will help to deliver a better service for those with dementia.

Everything I refer to—these challenges—are all in addition to the challenges of the pandemic that of course we still face and the elective backlog that we know is going to get worse before it gets better. Meeting the future with confidence relies on learning lessons from the pandemic—what worked and what did not work—and building on a decade of innovation in health and care.

Sometimes the best intentions of the past cannot stop what is right for the future. Bureaucracy can still make sensible decision making harder, silos can stifle work across boundaries and sometimes legislation can get in the way. We have seen how unnecessary rules have meant contracts have needed to be retendered even where high-quality services are being delivered, we have seen the complicated workarounds needed to help the NHS and local government to work together, and we have seen the uncertainty about how to share data across the health and care system. People working in health and social care want the very best for people in their care. That is what they have shown time and again, not least in the way they have embraced integration and innovation to save lives through this pandemic. They want to hold on to the remarkable spirit of integration and innovation, but they want to let go of everything that is holding them back and we want to help them to do it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On that point of bureaucracy, I recently saw the apotheosis of the NHS, where an Anglican church had draped an altar with a flag saying, “O Praise the NHS”. So when we have a new Secretary of State, can we have a really hard-hitting attitude to NHS bureaucracy? We all praise our doctors and nurses, but the fact is that, like any other bureaucracy, it is prone to underperformance, waste and incompetence. There is no harm, as long as we preserve the principle of being free at the point of delivery, in having innovative private sector solutions.

[Sajid Javid]

I hear what my right hon. Friend has said and I think that, as I progress through my opening remarks, he will like what I have to say about integration and cutting bureaucracy.

All these things that I refer to and all these changes we want to make are exactly what this Health and Care Bill will do. I want to thank the thousands of hard-working staff who, through two years of consultation and engagement, have come forward and told us what they think works and what they think needs to change. In the words of Lord Stevens, chief executive of the NHS, the overwhelming majority of these proposals are changes that the health service has asked for. The Bill supports improvements that are already under way in the NHS. It builds on the recommendations of the NHS’s own long-term plan. It is a product of the NHS, it is for the NHS, and it is supported by the NHS.

I am grateful to all the organisations that have helped to shape these important proposals—everyone from the NHS Confederation to the Local Government Association. I have spent many of my early days in this job talking to them, and they have all told me the same thing, which is that they are ready to take forward the reforms. I want to continue to work with them and to listen to their specific concerns, just as much as I want to listen to the concerns raised by hon. Members across the House and by Members in the other place.