Stuart Andrew
MP for Daventry · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The Minister will know that Onley Park is still owned by the Ministry of Justice. Although I welcome the funding, these residents have been waiting years, and frankly they are really worried—we have still not got a start date or clarity around backdated bills, and the situation is affecting house sales now.”
“My hon. Friend is making an important point about HSSIB. We have heard time and again that frontline staff value the safety that HSSIB provides to them and the confidence they have in reporting.”
“Despite what we have heard from the Minister, colleagues have been talking about the issue of developments near railway stations. That has a practical consequence for the rural village of Long Buckby in my constituency. Land that is currently in open countryside, beyond the village boundary, will now be designated as a priority area.”
“In a volatile world, I think we can all agree that energy security is important, but so too is food security. I was interested in the answer the Prime Minister gave to my hon.”
“Well, that was clearly no answer to my question, so let me give it: the Government’s own figures show that the number is higher. Additionally, in response to concerns that I have raised, the Office for Statistics Regulation confirmed that the published figures do not clearly distinguish between patients who are treated and those who are r…”
“Women’s symptoms may simply be dismissed or attributed to stress, hormones or ageing, and women have been consistently under-represented when it comes to cardiovascular research.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Stuart Andrew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“I am sorry, but that was simply waffle. This matter needs decisive action now; these drugs are absolutely critical to some children. This cancer drugs tax has already closed one scheme, and companies are making real-time decisions now about whether to continue programmes in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State must urgently get the Treasury to exempt compassionate use medicines permanently, so that the patients in most need can get these vital drugs, which, in some cases, are simply their only hope.”
“That is one of the reasons why Pride still matters. I am very proud of my good friend and former Member of this House Eric Ollerenshaw, who was one of the first five people on the very first Pride march back in the early 1970s. He describes how, at the time, even the police were spitting at them—just unbelievable when we think about that today. Pride is not only about big parades, flags and public celebrations. It is about the teenager who feels completely alone; it is about the person who is quietly calculating every single word they say. I have spoken before about being attacked and hospitalised when I was younger just because of who I am. Walking down that road, being followed by three men, being called a queer and knowing what was coming next was terrifying.”
“It is a celebration of the progress that has been made, of the lives lived openly, of families formed, of communities built and of people who no longer have to hide who they are, but it is also a reminder of why that progress was necessary in the first place and why it can never be taken for granted. For me, this debate is deeply personal. I have seen changes in my lifetime that I could never have imagined when I was growing up as a young gay man on the isle of Anglesey. Back then, community was not always easy to find. I have joked before many times in this House that it often felt like I was literally the only gay in the village. But behind the humour is a serious point: for many people, particularly in small towns, in families, workplaces or faith communities, being LGBT can still feel a very lonely place indeed.”
“May I begin by apologising to Members? I have sought permission from Mr Speaker to leave early today, because I have a long-standing event in my constituency that I have to attend. I apologise that I will not be here— [ Interruption. ] It is not to do with Pride, I am afraid. I am very happy to be leaving the rest of this very important debate in the capable hands of my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). What a pleasure it is to follow the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). She made a really great and very personal speech. I am equally grateful, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, to have the opportunity to open this important debate, because Pride Month is a celebration.”
“They should be taken very seriously indeed, and that is true in sport, schools, workplaces, healthcare, families and public life. Pride is a celebration of how far we have come, but it is also a promise that we will remember those who came before us, stand with those who still feel alone, and help the next generation live more freely, safely and honestly than the last. That is what Pride Month means to me, and that is why this debate matters.”
“In fact, I want to see more gay and lesbian people in politics. Banning political parties from Pride flies in the face of its meaning, in my view. I want to mention lesbians specifically, because too often their voices are treated as an afterthought in debates about LGBT rights. Lesbian women have been central to the history of Pride, activism and community life. Their experiences matter in debates about healthcare, safety, dignity and sex-based rights. Pride Month should never allow the L in LGBT to become silent. No one should have to hide who they are in order to feel safe. That means taking anti-LGBT hate crime seriously. Too many incidents still go unreported because people think they are too minor or worry they will not be taken seriously.”
“NHS staff, patients and trusts need clarity on how the law should be applied. This House should be able to approach these issues without pretending they are simple, and also without pretending that clarity is unkind. That is why I think it is a mistake when Pride events suggest that political parties should have no place in them. The banning of political parties from some Pride events is disappointing, because Pride does not belong to one political tribe. The people elected to this House, and the LGBT organisations in all our parties, have helped to deliver real change. I pay tribute to them all and thank them for what they have done. LGBT people are Conservatives, Labour members, Liberal Democrats, Greens, nationalists, independents, and people of no political party at all. They should not be made to feel unwelcome.”
“That clarity matters for women, service providers, staff who need to know what the law requires of them, and the NHS. Decisions about female wards, intimate care, changing rooms and women-only services cannot be left to confusion or inconsistent local interpretation. We should also be able to and capable of saying two things at once. We can say that sex means biological sex and that single-sex spaces must be protected, and we can also say that trans people must be treated with dignity, respect, compassion and love. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. They are both part of a serious, humane and lawful approach. I hope the Minister can set out what the code of practice means in practice for the NHS, including for female wards and the other issues I have mentioned.”
“I know that that has been happening and it is something we need to address. I hope the Minister, when winding up, might be able to update the House—she mentioned some of the continuing work on HIV prevention—on how that progress will be maintained, because the clock is ticking and I am conscious that there is still quite a bit to do, and update us on what work the Government are planning to do on older LGBT people as we think about their care needs in the future. I, too, want to address the Equality Act code of practice and the Supreme Court ruling, because they have been very prominent in recent days. The law is now clear that for the purposes of the Equality Act, sex means biological sex. Single-sex spaces must be protected where they are needed, particularly where privacy, dignity and safeguarding are at stake.”
“When I was growing up, I never thought that we would see the end of it. It was so terrifying at the time and the fact that we now have that goal in sight is truly remarkable and wonderful. I also want to say clearly as the shadow Secretary of State for Health that LGBT health matters. That means keeping a strong focus on HIV prevention, testing and treatment, making sure that stigma continues to be broken down, recognising the particular mental health pressures some LGBT people face, and ensuring that everyone can use the NHS without fear, shame or discrimination. It also means remembering older LGBT people, including those who lived through the AIDS crisis, who should never feel forced back into the closet when they need social care or support later on in life, or if they end up in residential or nursing homes.”
“That is why the passage of the equal marriage Act in 2013—the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act—remains one of the proudest moments of my time in Parliament. No party has a monopoly on progress. People from all parties and none have fought for the rights and dignity of LGBT people. I am proud that Conservatives played a part in delivering equal marriage and I am proud of the progress that Conservative Governments made on HIV prevention, testing and treatment, including HIV Testing Week and the legalisation of HIV self-testing kits. I also want to pay tribute to the Terrence Higgins Trust and its CEO Richard Angell, and all those who have been campaigning to end new HIV transmissions by 2030. As the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I absolutely back the Government in their ambition to see that happen.”
“Do you know, I am going to cry in a minute! I thank the hon. Gentleman, although that is the second opportunity he has missed to mention Harlow—I am getting worried about him! [ Laughter . ] As I was saying, that experience has stayed with me; it reminds me why progress matters and can never be taken for granted. Prejudice may look different today, but it has not vanished. There are still people around the world, and some people in this country, who cannot come out or live the life they want to live. That is why Pride is not just a month in the calendar; it is a statement that those people are not forgotten. It is also why what happens in this House matters. The law can change lives. It can tell people whether they are recognised, protected and valued.”
“10, grinning with all the reassuring confidence of a man standing knee-deep in a flooded rowing boat insisting that the situation merely requires a modest redistribution of water. Into this bunker is summoned the new Secretary of State—formerly the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the very man who helped to allocate the famous £202 billion funding settlement now repeatedly cited as proof that every problem in British healthcare has theoretically already been solved.”
“What became increasingly striking was not simply the scale of the promises, but the sheer showmanship of them, with the former Health Secretary speaking less like a Cabinet Minister wrestling with one of the most complex public services in the world and more like a man auditioning to narrate the trailer for his own leadership campaign documentary. And now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we arrive at the great political twist: the man who spent two years announcing the future has departed before the delivery date arrived, like an architect unveiling magnificent blueprints before quietly moving abroad just before construction begins. Into this situation walks the new Health Secretary. Members can imagine the scene: the Prime Minister sits stubbornly in No.”
“In every speech, interview and carefully staged hospital visit with sleeves rolled up, they delivered the same message: at last—at long last—the NHS was to be modernised, integrated, digitised, streamlined, revolutionised and transformed into a gleaming technological marvel, where patients floated frictionlessly through a system powered entirely by innovation, efficiency and ministerial self-belief. I say gently to Ministers that whenever a politician begins using the phrase “once-in-a-generation change” on such a regular basis, it is usually wise to place one’s hands protectively over one’s wallet, given the sheer cost of what is to follow.”
“There are moments in politics when one almost has to admire the confidence of Governments—not their competence, necessarily, or their judgment, and sometimes not their timing, but certainly their confidence—and nowhere has that confidence been more magnificently displayed than in the presentation of the Health Bill. If one had listened carefully to the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care over the past two years, one could conclude only that this Bill was not merely legislation, but apparently the parliamentary equivalent of the second coming.”
“I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his new post, and thank him for sharing his very personal story about what the NHS means to him. I look forward to our future exchanges, however long he is in post. I also pay tribute to the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), with whom I have had a few moments across the Dispatch Box. I know that the NHS has also been very important to him personally. During my time in hospices, I saw the incredible work that the NHS does, and despite the politics that we may have—and I will be referring to the right hon. Gentleman a bit more later on—we all care deeply about the national health service and want the very best for it.”
“Civil servants suddenly become more fascinated by ceiling tiles, and one junior official attempts to escape through a stationery cupboard. Sir Humphrey clears his throat in the way only permanent secretaries can; a sound rather like an early—”
“It is not the scent of modernisation or the smell of efficiency, and it is certainly not the fragrance of falling waiting lists. No—it is the unmistakeable odour of political panic, mixed delicately with the perspiration of failed leadership manoeuvres and lightly seasoned with the ashes of abandoned promises. There waiting for him, naturally, is Sir Humphrey—because however much Governments modernise, digitise, integrate, recalibrate or synergise, Whitehall always produces a Sir Humphrey. I can imagine the conversation. The new Secretary of State says brightly, “Good news, Sir Humphrey. I understand that my predecessor has already solved everything through the Health Bill.” At this point, an eerie silence descends.”
“I would point the hon. Lady to how the NHS was being run in Wales—it certainly was not the great success that she is trying to allude to. In politics there are difficult jobs and there are impossible jobs, and then there is inheriting a Department after one’s predecessor spent two years promising the electorate that this is the one Bill to rule all Bills and fix virtually everything short of death itself. This was not just a hospital pass, but a hospital pass delivered by catapult. One can almost hear the poor Secretary of State gulping. “Thank you, Prime Minister,” he replies faintly, in the tone of a man accepting command of the Titanic after it has already struck the iceberg. Off he trudges to the Department of Health and Social Care, where the automatic doors open and his nostrils are struck immediately by a strange, lingering aroma.”
““But Sir Humphrey,” he says, “surely my predecessor left me with a fully deliverable programme.” After a long pause, Sir Humphrey replies, “Well, your predecessor was primarily focused on a different pathway.” “A different pathway?””
“The Secretary of State asks, “And what about the workforce plan?” “Still developing, Minister.” “And social care?” “Still delayed, Minister.” “And mental health implementation?” “Still proceeding at approximately the speed of continental drift.” “And pharmacies?” “Still under pressure.” “And GP contracts?” “Still alarming GPs.” “And productivity?”, the Secretary of State asks desperately. “At present, Minister, the NHS measures productivity in the same way that astronomers in ancient Greece measured distant planets: with great optimism and very limited visibility.” At this point, the Health Secretary clearly begins searching the office for the exit map.”
“Give me time, give me time. “Well, indeed, Minister,” says Sir Humphrey. “I understand,” says the Secretary of State, “that abolishing NHS England will instantly reduce bureaucracy, improve accountability and unleash vast efficiencies.” “Well, Minister, it will certainly create a large number of meetings.” “And the single patient record will revolutionise healthcare, won’t it?” “Yes, Minister—assuming the NHS IT systems eventually stop communicating with each other via what appears to be medieval semaphore.” “But we have delivered 5 million more appointments.” “Certainly, Minister—only 1.5 million appointments behind the last Conservative Government.” “And integrated care boards now answer directly to Ministers.” “Yes, Minister.” “So accountability is now indisputable.” “Well, Minister, blame certainly is.” And so the conversation goes on.”
“Workforce pressures are unresolved. Mental health backlogs are unresolved. Productivity is unresolved. Pharmacy pressures are unresolved. GP satisfaction is unresolved. The Secretary of State is inheriting not just a Department but an expectations crisis, because the greatest danger in politics is not under-promising; it is convincing the public that complexity itself can be announced away. The Bill abolishes NHS England and centralises significant powers to be governed by the Secretary of State. It takes control out of patients’ hands.”
“Well, let me say directly to the right hon. Gentleman that there have been a lot of announcements from the Government. We know all about the fall in waiting list figures, and not just from comments from us in this Chamber challenging what is really happening—we are receiving email after email from people who have been taken off waiting lists despite still needing treatment. Patients are being taken off waiting lists, sometimes without their knowledge. This has not been about more appointments for patients—it is about massaging the figures, and he knows it. There is a lot in this Bill that we will support, and there are many areas where we would like the Government to perhaps go further, but there is also a rhetoric that needs to be addressed, because there are unresolved problems still. Social care is unresolved.”
“The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and it is exactly the sort of issue that will need further scrutiny in Committee. I note that local authorities will not have the same seat at the table and that it will be transferred for mayoral regions, but what about regions that do not have a mayor? That measure will create a real democracy deficit in the NHS. I hope that we can look at this in detail in Committee, because that serious oversight absolutely needs addressing.”
“The CQC is a totally different beast in the minds of people who work in the NHS and social care, so to put those functions within that organisation is a terrible mistake and one that I hope the Committee will look at very carefully.”
“My hon. Friend raises a very important point; it is an area that the Committee will have to look at very carefully. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, and I believe that he wants there to be a patient voice, but there is a serious flaw in the Bill. Abolishing Healthwatch and HSSIB is a terrible mistake, and I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for the work that he has been doing on this. The reality is that HSSIB gives members of staff who work in the NHS the confidence to come forward and be a whistleblower. We need that. We need people to feel that they are in a safe environment.”
“I am genuinely concerned about that. Members of Parliament from across the House have often brought to the House some very serious cases—things that have gone terribly wrong for their constituents, services that have been commissioned in their area, and awful things that have happened to patients. It is because of organisations like Healthwatch and the HSSIB that those issues have come to light, and work has gone into improving those services. That is what we all want to see, but I am really worried that that progress will be lost. If those functions are absorbed into the Secretary of State’s office, I really do not think it will be able to cope with the sheer volume. It needs to be done on a much more localised basis.”
“That is exactly one of the issues that needs to be ironed out. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that the Committee considers the impact for devolved Administrations, particularly where they have responsibility for health in their areas. I hope that he will raise that with members of the Committee.”
“I gently remind the hon. Lady that it was the former Secretary of State who said that he did not want to go through another reorganisation, because it would be very costly. We still cannot get a clear answer from the Government about how much this is all going to cost the taxpayer, and there are estimates of £1 billion. There are still serious questions to be answered. The hon. Lady talks about democratic responsibility and accountability, and she is right to do that. She is fortunate—depending on one’s point of view—to have a mayor, but my constituency and county do not. Will my constituents get less of a voice in their NHS than her constituents in Shipley? That does not seem fair to me.”
“I am talking about trying to get accountability down to the local area. That is where it matters, and that is where my constituents want to see it. They know their local services and the hospitals in their areas, and they are the ones who should have their voices.”
“They can distinguish between serious transformation and political choreography, and they increasingly understand that there is no technological shortcut around the fundamental challenge facing healthcare. The Government cannot run a service this large, pressured and so deeply connected to people’s lives and wellbeing primarily through presentation. Eventually, every Government collides with reality, and reality—unlike leadership campaigns—cannot be managed through slogans. That is the inheritance facing the new Health Secretary, and that is why the House should approach the Bill not with breathless excitement but with very hard-headed scrutiny indeed so that we get the NHS we all want to see.”
“That is ultimately why the Bill matters. If this enormous centralisation of power succeeds, Ministers will claim vindication, but if it fails and bureaucracy persists, waiting lists remain stubborn, workforce pressures deepen and promised transformation dissolves into another cycle of reorganisation, the Government will no longer possess anyone else to blame—not NHS England, local structures, quangos or the system—because the Bill places responsibility squarely where the Government claim it belongs, on the shoulders of Ministers. Perhaps that honesty will prove the Bill’s greatest contribution. The British people are patient, but they are not naive.”
“But when a Government spend record sums while presiding over delays, workforce uncertainty, transformation paralysis, productivity collapse and public frustration, eventually the British public are entitled to ask a simple question: where has all my money gone? The Government are not judged by the size of the press release; they are judged by whether the thing actually works. We must now do everything to ensure that the Bill goes through with great scrutiny, as it needs to do, because healthcare is difficult, trade-offs are real and workforce shortages cannot simply be rebranded as opportunities. Indeed, the public increasingly suspect something very different here: they suspect that too much of modern politics has become performance without consequences, announcements without accountability and presentation without delivery.”
“The Government say that abolishing NHS England will reduce bureaucracy—perhaps it will—but let us not forget that Whitehall sometimes possesses a remarkable historic talent for abolishing bureaucracies ceremonially before quietly recreating them under another name with slightly different headed paper. We need to ensure that that does not happen in this instance. We also have to think about the huge amounts of public money involved—yes, nearly £202 billion; an extraordinary sum of money. We understand that pressures rise—of course we do—we understand about ageing populations, we understand that medical advancement increases costs and we understand the aftershocks of the pandemic.”
“There is a difference between modernisations rooted in political realism and announcements designed primarily for political theatre, and too much of the approach we have seen so far is Whitehall talking to itself; meanwhile, outside this Chamber, reality continues uninterrupted. Patients still wait, ambulances still queue outside A&E, the family still worries, the exhausted nurse still works a double shift and the GP still battles impossible demands. Here is the truth: the NHS does not primarily suffer from a shortage of announcements; it is marked by a persistent lack of grip and direction. The Government today increasingly resemble a man frantically changing labels on a filing cabinet while the building itself quietly catches fire.”
“Perhaps part of the Bill will help, and of course some reforms are necessary. Conservatives are not afraid of reform—definitely not. Indeed, if the NHS is to survive the demographic, technological and fiscal pressures ahead, modernisation is essential. That is because technology matters, innovation matters, integration matters, data matters, prevention matters, productivity matters and, yes, accountability matters too. That is why, where we see good work in the Bill, we will back it, and where we think there are questions that need to be drilled down into, we will do so. We want to ensure that the Bill works.”
“Yes, and this is— [ Interruption. ] It is slightly patronising to say to someone, “Read the Bill”. Clearly my hon. Friend has, and we have been talking about this in great detail. There is a real concern here. We need much clearer answers to these questions, which many of our constituents will have. Those who give up their time to work in organisations to make the NHS better deserve decent answers to those questions and concerns. I certainly hope that reflection will be taken on those points. At its heart, the Bill is not simply a debate about technology or bureaucracy; it is about who holds, controls and safeguards the most personal data that any of us will ever possess. This is one of the most significant reorganisations of the NHS in modern political history, but it is wrapped carefully in the language of managerial simplification.”
“The latest industrial action by the British Medical Association has now ended, yet many will be appalled by reports of individuals boasting online that “the ability to have 10 days off will make turnout quite high.” Does the Secretary of State agree that this behaviour is indefensible and represents a slap in the face to patients whose treatments have been cancelled, as well as to the NHS staff who have been left to pick up the pieces?”
“This is a rare occasion, as I agree with the Secretary of State. The increasingly militant stance adopted by the BMA is plainly out of step with some resident doctors, who continue to report for duty. The Government’s handling of this dispute has been marked by inconsistency. First, they attempted to buy their way out of trouble, then they withdrew the training places that this House voted for. Instead of persisting with a failed strategy, is it not time for the Government to heed our calls and bring forward legislation to ban doctors from striking?”
“When he says that strike action will consume the money set aside for this deal, is he not really admitting that his own approach has ended up burning through the very resources he said would improve pay, jobs and conditions? What is the cost of this latest round of strikes expected to be, and where will that money now come from? What assessment has he made of the impact on patient safety, consultant morale and the training progression of junior doctors? What is his plan to end this dispute, rather than simply manage the next round of disruption? Patients need certainty. The NHS needs stability. That is why we have been clear that doctors should not be allowed to strike and that minimum service levels must be restored to protect patient safety.”
“After repealing minimum service levels, the Government cannot now be surprised that patients are once again exposed to greater disruption. Labour promised to end the strikes. It paid a very high price, and it still did not get the result. Ultimately, it is patients who are caught in the middle of all this, but it is unfair on others in the NHS, too. Consultants are left picking up the pieces yet again. Other doctors and NHS staff are expected to carry the burden and keep services running—they do not get to walk away. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair. The Secretary of State says he may now have to call time on the extra jobs he announced. Were those jobs ever truly secured, or were they always conditional on the BMA accepting the deal in full?”
“The BMA says that a 3.5% pay rise for doctors is a “crushing blow”, yet it is offering its own staff just 2.75%. While it demands more from the taxpayer, it will not even meet its own standard for fairness. The inconsistency is obvious and hypocritical. The Government’s own position on affordability no longer seems to add up. In October, Ministers were clear that anything above 2.5% would have consequences for wider NHS commitments. They said that every additional 0.5% would cost around £750 million, yet we are now beyond what they previously said was affordable, so what has changed? Were those warnings overstated, or are other parts of the health budget now going to pay the price? The Secretary of State even pointed to global events as a reason for future constraints. That is a long way from “just negotiate and sort it out”.”
“The Secretary of State says a comprehensive deal was on the table, developed with the BMA leadership. Despite that, we still face further strikes, so what exactly has this strategy achieved? After all the concessions, all the cost and all the disruption, there is still no resolution. If, as he says, the BMA leadership helped to shape the deal, why did it not secure the support of the wider committee? This morning, the chair of the BMA’s resident doctors committee said that all the Secretary of State needs to do to avoid these strikes is come back with a better offer. That was the Secretary of State’s argument in opposition, too. He has now had every opportunity to test that theory in government, and it has not worked, just as we warned. There is also an irony here that will not be lost on the public.”
“I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Only yesterday he was boasting about progress in the NHS. Today we are back here again, facing more strikes, more disruption and more uncertainty for patients—quite the contrast. In opposition, he made resolving these strikes sound straightforward: “Just get around the table. Just negotiate. Just sort it out.” He repeatedly stated that the power to stop the strikes lay in the Government’s hands. Well, the power is now in his hands. He has had every opportunity to prove it, and yet here we are again. Not so easy after all, is it? The Government came into office promising to end these disputes. Instead, they have conceded heavily on pay, at enormous cost, and still failed to make it work.”
“Finally, although I welcome the targeted vaccination programme and the decision to seek further advice from the JCVI, the Secretary of State has acknowledged that most students will not have been routinely vaccinated against meningitis B, and protection among older teenagers is clearly not as strong as it is in infancy. Does he accept that this creates a particular vulnerability among older teenagers and young adults, and will he ensure that any further advice on eligibility or wider catch-up measures is brought forward as quickly as possible? This is a serious public health situation. It is right, though, that the response remains calm, evidence-led, and focused on protecting patients and supporting those families affected.”
“Can the Secretary of State therefore set out what steps are being taken to manage the risk of onward spread as students return home, and what advice is being provided to families and local health services in other parts of the country? Can he also confirm that public health messaging is fully consistent across schools, GPs, local authorities and NHS services, so that families receive clear advice wherever they turn? What steps are being taken to counter misinformation online, where false claims may undermine confidence in public health advice? Can he also confirm that local laboratories, intensive care capacity and public health teams are fully resourced to manage any increase in cases, and that supply chains for antibiotics and vaccines are resilient, should further clusters emerge?”
“Can he clarify when those schools were first identified, and whether there is a need to review how quickly educational settings are brought into the response, given that cases were identified several days beforehand? Secondly, turning to the nature of the outbreak, while many cases are linked to a single venue, can the Secretary of State confirm whether all cases are believed to be part of one cluster, or whether there remains a risk of multiple sources of infection? Thirdly, on escalation, given the involvement of both a university and schools, can he set out what criteria are being used to determine when more extensive interventions are required across educational settings? This situation will undoubtedly cause concern among families, particularly with the end of term approaching.”
“I welcome what the Secretary of State has set out on the daily publication of figures, the scale-up of antibiotic provision and the decision to introduce a targeted vaccination programme for students in halls of residence, alongside seeking further advice from the JCVI. However, a number of important questions remain. First, concerns have been raised out there on the timeline. The Secretary of State has set out the sequence of events in detail, but can he be clear about the threshold used for wider public communication? Is that threshold being reviewed in the light of this outbreak? He also set out that headteachers were contacted on Monday morning.”