Covid-19: One Year Report
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to look at the money side because although the Government have spent massively on the pandemic, it could have been done better.
Economic support has been generous and it is welcome that furlough is now a permanent tool for the Treasury. But the good is marred by the Treasury’s deliberate refusal to extend other key programmes to many businesses hurt by Covid. Some 3.8 million freelancers and contractors—hairdressers, builders and workers in the creative industries—have been excluded from self-employment income support. A million sole traders who are directors of limited companies have been excluded quite deliberately because the Government do not like how they draw profits from their business. However, those traders are not the big tax cheats, and the Treasury has made a spiteful example of them despite repeatedly shunning possible remedy in the law on dividends.
Ministers claim that the excluded are not without help because they can get bounce-back loans, which might not be sensible financial advice. To get bounce-back loans deployed quickly, the Government suspended application of the Consumer Credit Act. All that was really needed was a variation relating to information and the affordability test but the Government ploughed ahead, removing all safeguards and advertising loans with government underwriting, although the underwriting is actually for the banks and not the individual.
Right from the start, concern about future heavy-handed tactics for repayment were raised. Ministers made assurances that they were in discussions with the banks and forbearance would very much apply but, as time goes on, we find that it is the Government who are the hawks, with banks now worried that they will be forced by the Treasury to take tough action, without promises of forbearance being adhered to.
When it comes to the vast sums spent on procurement, the back story is one of lack of value, low transparency and suspension of due diligence to the extent that it looks like suspension of common sense or, worse, deliberate turning of a blind eye. Some £18 billion of procurement was covered in the NAO’s November report, much of it for PPE, for which emergency procurement started two months after that of the EU, by which time global markets had tightened. That was always going to be difficult but it should not have led to the ditching of all accountability and corruption awareness.
A high-priority lane was given to leads referred by government officials, Ministers, MPs and noble Lords. Those leads were considered more credible and treated with more urgency than suppliers that came through normal channels. One in 10 of those in the high-priority lane got contracts and fewer than one in 100 through the ordinary channel. Why was that choice made when legitimate suppliers used the ordinary channel and, as we have heard, ended up being overlooked? Sources in the high-priority lane were not always documented, nor were key decisions, consideration of risks or how conflicts of interest had been identified and managed; nor were contracts published in a timely manner. Then there is what the Public Accounts Committee called the “unimaginable” £37 billion allocated to test and trace, although that was temporarily trumped by the leaked £100 billion plan for Operation Moonshot and its private business contacts.
The NAO said in December that test and trace should make better use of the expertise and knowledge of local authorities. Meanwhile, consultant numbers are still around 2,500, averaging £250,000 a year each and some clocking up nearly £7,000 a day. We must find out how money has really been spent, but the Government have been taken for a ride, paying too many consultants far too much for far too long. Perhaps they were friends too. I hope that, when it comes to a public inquiry, we find out who the profiteers are and who helped themselves ahead of helping their country.
Osteoporosis: Treatment
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to press me for a timetable but, unfortunately, that is not something I can commit to from the Dispatch Box today. However, I would appreciate the opportunity to meet the Royal Osteoporosis Society and will put an appointment in the diary for as soon as possible.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, given the high incidence of osteoporosis in women aged over 50, of whom 50% are affected, and low levels of vitamin D in the population, what plans are there to help increase the consumption of vitamin D, which helps prevent osteoporosis? Is the mandatory nutritional fortification of some foods under consideration?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the CMO has recently issued new guidance on the consumption of vitamin D and there has been widespread discussion about its dosage level. My understanding is that we are leaving the matter at that for the moment. I am not aware that the mandatory application of vitamin D to food is on the runway at the moment, but I am happy to check that point and write to the noble Baroness.
Covid-19: Variant
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the decisions about further restrictions in this country are a cross-departmental matter and are, frankly, above my pay grade. To address the noble Baroness’s point directly, the new variant is a very serious matter. It is as though a turbocharger has been attached to the engine of a high-performance car, which is going round the racetrack faster and faster. This mutation is very similar to ones in South Africa and Brazil, and, experts assess, will happen in many places around the world. We are now dealing with a significantly different virus and we have to adapt our reaction to it accordingly.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
As part of the science, mathematicians run numbers on the spread of variants in an attempt to see whether one is getting an edge; these saw the new variant gaining in the east of England and London by November. Why did a significant localised increase in one variant not trigger an immediate precautionary response, rather than prevarication that it might be about behaviour? What evidence is there that behaviour can favour one variant over another?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am terribly sorry but the noble Baroness is not right about that chronology. Through backward tracing and by looking at historic data, we were able to identify that the variant had been present in Kent as far back as September, but it was only through backward tracing that we were able to figure that out. Further analysis was commissioned on 18 December and NERVTAG concluded that the variant was much more transmissible than others in circulation. Before that, we relied on hunches. When the science changed, so did our decisions.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation and Linked Households) (England) Regulations 2020
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, last year, we discovered that pandemic planning was inadequate. It was based too much on flu, failed dramatically on PPE and test-and-trace logistics, and dithered for too long before lockdown. If there are any lessons to learn, they are to think the unthinkable, implement at speed and get a grip on logistics. Delay costs lives and, in the end, costs more. That must be programmed in to cut the dither.
Now, vaccine rollout and logistics are slower than hoped, and we are seeing traffic jams and distressed elderly in long queues. With the handling advantages of the Oxford vaccine, it must be a seven-day operation, local and around the clock, where feasible. But why have we only just discovered the excessive red tape around approving vaccinators? We knew the size of the task and that the vaccine was coming, even if not exactly when. Why have local pharmacies not already been lined up and assessed for space and in-and-out arrangements? Each lesser-performing day costs lives, costs the NHS and costs the economy.
The Government have put forward some bold financial support packages, but there are still holes, such as excluding the self-employed and inadequate payments to those who cannot afford to self-isolate. Financial stress induces the rule-breaking that spreads the virus, all the more so after high-profile breaking by people not facing financial hardship. The public health aspect of isolating justifies more support than sick pay, which does not cover everyone. The £500 grant is insufficient and not that well known. These regulations, if anything, came later than they should have. That is a lesson that we will face again, with Covid, we are told, likely to stay around despite vaccination.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I understand why these regulations have been made and share many of the concerns of other noble Lords. The first point that has to be made is that it all depends on the effectiveness of test and trace.
One of the effects of the measures extending to employers is that there is a flurry of circulars from lawyers and other employment advisers with good, simple explanations of what can and cannot be done, and that should have a reinforcing effect on compliance, with more checks via line managers and information to employees. It also opens the door to cross-checking—for example, if one person reports in as self-isolating and another, who might have been expected to be in similar circumstances, does not. In that context, I understand that whistleblowing legislation would cover this instrument in the event that there are instances of reporting by employees either on other employees or on businesses, and that whistleblowing protections must apply. Will the Minister confirm that? There have been reports of threats of redundancy if employees do not turn up to work. This instrument may deter threats, but unfortunately it may not deter redundancies where loss of workers is the last loss of business income that the employer can withstand, especially if several employees are affected at once.
Finally, with regard to enforcement, local authorities could nominate Covid marshals or possibly security guards, similar to those used at Manchester Metropolitan University before there was a legal basis. What kind of training safeguards would be in place, especially around the use of reasonable force?
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to return to the issue of linked childcare households that I mentioned in yesterday’s Leicester debate and which appears in these regulations. I recognise that the Minister shares concern about childcare for working parents, especially women, who still bear the brunt of it both generally and during the pandemic. Therefore, the provision of linked childcare households is welcome, but I query the strictness of the provision, as, if the childcare linking arrangement is terminated, neither household may form another. I know from personal experience that childcare arrangements simply do not run as smoothly as you might hope, especially if you do not have the budget to buy in the amount of assistance that is needed.
Clearly, chopping and changing and involving lots of households is not wanted, but there are all kinds of reasons why individual arrangements may need changing, from illness to simply that they do not work any longer. Perhaps the regulations were not expected to be in place all that long, but opening up is no longer the national direction of travel, with warning of measures continuing for six months. Therefore, if this provision is going to be around, will consideration be given to how to allow for changes in linked households, maybe after an interval? With the regulations as presently drafted, households have only one chance to get it right, despite any of the disrupting life events that simply happen, including coronavirus. The Government have not managed to get their coronavirus plans right first time, yet parents are expected to. Can this be looked at again?
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. These coronavirus instruments are now becoming familiar on the Order Paper; each tells a story about people’s lives and gives lessons that are, perhaps, not yet all learned. As the Minister has said, Leicester was the first local area lockdown, and it is somewhat poignant that we are debating two regulations that are not all that old and include stepwise easing of local lockdowns at a time when we have just had to return to stronger measures for everyone.
Before getting to today’s statutory instruments, I will note that Leicester had its first statutory instrument before the summer break, followed by progressive lifting of measures and reductions in the area covered by the local measures. The paper trail from then—which is continuing—does show the regularity of fortnightly reviews and accompanying changes. I live some 85 miles from Leicester, so I am not local, but I did see news coverage and hear grumbling because local lockdowns always bring hard comparisons with freedoms just along, or just over, the road.
However, there were success stories too, especially with Leicester councils, for example, being early movers in using local tracing when the national system could not contact people. The lessons there have been followed elsewhere, but, sometimes, there still seems to be a centralising bias and a lack of information.
The first of the (No. 2) regulations that are the subject of this debate was actually the fifth set of changes, so a complete new regulation was made for clarity. Therefore, although it looks like it is imposing closures, those are mainly retaining previous measures, and it is actually allowing the opening up of bars, cafes and so on. It was subject to further review, resulting in the second of today’s Leicester SIs, opening up more businesses. There is then another amending SI on 15 September, which opens up the remaining businesses, as in the rest of England—although, overall, there are still more restrictions on personal socialising in Leicester than there are in England generally. The next review is tomorrow, I believe.
I do not want to guess or estimate whether Leicester is still worse off for infections than anywhere else, but I would not lay a bet against everywhere soon having more restrictions on household mixing. The ability to mingle with lots of different households in groups of six manages to be at the same time too restricting for family circles yet too permissive when used gregariously.
Others will make the future choices, but if the Government are to keep as much of the economy going as they can, it means ensuring that working parents with young children have sufficient childcare help, whether they work at home or go out. There has been a move in the right direction with linked childcare households but, in the face of another six months of restrictions and the season of illnesses, the provision that if you dissolve a linked childcare arrangement you cannot replace it with another is unrealistic. What about emergencies or illness? What if one arrangement can no longer function but another long-term substitute is available? Why not regularise what will have to happen in practice for both the individual and the national economy to survive?
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, debating these instruments after the event and after the earlier messaging against masks is a sorry state of affairs. I wish that there had been encouragement of voluntary wearing of cloth coverings at an earlier stage.
I am not a medical expert, although I am a physicist and mathematician with some experience in the spreading computations that are relevant for viruses. I also practised for over 25 years as a patent attorney, where I learned that it is often necessary to deal with and protect inventions at a stage well before the high level of academic proof is reached—indeed, adherence to academic levels of proof has held back until too late some commercial exploitation of university research. Against that background, I cannot help but think that the need for academic levels of evidence, prevailing over a precautionary principle, in the matter of masks did not serve us well.
There is a reason we have the adage “Coughs and sneezes spread diseases”. The science is pretty clear that Covid is spread by droplets that come out of infected people’s mouths or noses when coughing, sneezing, talking and even breathing. If coughing into your elbow or a tissue is a safeguard against spreading, it seems logical that so is a mask. What was wrong with a precautionary principle? I have no evidence that my young grandchildren will run into a road and get hurt, but I hold their hands just in case.
The Government followed the line taken by the WHO about there being mixed evidence and there was panic about using up supplies of PPE, but it is astonishing how little face coverings were discussed in NERVTAG and SAGE, with minutes recording reasons to oppose masks rather than any precautionary principle. The reasons were that they would create fear and anxiety but also a false sense of security; that they would lead to the abandonment of hand washing and social distancing, although there was no suggestion that they might be a visual reminder; and that they would lead to more touching of faces, although in my own case I found them quite good at reminding me to do it less. The “not to mask” reasons were not tested to levels of academic rigour and confused the message just in time for the U-turn and compulsion, with, most probably, lower levels of adherence as a result.
Social Care
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is kind to think that I am in a position to articulate a timetable from the Dispatch Box—that is beyond my abilities. However, she is entirely right to focus on the urgent need to focus on this area. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State could not have been plainer that when the time is right and we have dealt with the epidemic, social care reform will be uppermost in our mind and will be the focus of our attention.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, since 1998 there have been 12 Green Papers, White Papers and other consultations, and five independent reviews, and like the Economic Affairs Committee, they all say that the system needs to be properly funded. Will the Government do that for immediate needs so that the White Paper can go on to do real good for the long term?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is quite right to allude to the very large number of White Papers, think tank reports and amount of documentation in this area. All I can say is that I have never seen such acute political will and focus on social care reform. Nor have I seen a Prime Minister, a Secretary of State and a chief executive of the National Health Service to be so focused on the matter and to have raised it as a major priority in all their communications.
Covid-19: Social Care Services
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords,
“Adult social care in England is inadequately funded.”
That is the opening line of a strong report from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member. Right now, that strained system is dealing with a virus that strikes at vulnerability, the very heart of care services. The Government’s response seems to have inadequate intelligence about how care work operates. How else could the “care homes not at risk” advice have come about, or low-paid care workers be expected to travel more than 200 miles for a test?
The virus shows how much we rely on workers in essential services. Care workers rank highly among them in terms of both society’s need and the risks the workers face. The NHS has high recognition, equipment, donations and worker visa extensions, and the care sector deserves the same. It is time to level up. Just like the NHS, care needs could affect anyone. Half the adult care budget goes on working-age adults, and that percentage is rising.
Many care provider businesses are now financially at risk, including some employee-owned and mutual businesses. I am told that some local authorities rapidly made three-month forward bookings and advanced payments, taking the financial risk if those places are not used, to help providers keep afloat for the future. Local authorities have suffered from lacking and late information in a situation that has moved faster on the ground than government decisions. New funding is welcome, but it lags behind the progress of the virus in terms of rising operational and care costs and loss of income from rates, rent and car parks. The knock-on effect of the virus will take a higher toll on the vulnerable, including the working vulnerable, which translates in the long term to a need for more care.
The rulebook on government expenditure has been torn up to support many people and businesses during lockdown. An equally open mind and a long-term approach are needed post coronavirus. Investment for growth must trump austerity, and social care underfunding must still be addressed. One good-faith way in which the Government could start right now would be to put care providers on the same VAT footing as the NHS. Be innovative—it can be done if the will is there.