Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1382).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1435).
Maggie Throup
The Government have always been clear that it is vital that we act in a balanced and proportionate way in response to the threat of the virus. We continuously monitor the latest data and updates from across the NHS, social care and wider sectors across the nation to ensure that there is balance and proportionality in our approach.
As of 9 December 2021, important changes to the self-isolation rules have helped align our domestic and international arrival self-isolation policies on vaccination recognition. The self-isolation regulations mean that a person vaccinated outside the UK is exempt from self-isolation when identified as a close contact of a positive covid-19 case if their vaccination status is recognised for the purposes of international travel rules. Those who have taken part in qualifying clinical trials abroad are also exempt from self-isolation if they are a close contact of a positive case.
The self-isolation regulations also clarify the process for those who are unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons to provide evidence of that, in line with the international travel regulations and the vaccine or test certification regulations. By bringing consistency, these changes extend the exemptions from self-isolation for close contacts of a positive case, which will help to limit the impact on people’s lives—a move that I know is welcomed by many.
We are also debating a statutory instrument that makes minor amendments to the regulations regarding the need to show evidence of being fully vaccinated, a negative lateral flow test in the last 48 hours, proof of medical exemption, or evidence of participation in a clinical trial, as a condition of obtaining an NHS covid pass in order to gain entry into certain settings in England from 15 December.
The original regulations—the “certification regulations” —were introduced following parliamentary approval and as part of plan B measures in response to the omicron variant. The regulations we are debating make small amendments to correct minor cross-referencing errors and an omission in those original regulations. They correct the calculation of the number of attendees at a category D event—an event with 10,000 or more people—so that it must be made on the basis of all attendees to the event, whether seated or unseated. The regulations also correct the calculation of the number of attendees at a category B event—an indoor event with 500 or more people likely to stand or move around—so that it must be made on the basis of all attendees to the event, excluding the workforce and excluding attendees with an assigned seat, even if they are standing next to their seat.
The regulations also correct how venues adhere to spot check criteria, so that when the responsible person wished to admit persons using spot checks at an event or venue before 31 December 2021, they needed to apply to the local authority as soon as practicable before the date of the event, rather than the usual 10 working days before the event. That date was amended from 29 December to account for bank holidays and to provide 10 working days between the certification regulations coming into force and the requirement for an application to be made at least 10 working days before the event.
Finally, the regulations amend the certification regulations such that a prior designation of an authority to which fixed penalty notice payments must be paid, made under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Local Authority Enforcement Powers and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 or the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021, is designated for the purpose of the certification regulations. That means that the designations continue to apply for payment of fixed penalty notices issued under the certification regulations, and that the chief executive officer of the ACRO Criminal Records Office has the authority to collect payment of any fixed penalty notices issued. I assure hon. Members that the correcting regulations were made as soon as possible and came into force at 6 am on 15 December, in line with the initial regulations.
As we look ahead to the coming weeks and months, we continue to monitor the data daily, and we maintain our commitment that coronavirus measures will not be kept a day longer than is necessary. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my thanks to all those in the NHS and social care, and volunteers across the country, for their tremendous work in helping us to get through these challenging times. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks and, indeed, for the opportunity to discuss these important measures. I also want to add my thanks to all those in the NHS and all the volunteers across the country for the sterling effort they have put into fighting this pandemic and keeping us safe.
As we have made clear repeatedly, the Labour party will not play politics with public health or stand in the way of measures that protect lives and livelihoods. As the Minister has outlined, these proportionate measures have enabled us to stem the tide of rapidly rising omicron cases while protecting essential aspects of our day-to-day liberty. They are measures that no Government wanted to take but that it was necessary to take in the extraordinary times we are living in. It is for that reason that Labour did not oppose these measures on the Floor of the House, and we will not do so today.
I would, however, be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity on several points related to these two statutory instruments. The first instrument relates to self-isolation and exempts those who have come into contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus from the requirement to self-isolate, so long as they are vaccinated. The instrument makes provision for those medically exempt from taking the vaccine as well as those undergoing clinical trials.
Alongside this legislation, the NHS recommends that someone should take a daily lateral flow test after close contact with a positive case—one a day for seven days—to protect themselves and others. Given the importance of regular testing in tackling the omicron variant, can the Minister reassure colleagues that the Government are not planning to scrap the provision of free lateral flow tests at this time? Furthermore, can she outline what actions the Government are taking to ensure that we do not face a shortage of lateral flow tests over the coming months? What lessons have been learned from the Christmas period, when many people struggled to get their hands on lateral flow tests?
The second instrument relates to entry to venues and events. It is right that, while we tackle an incredibly transmissible variant, those wishing to visit venues and large events are given the peace of mind that precautions have been taken to avoid mass infection. I am grateful to the Government for taking on board our concerns, including on the option of a recent negative lateral flow test as an alternative to vaccination status, which has made a big difference. We felt that this was a proportionate instrument that enabled clubs and large-scale events to operate while keeping individuals as safe as possible.
I would, however, be grateful if the Minister could clarify some points relating to the NHS covid pass and vaccination status. At the moment, full vaccination is defined as two doses of the vaccine at least 14 days before the permitted entry to an event. Given that research has highlighted the efficacy of the booster vaccination in tackling omicron, can the Minister advise us what discussions she has had with colleagues on altering the definition of full vaccination to three doses, and whether that is something that the Government plan to implement? It is important that she is clear on that as we need to ensure that people are fully prepared for any changes, if there are to be any, and that they are given the opportunity to get that third dose if they have not done so already.
Furthermore, on that point, can the Minister advise what assessment she has made of the booster roll-out for immunocompromised clinically vulnerable and clinically extremely vulnerable people, which has been stalling for the past few months? Will action be taken to promptly address that? As colleagues will no doubt be aware, these restrictions are due to be reviewed prior to the expiry date of 26 January, so can the Minister provide colleagues with an update on how discussions relating to that review are progressing?
I seek reassurance from the Minister on one further point. When the related regulations were debated in the House last month, the Government faced an extraordinary rebellion from their own Benches. Those proportionate and sensible measures got through the House only thanks to Labour support—something that the Government do not always acknowledge on occasions when perhaps they should. Can the Minister reassure those of us on the Opposition Benches that the Government will continue to take public health decisions based on scientific and epidemiological merit, and that they will not give in to any reactionary elements in their own party? That is an important question because we are still in an incredibly precarious position, and the public must be assured that Ministers will always act in the public’s best interests, rather than according to partisan interest, particularly given the vulnerable position the Prime Minister currently finds himself in.
Maggie Throup
I thank the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish for his measured approach and his support for the regulations. I will start by answering some of the questions he raised, which were fair questions. As he rightly says, the provision of free lateral flow tests has been an integral part of the way we have combated the virus. We have had three strands: our world-beating vaccination programme, our testing strategy and our antivirals. Together, they have ensured that we are fighting the virus in a very effective way.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have plenty of lateral flow devices. In November, 100 million were distributed throughout the country. In December, that went up to 300 million. This month, we are expecting 400 million, and we have the availability for that. In addition, we have negotiated for Royal Mail to distribute more lateral flow and PCR tests on a daily basis. Earlier in December, it was distributing 400,000 units a day—I was delighted to visit a sorting office that was delivering lots of them in mid-December—and its capacity is now 900,000 units a day. We thank the NHS staff, social care workers and volunteers, but there are lots of other workers we need to thank for going above and beyond to ensure that people can get either a vaccine or a test whenever they need it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the provision of free lateral flow tests. In our autumn and winter plan, we said quite openly that, at some stage, we would have to look at the provision of the universal offer, but now is not that stage. He also asked about the definition of “fully vaccinated”. We rightly look at all the data, and at the effectiveness and the efficacy of the vaccines, and keep that under consideration as we look at that definition.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the immunosuppressed. I am delighted to inform the Committee that, as of today, 12 to 15-year-olds who are immunosuppressed or a close family member of someone who is immuno-suppressed can get their booster dose. I visited a vaccination centre in Manchester this morning, and I could see that it was geared up for that. That was really good to see. The vaccinators and volunteers there were really up for any changes that will be made as we move on and learn more about the virus.
However, the hon. Gentleman is right to ask about the immunosuppressed. We have written to many of the immunosuppressed—those who qualified to get their third jab and then their booster jab. We have also made provision for a certain cohort to have a PCR test at home in readiness, so that if they get symptoms and they test positive, they can have antivirals prescribed for them very rapidly.
The hon. Gentleman asked, finally, about the regulations for plan B. Quite rightly, we are checking the data on a daily basis. As the Prime Minister has said, we do not want to keep these regulations in place for a day longer than necessary, but we will continue to base our decisions—the hon. Gentleman is right about this—on the science and the data in front of us. That is what we have done throughout the pandemic, and we will continue to do it.
The changes to the self-isolation rules we are debating today bring about welcome alignment between our domestic and international arrival self-isolation policy. As I indicated earlier, the certification regulations were introduced on 15 December after being approved by Parliament. The regulations in front of us today make small amendments to correct minor cross-referencing errors and an omission in those original regulations. The correcting regulations were made as soon as possible and came into force at 6 am on 15 December; there was no delay between the initial regulations and the amending regulations.
The certification regulations sunset on 26 January, and they are part of the review of plan B, on which Parliament will be updated and have its say. It is important that we strike the right balance between the safety of the public and keeping the country open. I assure the Committee, as I have already said, that we will not keep these measures in place any longer than we have to.
We all have a part to play in keeping the country safe. The vaccines are our best line of defence against the virus and for helping us to live with covid. I again urge everybody to get boosted, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
I allowed the debate to go slightly beyond the strict limits of the two SIs, but I thought Members would want to hear the answers to those questions.
Question put and agreed to.
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (ENTRY TO VENUES AND EVENTS) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1435).—(Maggie Throup.)
Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that Mr Speaker has enjoined us all to maintain social distancing and to wear our masks in Committee if we choose to do—which I will be doing, and I hope the Committee will, too.
The Minister for Europe (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1404).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The statutory instrument was laid on 13 December 2021, under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act. The instrument revokes and replaces the Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to remove one of the purposes of that regime and its corresponding designation criterion.
After reviewing the Burundi sanctions regime in the annual review, in accordance with our statutory obligations under section 30 of the sanctions Act, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the sanctions Minister, decided that the 2019 Burundi regulations were no longer appropriate for all their purposes. The purpose in regulation 4(b) of the 2019 regulations encouraged the Government of Burundi to
“participate in negotiations with its political opponents in good faith to bring about a peaceful solution to the political situation in Burundi”.
Following elections in Burundi in May 2020, there was a managed and broadly peaceful transfer of power to a new President and, although political tensions remain, there is no longer an immediate political crisis. As such, Lord Ahmad decided to revoke and replace the 2019 regulations to remove the purpose in regulation 4(b) and its corresponding designation criterion, regulation 6(2)(a)(ii).
Apart from that, the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021 maintain the same effects as the 2019 Burundi regulations. Hon. Members should note that there are currently no designations under that regime.
In response to the improved political climate in Burundi, we decided not to transition the specific individual designations under the EU sanctions regime to the UK’s autonomous Burundi sanctions regime at the end of the transition period. We have seen more positive developments in Burundi since that time, and we warmly welcome the Government of Burundi’s closer co-operation with the international community over the past year. We also note, for example, that the Government have re-engaged with some media outlets. We welcome that increased commitment to human rights.
While those are encouraging steps towards peace and stability in Burundi, the UK Government still want to see further progress over a sustained period of time. We remain concerned by reports of human rights violations and abuses being committed against the political opposition and other critical voices. We are concerned about the treatment of human rights defenders in Burundi, and the ongoing impunity of those who have violated or abused human rights in Burundi and of those who do so now. Breaches of human rights and the impunity of perpetrators sully and compromise the gains made towards long-term stability in Burundi.
The purposes of the sanctions regime now are to encourage the Government of Burundi: first, to respect democratic principles and institutions, the rule of law and good governance in Burundi; secondly, to refrain from policies or activities that repress civil society in Burundi; and, thirdly, to comply with international human rights law and respect human rights. Maintaining the regime, even without designations, underlines the seriousness of our desire to see that progress. It also allows us to designate persons for sanctions swiftly should the need arise.
Finally, I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee to the fact that, after laying the regulations in Parliament on 13 December last year, an error was identified in one of the purposes of those regulations. The error is the inadvertent omission of “including” from part of the “Purposes”, in regulation 4(c)(ii).
That provides that the purposes of the regulations contained in the instrument are to encourage the Government of Burundi to comply with international human rights law and to respect human rights, including, in particular, to respect the right of persons not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Burundi in the context of rape, other forms of sexual violence and gender-based violence. The intention had been to refer to the right of persons not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Burundi, including in the context of rape, other forms of sexual violence and gender-based violence, but the word “including” was omitted. However, this omission does not make a substantive difference, as the purposes are clear that they encourage the Government of Burundi to comply with all international human rights law—not just in the context of sexual or gender-based violence—and that regulation 4(c)(ii), which omits the word “including”, is an example within a wider definition. Nevertheless, the intention is to correct the error as soon as a suitable opportunity to amend the regulations arises. I obviously welcome the opportunity to hear the views of the Committee on the regulations, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you chairing the Committee, Mr Gray, and I thank the Minister for what he has set out. I understand that, overall, these are largely technical changes. The Opposition will not oppose the overall framework for the sanctions regime, because if we wanted further designations to be made in the future, or further actions to be taken, removing it would make no sense at all.
However, I have some questions for the Minister, because I fear that he somewhat skipped over some of the serious and genuine concerns about the human rights situation in Burundi. I hope he can explain in a bit more detail why there are now no designations and rollovers of individuals. What assessments were carried out on the individuals who had previously been designated, or indeed on others about whom concerns have been expressed to the Government either privately or publicly, of which there are a number?
I will come back to some wider questions about the sanctions regime that the SI is part of in a moment, but the Minister said that political tensions remain. I fear that is somewhat understating the situation. Humanitarian and human rights organisations have highlighted consistent abuses in Burundi that, in some cases, are alleged to amount to crimes against humanity. There were initially promising signs that the Government of Burundi were taking steps under the new Administration to improve the human rights situation, including a return to open dialogue, which had largely deteriorated previously, and progressive statements made by the new President—for example, to rein in violent youth groups, to release political prisoners and to expand journalistic freedoms. In reality, however, little has been achieved and structural human rights abuses continue to take place. In some cases, it is alleged that they have actually got worse.
I fear that relinquishing all sanctions against individuals in Burundi is only likely to encourage those who want to take a more repressive approach and take the country back into very difficult territory. It is not just me saying this; it is the view of a number of senior and significant individuals, including Doudou Diène, the chairperson of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, who said:
“We call on everyone concerned for Burundi to look under the surface. Since President Ndayishimiye’s inauguration 15 months ago, not only have grave human rights violations continued to occur, but in some respects the situation has deteriorated”.
The UN Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, established in 2016, continues to document grave human rights violations. It concluded in September 2021 that
“no structural reform has been undertaken to durably improve the situation. Serious human rights violations have continued to be committed by State officials and members of the Imbonerakure with the acquiescence of the authorities or even at their instigation. The rule of law continues to be progressively eroded.”
Indeed, it has been alleged that excessive brutality has been shown to anyone suspected of opposing the authority of the ruling party, with arbitrary arrests, torture and even killings. Of course, that applies to a whole range of individuals—whether civilians or journalists and others who have provided criticism—and dissenting civil society and members of the media have been at serious risk of detention and forced disappearances. The United Nations working group says that, as of 2020, there had been more than 238 people disappeared. Cases of violations by the police forces and others that would amount to crimes against humanity according to the UN Human Rights Council, have also been documented.
Of course, there are issues as well across the borders, with horrific stories of bodies floating down the Ruzizi river. Bodies that are cuffed have been seen floating in the rivers. Survivors of situations have described torture, and Human Rights Watch and others have detailed harrowing accounts, substantiating abuses conducted over many years by a number of Administrations. So I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of those allegations and explain, in that serious and worrying context, why he is so optimistic about the progress that is being made, because that optimism is clearly not shared by a range of independent observers.
In conclusion, I want to raise a couple of wider points, because this measure is obviously part of the wider sanctions regime. The Minister will be aware that there was a debate in Westminster Hall just a few weeks ago regarding the wider sanctions regime, and there was criticism of it, which directly relates to this measure. It was asked why we are not sanctioning more individuals using the powers under the sanctions legislation—indeed, under the Magnitsky amendment that was part of it.
There has been some suggestion that that is due to capacity issues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for investigating individuals. Some excellent staff work in the sanctions unit and elsewhere; I know the fantastic work they do. However, we need to ensure that they are properly resourced and have all they need at their disposal, because we seem to be lagging behind the United States and others in designating individuals, whether it is in relation to Burundi or a number of other circumstances. Can the Minister say whether further, similar measures will come out of the reviews that the Department has been undertaking? Can we expect further statutory instruments like this one to be brought forward in the weeks ahead?
We want these powers to be used fully and proportionately. Fundamentally, however, we have these powers and we should hold to account those guilty of human rights abuses, corruption and illicit finance—all these things that we all say we want to see action on—and use the powers to their fullest extent, not just in Burundi but more broadly.
I hope that the Minister can answer some of those questions.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for his points and his questions, and I will try to answer as many of them as I possibly can.
I guess that I will take the second bit first, because we are using the Magnitsky sanctions regime a great deal. Since the UK’s global human rights sanctions regime was established in July 2020, we have designated 75 individuals and six entities under the global human rights sanction regime, and we have also designated 27 individuals under the global anti-corruption sanctions regime since it was established last April.
Obviously, the full sanctions list is available for everybody to see on the gov.uk website and it provides quite some detail about those individuals and entities designated under sanctions regulations made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act. We work with our international partners and take soundings from all the non-governmental organisations that the hon. Gentleman referred to when we are establishing the detail before going through any sort of designation.
The hon. Gentleman asked some very legitimate questions about Burundi itself, including why we are not designating more people in Burundi. Maintaining the regime that we have encourages the Government of Burundi to build on the recent positive political developments. It also underlines the seriousness of our desire to see further progress. It allows us the flexibility to designate, should we see fit and should the evidence suggest that is what we need to do. It also allows us to designate swiftly if the need arises.
We keep the sanctions regime under constant review and monitor political developments in the country, including on human rights, on a very regular basis. The hon. Gentleman mentioned what other people are doing when it comes to designations in Burundi. I note that the US Government revoked its Burundi sanctions regime in November. The UK and the US have different legislative frameworks and powers for imposing sanctions. However, we also note that the EU renewed its Burundi sanctions regime in October.
On the more general point about human rights in Burundi, we welcome the Government of Burundi’s closer co-operation with the international community over the past year. We note that the steps that the Burundi Government have taken to demonstrate greater commitment to human rights, including prisoner releases, are very positive and we urge them to deliver further progress over a sustained period.
However, we also watch the situation in Burundi very closely and take advice from a number of the entities that the hon. Gentleman referred to. We remain concerned about reports of human rights violations and abuses being committed against the political opposition and critical voices, and we are also concerned about the treatment of human rights defenders in Burundi, as I outlined in my opening remarks. Breaches of human rights, coupled with impunity of perpetrators, compromise the gains made towards long-term stability in the country.
While Burundi’s human rights situation remains concerning for the UK, we want to recognise the positive steps and progress on human rights that have been made under the new President’s leadership. We want to see that progress continue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a small diplomatic presence, in the British Embassy Liaison Office Bujumbura, through which we continue to work with the resident international community to advocate improved human rights in Burundi. We also engage through a whole host of international forums, such as the UN Human Rights Council, to continue that push.
We continue to call on the Government of Burundi to co-operate with all UN human rights mechanisms, including the new special rapporteur, and to enable the reopening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Burundi. We have also provided support to a range of local human rights and media freedom actors, as well as the national human rights commission. We take such matters extremely seriously, and I hope that hon. Members see how important we consider them to be.
As I set out in my opening speech, the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021 in essence maintain the same effects as the those of the previous regime. The UK Government are pleased to work with the Government of Burundi on priority issues, including human rights. We call on the Government of Burundi to co-operate with all the UN human rights mechanisms, including the new special rapporteur, and to facilitate the reopening of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Burundi.
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for his points and questions. If I have missed anything, I will happily write to him. I hope that the Committee will support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.