Some progress with treatments for CV 19

I reproduce below my recent question pressing for more results on use of drugs for CV 19

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what the most recent results are of trials of existing approved medicines as potential treatments for covid-19. (81471)

Tabled on: 28 August 2020

Answer:
Jo Churchill:

On 2 September, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued new interim guidance recommending the use of systemic corticosteroids in severe and critical COVID-19 disease. This is based on a meta-analysis of recent clinical trials including the United Kingdom supported REMAP-CAP and RECOVERY trials.

Clinical guidance has been issued recommending clinicians consider the use of systemic corticosteroids, including dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, for National Health Service patients with severe and critical COVID-19.

This updates previous NHS advice to consider dexamethasone for the management of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen or ventilation; the updated advice includes the use of intravenous hydrocortisone and aligns with the WHO guidance.

The NHS advice and WHO guidance can be found at the following links:

https://www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAlert.aspx?AlertID=103092
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Corticosteroids-2020.1

The answer was submitted on 15 Sep 2020 at 13:18.

The government’s legal statement

Some constituents have asked about the legal base for the legislation Parliament will consider next week. This is it:

HMG LEGAL POSITION: UKIM BILL AND NORTHERN IRELAND PROTOCOL
This is the Government’s legal position on the UK Internal Market Bill (“the Bill”) which was introduced on 9 September. The purpose of the Bill is to promote the continued functioning of the internal market in the UK after the conclusion of the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Bill also provides for how aspects of the Northern Ireland Protocol to the Withdrawal Agreement apply in the UK’s domestic law. In particular it ensures that the government will be able to deliver its commitments to protect peace in Northern Ireland and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and to strengthen and maintain the UK internal market.

Clauses 42 and 43 of the Bill give HMG the power to make regulations to (i) disapply or modify the application of any exit procedures that would otherwise be applicable to goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, and (ii) make regulations setting out how the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol on State aid are to be given effect for the purposes of domestic law. The clauses provide that these powers may be exercised in a way that is incompatible with provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement. Clause 45 of the Bill expressly provides that these clauses, and any regulations made under them, have effect notwithstanding any international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent. This ‘notwithstanding provision’ partially disapplies Article 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement because it removes the possibility of challenge before domestic courts to enforce the rights and remedies provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement. The effect is to disapply the EU law concept of ‘direct effect’. This is the case regardless of whether any regulations made under clause 42 or 43 of the Bill are in fact incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement.

It is an established principle of international law that a state is obliged to discharge its treaty obligations in good faith. This is, and will remain, the key principle in informing the UK’s approach to international relations. However, in the difficult and highly exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is important to remember the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK’s Treaty obligations. Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation. This ‘dualist’ approach is shared by other, similar legal systems such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Under this approach, treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation. Whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament and Parliament alone. This principle was recently approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5.

The legislation which implements the Withdrawal Agreement including the Northern Ireland Protocol is expressly subject to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament’s ability to pass provisions that would take precedence over the Withdrawal Agreement was expressly confirmed in section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, with specific reference to the EU law concept of ‘direct effect’.

Non-Covid-19 Related Work in Hospitals

I have received the enclosed response to my Parliamentary Question about Non-Related Covid-19 work in hospitals:

The Department of Health and Social Care has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (81472):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what progress the NHS has made in resuming non-covid-19 related work in hospitals and surgeries in England. (81472)

Tabled on: 28 August 2020

Answer:
Edward Argar:

The National Health Service has continued to progress with resuming non-COVID-19 services. There was an increase of 13% in patients beginning their first cancer treatment within 31 days following a decision to treat in June 2020 compared to May, whilst the number of completed admitted pathways following a consultant-led referral for treatment increased by 73% over the same period.

As the NHS has continued to restore services, further guidance was issued to local NHS providers and commissioners on 31 July outlining the next phase of the NHS response to COVID-19 and concurrent non-COVID-19 activity. The focus is on accelerating the return of non-COVID-19 health services to near-normal levels, including making full use of available capacity between now and winter, whilst also preparing for winter demand pressures. This will be done alongside continued vigilance in light of any further COVID-19 spikes locally and possibly nationally.

The answer was submitted on 09 Sep 2020 at 10:52.

Junction Safety and Capacity

I recently received this answer to my Parliamentary Question on junction safety and capacity:

The Department for Transport has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (81475):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what funding is available for local authorities to improve junction safety and capacity and to remove bottlenecks to make it easier for people to get into town centres by car and van. (81475)

Tabled on: 28 August 2020

Answer:
Rachel Maclean:

Local highway authorities, such as Wokingham Borough Council, have a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area.

The responsibility for improving junction safety and capacity is also a matter for the relevant local highway authority. The Department for Transport is allocating over £1.7 billion for local highways maintenance and improvements in 2020/21 through the Transport Infrastructure Investment Fund to local highways authorities in England, outside London. Of this Wokingham Borough Council will receive over £5.1 million. It is entirely for each authority to determine how their share of this funding is utilised to meet local needs.

Housing numbers for Wokingham

I gave a Radio Berkshire interview this morning about the housing numbers. I explained that there are no settled numbers for the next Plan period. The current government consultation is about how to calculate the numbers. I am responding with a different proposal that would enable Wokingham to set a reduced growth rate in new homes after the extensive development of the current local plan.

The main point  I am stressing is the need for the government to set a new planning policy which helps levelling up. Levelling up means more of the substantial investment in new homes should go to the parts of the country that need and want the jobs and money which such a stimulus brings. The Housing Minister has just published an article saying the illustrative numbers around the Consultation will not be the actual numbers and saying they want there to be local input into the totals. We need to hold them to that and help them come up with a better system that respects local wishes.

Housing numbers in Wokingham

I am making the case for a slower rate of development for our area as the Council moves to prepare a new local plan. I am responding to the government’s latest consultation on planning issues and will follow up my written submission with a meeting with the Minister.

On line visit to CLASP

Yesterday I spent an hour talking to Wokingham’s CLASP group. They raised a range of issues with me about the response to the virus, service for those with learning difficulties, use of public transport and the role of the Council. They asked me to tell them about the range of work and problems I deal with as local MP. I encouraged them to use this website.
I would like to thank all involved in this charity for the work they do. I promised to take up a couple of matters for them on receipt of the details.

University places

I joined the on line meeting with Education Ministers yesterday evening to discuss the A level change of policy. The main talking point for MPs and Ministers was the knock on from the decision to University admissions. The University Minister said she would issue a letter today to the Universities urging them to offer places to all those with conditional offers who could now meet the requirements following A level upgrades. Any student who has accepted a place at their second choice can now contact their first choice institution if they can meet the conditions to see if they will honour their original offer. If they are happy with the place elsewhere there is no need. It would be prudent to sound out the first choice university about their conditional offer and whether they are still offering a firm place before cancelling the offer accepted elsewhere.

There may be shortages of places for qualified students following the upgrades for some subjects or at some institutions. Ministers were aware of particular pressures on places for medicine and promised to review capacity with the Health Secretary. MPs pressed for further communications about the availability of places in medical areas.

Ministers intervene in exam grade appeals

Overnight we have news that Ministers have reviewed the actions of teachers, Examining Boards and the independent regulator. They have decided that a good ground for appeal can be the mock exam results where these were achieved in properly controlled conditions. This means an individual will have a way of upping their grade where a combination of teacher assessment and Examining Board moderation has delivered a lower grade than the mock exam result.

On line meeting with Schools Minister

I dialled in to Nick Gibb’s briefing yesterday about the forthcoming exam results. He set out the position as I did on my blog yesterday. He agreed  it would have been better for all pupils to be able sit the exams, and for these to be marked  by independent teachers who do not know the pupils as before. Instead we have a second best system where compromises have been made by the Examining Boards to try to award meaningful qualifications to pupils who have done the work  but  not taken the exam.

The Exam Boards and their Regulator have decided they do need to adjust the results proposed by teachers. They  stressed to teachers they want them to concentrate on getting the right order in their list of student results, so the Board knows who they think would have done best and who would have done worst in the exam. The general adjustments to the teacher scores will not affect the rankings of pupils school  by school. The Examining Boards are going to adjust some school  results downwards, keeping the proposed order, as in aggregate teacher’s assessments can produce considerably better results than past years.

This of course can produce injustices for pupils and schools that are improving on previous years. In some cases it may favour the school or pupil and will go unchallenged.  The appeals and exam options allow individuals and their schools to bring evidence that the adjusted grades are  not fair because they are  too low. Any constituent who is worried about their grade or their children’s grades should talk to their school about the possibility of an appeal or the exam option.

The truth in each case is we can never be sure how well that student would have performed in exam conditions on the day. There will remain a degree of approximation in some cases. The important tbing is for pupils to get a sufficient grade to go on to the next stage. Those who move from GCSE can prove they are better in their A levels if they feel their grade was wrong, and those who move to university can prove themselves better in University exams when they get there.