Post Office Legislation

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Thursday 14th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have said many times before, the Fujitsu/Horizon scandal is truly shocking and one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in British history. The scandal has brought blight and devastation to the lives of thousands of falsely convicted sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. Over 20 years on, they and their families still suffer from the consequences and trauma of all they have been through. I pay tribute to them for their determination in pursuing justice, especially those who took the very courageous and difficult step of challenging the Post Office. Without their bravery and perseverance, the campaign would not be where it is today.

We of course welcome the legislation that has been laid before Parliament. Before giving a full verdict on it, we will need to properly scrutinise the detail and analyse its potential impacts. In the first instance, the legislation still leaves a series of outstanding issues, including the question of when justice and compensation will be delivered and to whom.

I ask the Minister: what steps have he and Ministers in the other place taken to prevent this rightly exceptional piece of legislation being used by government in a nefarious way in future? How are we protecting against the abuse of this legislation further down the track? The flip side of that is that there are many other scandals that courts, reviews and government are working through. Could the principle of this legislation be used by them?

As I have said before, I seek assurances on the territorial scope of the legislation, which currently applies only to England and Wales even though the Post Office is not devolved and the Fujitsu Horizon system and the impacts of the scandal are UK-wide. Approximately 30 cases need overturning in Scotland and Northern Ireland but a series of outstanding questions remain as to when sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular will receive their justice. I welcome the Minister’s assurances that there will be regular dialogue with the devolved Administrations, given the different legal processes, but I will be a bit more specific: can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on what conversations his department has had with colleagues in Northern Ireland, who have expressly requested that the cases there be included in the scope of this legislation?

This is probably harder to deal with but can the Minister also update your Lordships’ House on what conversations the department has had with colleagues in Scotland about the progress on exonerating sub-postmasters there? As we know, 80% of the redress budget is yet to be paid out and considerable uncertainty remains about when sub-postmasters will receive their full compensation. We all agree, I am sure, that they have waited long enough and that the delays are causing only further financial distress and suffering.

The Commons Business and Trade Committee recommends that there be a “legally binding timeframe” for the period between an offer first being tabled and a settlement being reached. Would the Minister care to comment on that recommendation? If those legally binding targets are not adopted, what assurances can the Minister give that Minister Hollinrake will meet his target of ensuring that all compensation is out of the door by the end of the year? I know that the Minister here and the Minister in the other place are committed to ensuring that there are no further delays but sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses will want to know when this will actually happen.

Given the recent chaos in the Post Office’s leadership, we welcome the decision to take it out of the redress process. In fact, last week, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I called for this. Redress must have independent oversight; I thank the Government Ministers and their teams for implementing this. Financial redress alone cannot come close to repaying sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses for their suffering, although it is important that we get it right. As we have previously discussed, some of those impacted by the scandal have sadly passed away; they did not live to see this legislation and their innocence proven, nor to receive the compensation that they rightly deserved. Can the Minister clarify the process for those who have passed away so that their families can receive closure?

On the families, especially children and partners, we see today in the news that a number of children of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are looking to take legal claims against the Post Office. Can the Minister inform your Lordships’ House of the Government’s attitude towards this? It is vital that the Government act with the urgency and speed that are needed to correct this injustice. We on these Benches stand ready to work with the Government to ensure the speedy implementation of this Bill.

I have just one question regarding the Explanatory Notes. On page 7, paragraph 41, the sentence just trails off. It starts:

“Clause 2 gives the meaning of ‘relevant offence’ with reference to several conditions set out in the subclauses”.


That is fine, but it continues:

“All of the conditions must be satisfied for an alleged offence to”.


It just stops. Can the Explanatory Notes be updated? I understand that this was rushed through, and that is absolutely fine, but it would be helpful if we could have just a bit of clarity of what the end of the sentence is meant to be.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrat Benches echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, about the consistent and determined efforts of the wronged postmasters who still are fighting for the redress that they deserve. I thank the Minister for the Statement. We on these Benches are pleased to see that legislation will start to correct the fundamental wrongs done to most of the postmasters convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal.

However, the Statement says that

“this legislation will quash all convictions that meet a clear set of conditions”.

These are defined in paragraph 11, on pages 3 and 4 of the Explanatory Notes for the Bill, which was introduced yesterday in another place; the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, referred to those Explanatory Notes just now. Can the Minister explain how these criteria were decided upon? How many of the convicted postmasters are excluded from this redress scheme as a result, and why? I appreciate that all this has been done in a hurry, but even if my questions cannot be answered now, please can the answers be clearly articulated to those who will speak on this Statement so that we can understand why? At the moment, it is not clear who is and is not included as a result of Clause 2 of the Bill.

As I mentioned in a number of previous interventions on this issue, we know that software issues were reported in the predecessor systems to Horizon. Indeed, in 1997, when the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was Paymaster-General, there was a steady stream of complaints during the pilot rollout. The i newspaper has also revealed the problems with the Capture scheme, under which a number of postmasters were also convicted. It said yesterday:

“Steve Marston … was using Capture, an IT system rolled out by the Post Office in the early 90s when he suffered unexplained shortfalls of around £79,000. He insists he never stole ‘a penny’ from his branch at Heap Bridge, Greater Manchester, but felt pressured into pleading guilty in 1998 in order to avoid a prison sentence, a tactic the Post Office has admitted was widely used by investigators to secure convictions”.


Can the Minister explain why this group of postmasters, who were using Capture when there were complaints, are also excluded from this Bill?

The Minister says in the Statement that the Bill only covers England and Wales; the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, has already covered this. It specifically excludes Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Statement says:

“However, we are fully committed to working with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive through regular, weekly official-level engagement to progress their own approaches”.


If that is the case, why has the Justice Minister in the Scottish Parliament, Angela Constance, expressed her real concern that Scotland is not included? She said:

“We, along with the Northern Ireland Executive, urged the UK Government to introduce UK-wide legislation as the best way to ensure there is a quick, fair and equal solution for all the affected sub-postmasters, particularly as the Post Office is reserved to Westminster, so this announcement is extremely disappointing”.


Given that, in that same paragraph, the Statement goes on to say

“The financial redress scheme will be open to applicants throughout the UK, once convictions have been overturned”,


why on earth has the decision been made by the Westminster Government to exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland, when neither of those devolved Governments want that?

The Statement made it clear, at last, that the Post Office will no longer have responsibility for redress and should be subject to independent oversight. My noble friend Lord Fox and I, and others from these Benches, have also raised this as a fundamental problem of trust for many postmasters, so its removal is welcome. However, I ask whether the Department for Business and Trade is truly independent of the process, not least because of the debate about the speed of processing of claims that happened in January following the differing statements from the Prime Minister, Kevin Hollinrake MP and the Secretary of State, Kemi Badenoch. The Government are responsible for the payments—I shall come on to that later—but this gives them some skin in the game and one thing has to happen now, which is to give postmasters confidence that oversight is truly independent. Can the Minister therefore describe how independent the independent panels or independent individuals will be? Who will appoint them? Will there be a departmental official on the panel? Will departmental staff clerk the panels? Will the independent panels include a postmaster?

The Statement says that there will be legislation to make sure that the payments are exempt from taxation. A regulation on taxation exemption under the compensation arrangements for both the Horizon and infected blood schemes was presented to Parliament in December 2023. Is this a further simple amendment to that regulation, or is it further, separate secondary legislation, or is it a new Bill? How will it differ? Can the Minister explain?

The final section of the Statement refers to the Select Committee’s recommendation of a legally binding timeframe for redress—here, I echo the questions from the noble Lord, Lord McNicol—but I think there is some sympathy for ensuring speed wherever possible. However, the Statement said that it would be impossible without imposing penalties on forensic accounts. That seems to be an extremely narrow focus. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring as swift as possible processing of payment and debate between postmasters and forensic accountants about what is due to postmasters. The critical reason for independence is to ensure that postmasters are afforded a truly fair debate, which many say has been denied them in the initial offers received from the scheme when it was run by the Post Office.

Finally, I have been going through the central government supply estimates for 2023-24 and obviously looked at the Budget papers. I am still struggling to find the compensation payments—in total, approaching about £1 billion—in either the department or Treasury tables. Can the Minister help? I have raised this matter now with, I think, three Ministers and would be grateful if the Minister could write to me and point me in the right direction for the figures. I know that Liam Byrne has also raised these points in the Select Committee he chairs.

Vaccination: Condition of Deployment

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to make her comments.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, from our Benches, I thank all the staff and volunteers in the entire health and social care sector, as well as the scientists and other experts, who are still working to keep us all safe as this pandemic continues, because it is clear, especially with omicron BA.2, that it is not over yet.

We are warned that there may yet be more surprises down the line, which is why it is somewhat bemusing that the Statement begins with this phrase:

“Last Thursday, we woke up to a new phase of this pandemic as we returned to plan A.”


That is extraordinary, because the Prime Minister made his Statement with neither the Chief Medical Officer nor the Chief Scientific Adviser by his side. His press conference and this Statement feel like the Government trying to create good news against the constant bad news battle, not least over partygate.

Last summer, and again before Christmas, we warned that the insistence on compulsory vaccination for front-line staff in the social care sector and the NHS would cause severe problems, specifically in terms of staff shortages as staff either left or were sacked. That problem is already evident in social care; a number of care homes have already been taken to court by staff they have had to let go.

The Statement on Monday also talked about cases falling but, frankly, the opposite is happening at the moment, with cases plateauing in some areas and rising in others. Tim Spector of the ZOE Covid study is warning that the numbers are consistently increasing despite many people no longer recording their results. The high level of cases in schools and in the younger adult age groups shows that Covid is still prevalent. Even if omicron BA.1 and BA.2 are less severe than delta—which is, by the way, good news—the number of cases has two consequences. First, there is increased pressure on primary care, especially GPs and hospitals, even if there is less pressure on ICUs. Secondly—the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say this—there are the problems faced by the clinically extremely vulnerable. I will return to this point later.

Yesterday afternoon, the director-general for adult social care wrote to providers of CQC-regulated adult social care activities about the removal of vaccination as a condition of deployment, or VCOD. Extraordinarily, this letter was written as late as on the eve of the date when notices would have to be served to staff in the NHS. Further, the letter refers to a Written Statement being laid before Parliament today but, as at 3.30 pm, it still has not been laid.

The first and second paragraphs of the letter refer to the regulations on VCOD, which relate to care homes and the wider social care sector, but the heading of the letter reads:

“Vaccination as a condition of deployment … in wider social care (social care settings other than care homes)”.

For anyone reading this letter at face value, it clearly excludes care homes from the U-turn on compulsory vaccination. There is no mention of a separate letter for them and the sector is extremely concerned. I know that the department has been dealing with calls on this matter today, but those I have talked to say that they cannot get a straight answer from the department. Can I try to distil this to get a clear answer from the Minister, who I wrote to about this earlier today?

Is the reason that the letter to the social care sector specifically excludes care homes from the compulsory vaccination rule changes because they are covered by regulations that are being revoked and it is not necessary and, if so, why were they not told that in the letter? Or is it because of an error, and they will receive a separate letter that has not gone out yet, despite today being the day that any final employment notices must be served? Or is it because compulsory vaccination rules remain in care homes? Another matter that I have picked up today is that this letter was not sent to hospices. Why was that? I hope the Minister can give your Lordships’ House a precise answer, but there is a wider interest in this so, if he cannot give me that now, I would welcome a written response.

Secondly, can the Minister say whether UKHSA gave formal advice to the Department for Education, in advance of Nadhim Zahawi’s guidance to schools on 20 January, specifically the strong guidance on no face coverings in schools, other than temporarily and only on the advice of their director of public health? Further on in the guidance, on page 12, it says that

“Children and young people previously considered CEV should attend school and should follow the same … guidance as the rest of the population. In some circumstances, a child or young person may have received personal advice from their specialist or clinician on additional precautions to take and they should continue to follow that advice.”


What would the Minister say to the head who, earlier this week, asked all pupils—not just the CEV pupil—to wear masks until further notice, as one pupil has leukaemia and is severely immunocompromised? The family and the school want that pupil in school, if possible. Why have the Government, the Department for Education or the Department of Health—I do not mind which—not given advice to these pupils, their families and their schools?

Finally, the briefing to journalists earlier this week that the Secretary of State for Health wants to stop publishing Covid data in mid-April has rung alarm bells across the medical and scientific community, as well as for those who are CEV and are still following the guidance in place for them. Scientists say it will reduce their ability to look at data to understand the progress locally, regionally and nationally, and doctors need that information too. I hope the Minister can confirm that any such decision is in the hands of the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser, as these are scientific, not political, decisions.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Lords Hansard - Part 3 & Committee stage
Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak remotely.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, there are two amendments in this group, both dealing with end-of-life arrangements, and I support both of them. Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would put on the face of the Bill an extremely important provision—that of giving anyone with an end-of-life diagnosis the right to a conversation about their needs, how and where they want to die, and how they can be given the support they need to achieve that. This is long overdue. Our excellent palliative care and end-of-life healthcare clinicians and professionals carry out an invisible yet vital service to people. But unfortunately, it is not universal.

Why, oh why, as a nation, do we hate to talk about dying? I have seen both the best and worst in practice. Indeed, very recently, a friend in hospital who was told that he had a few weeks left wanted to go home to die. No one at the hospital used the phrases “end-of-life care” or “palliative care” or even talked about hospices. They thought he was not close enough to death to get to that stage. Instead, there were discussions about setting up the right domiciliary care, or possibly a care home through the council. This amendment would ensure that when the diagnosis of end of life is made, that conversation will happen for all patients. That is very welcome. It is too late for my friend, who died while he was still in hospital.

Amendment 297 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, sets out the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay a Bill before Parliament to permit terminally ill and mentally competent patients to end their own lives with medical assistance. I offer my deepest sympathies to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the death of his father. I look forward to hearing his speech on this amendment, and I apologise that, due to the remote contribution rules, I have to comment on it before he speaks.

Both the Private Member’s Bill brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and before it the Private Member’s Bill brought by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, had exceptionally sensitive and thoughtful debates in your Lordships’ House, but neither has progressed any further. We know that public views have changed—like those of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—in light of sad family experiences of death where pain and trauma were not controlled and where, for too many people, access to palliative care and end-of-life care was just a lottery.

I have spoken in the debates on both those Private Members’ Bills in favour of assisted dying and remain firmly committed to campaigning for it, but that is not what tonight’s debate is about. If accepted, Amendment 297 would not immediately change the law on assisted dying. It would merely require Ministers to bring forward draft legislation, not even to campaign in its favour.

Government is well placed to draft the legislation, encourage a wider public debate through consultation and bring together voices and views from right across our society in a way that perhaps the polarised debate between individual MPs and Peers on such a complex issue always makes difficult. Government can and should maintain their neutrality on assisted dying, but they can guarantee sufficient time for the consideration of the legislation.

It is worth noting that in those jurisdictions where assisted dying has been made legal, there have not been the disastrous consequences predicted by opponents. Instead, those laws continue to receive huge popular support many years after legalisation. In no jurisdiction has any law been passed on assisted dying and subsequently repealed, demonstrating perhaps that the fears of opponents to assisted dying have not come to pass.

The Crown Prosecution Service has recently opened a consultation on the introduction of a prosecution policy for homicides that can be categorised as mercy killings or suicide pacts. The prosecution guidelines, if approved, would add clarity to the law in the same way as the prosecution policy on assisted suicide adopted over a decade ago. While this is helpful, it does not change the law, and it cannot protect dying people with a legal choice of how to end their life, nor can it protect their families, as decisions would be made by the CPS only after the death of the person. I have seen a family friend have to go through the trauma of a police investigation after her husband took his own life. He deliberately chose a day when she was 100 miles away to protect her. It still took months for the police to make their decision and, frankly, it was cruel.

What we need above all is a commitment to a public consultation and parliamentary time for a wider debate on assisted dying. Amendment 297 provides that. It does not change the law on assisted dying. Tonight is not the right time for that, but I think the country is ready for that debate. Both these amendments are vital in their own way, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond favourably.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, is also taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 24th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, we have two noble Baronesses taking part remotely. I first call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the present Health Minister and his predecessors for a number of years—far too many years, frankly—should not be surprised by these amendments, all of which cover the issue of workforce planning. Often, Ministers’ words and aspirations have been supportive but the reality is that, without proper long-term workforce planning, the NHS and our social care sectors will struggle to be able to plan for the medium term, let alone the short term.

My noble friend Lady Walmsley introduced this group by saying what is needed in workforce planning and why, and I support her brief but critical amendment to ensure patient safety. The other amendments in this group set out the how: whether the workforce planning reports or clinical and healthcare training needs in Amendment 171, the duty on the Secretary of State in Amendment 173, the report on parity of pay in Amendment 174 or the important Amendment 214 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on workforce boards. I am looking forward to hearing the expert contributions to follow on them from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and many other noble Lords, and I hope that the Minister will take note of how the lack of effective workforce planning is hobbling the provision of health and care services in England.

Health and Social Care

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

I, too, thank the Minister for the Statement and I start by thanking all our NHS and social care staff, at all levels—back room or front line—for all they are doing to keep the NHS and social care going while under the most extraordinary, sustained pressure.

Like others, I am struggling to see what is new in the Statement, which admits that the funding mentioned is not new. Although there is marginally more detail on how some of it will be spent, it is very light on by when the extremely urgent investment will deliver the help that our NHS and the public who use it desperately need.

Repeatedly, the Statement, and the accompanying so-called policy paper, The Health and Social Care Approach to Winter, refer to the urgent need to recruit more staff for both the NHS and the social care sector. However, it reports that currently, the NHS has an 8% vacancy rate at all job levels, and the social care sector, which has had more than 100,000 vacancies for some time, has had a further 3% reduction in staff since March this year.

Although there are proposals to increase staffing, can the Minister please explain where those staff will come from if they have not been able to be recruited over the past few months? How long will it take to recruit them? It is good that money is being put into the workforce, but I struggle with any suggestion that that will help to deal with the current winter crisis. When will the staff who are desperately needed in health and social care be available to join the teams out in the wards?

Both the Statement and the report talk about using locum services for doctors and agencies for nurses and social care staff, but health and social care employers tell the public daily that the extra qualified people are just not there. One of the problems in social care at the moment is that the NHS is poaching nurses from care homes. Please can the Minister explain who is going to fill those roles, given that training those skilled personnel takes a lot longer than a few months?

I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about delayed discharges. We have all been asking the Minister and his predecessor about specific plans to help the social care sector overcome its problems in the workforce, not just for months but for years. The high level of staff vacancies continues to worsen. Can the Government help in the short term? For example, NHS Providers made the very helpful suggestion today that the Government help to fund a winter retention bonus for social care staff. NHS Providers understands that we must get the log-jam moving, and if the only way to do that is for the Government to help, please will they consider that proposal very seriously?

The Statement says that the NHS needs to be able to offer more appointments, operations and treatments, which is absolutely right, including with the NHS itself. However, the capacity to change to innovative ways of working, with a heavy load of staff vacancies and the current sustained 20 months of intense pressure, seems to be extraordinary. To illustrate this, in the second week of November, there were 966,406 more GP appointments in England compared with the same week last year—and we were not in lockdown at that point last year.

The Statement talks about the transformation funding for elective recovery, announced in September. The plan lists the hospitals that have been successful in getting their schemes approved. I know, from experience in my local area in Watford, that some of the modular ward proposals can move ahead very quickly. Can the Minister tell us the likely earliest delivery date for any one of these projects? Once the buildings are there, when will extra staff be available to make these new wards work? We certainly do not want to see a repeat of the Nightingale hospitals.

The plan says that NHS Test and Trace will be carrying out contact tracing, so will the Minister say whether local test and trace will continue? It is noticeable that this was not mentioned at all, yet only two months ago Ministers were saying that this was where the focus of contact tracing would be. May I repeat the questions that I have asked on at least two occasions to the Minister? What is happening to the funding for the local resilience teams for Covid tracing and other pandemic work from April, given that, at the moment, there is no money in the budget whatever for the next financial year?

Last week, the Minister wrote to my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester about the delivery of vaccines to the vulnerable housebound who cannot go out either to their GP’s surgery or to vaccination centres. He wrote to her after the Question, confirming that GPs have a duty to offer vaccines to the housebound. He went on to say:

“If there are no GP practices signed up to phase 3, the CCG will make these alternative arrangements instead.”


Today’s Daily Telegraph talks about more than 300,000 people—more than two-thirds of the housebound—having yet to receive their booster doses. This is not hesitancy in people coming forward; it is clear that there is a problem. With many GP surgeries having withdrawn from delivering booster jabs because of their increased workload, can the Minister tell me when CCGs will be setting up these new systems and, most importantly, contacting and reassuring this vulnerable group of people about when they will get a visit from the mobile vaccination team? Putting the booster programme on steroids for all adults is of no use if the most vulnerable are not even being contacted. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. If he does not have the answers at his fingertips, I ask him to write to me.

Coronavirus Act 2020 (Early Expiry) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. Can we beam her in?

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this is beginning to have the feeling of “Star Trek”, which is certainly not my intention. Thank you, Deputy Chairman. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

From these Benches, we will not oppose the expiry of these 12 provisions, although we have some comments on them. It was really good to hear the Minister outline the “hands, face, space” guidance, readopted in the past couple of days. Will there be a public communications campaign to reinforce it because, sadly, I suspect that not many people will have heard it in Grand Committee today in Parliament, let alone in the outside world?

Yesterday, in the Statement repeat, we debated masks and self-isolation; we will do so again tomorrow when we look at the SIs. On vaccination, it was good to hear the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State refer to the clinically extremely vulnerable in this afternoon’s press conference. I promise the Minister that I will not repeat all the questions I asked him yesterday, but not one of them has yet been answered. Delivering either the fourth, or a booster, jab for 3.7 million clinically extremely vulnerable people will not work effectively without clearer information systems on exactly who the CEV are and which jab they should get; there is still a lot of uncertainty there. I thank the Minister for his offer of a meeting during yesterday’s Statement. With today’s announcement, vaccination is becoming urgent; I look forward to hearing from him shortly about when it can happen.

From these Benches, we want to make a brief comment on the assessments for local authority care and support. I note that the Explanatory Memorandum says that only

“eight local authorities used these powers between April 2020 and June 2020. No local authorities in England have used them after 29 June 2020.”

That is good to hear, but it is evident that assessments are still happening very slowly. It is one of the problems that hospital trusts across the country are facing, with people in beds awaiting an assessment. Some of that is much more about workforce availability, both in the NHS and in the local authority system, than about the arrangements to reduce these assessments.

Reference has already been made to local authorities having virtual meetings. Members from these Benches and others objected when the Secretary of State decided that all local authority meetings had to cease being virtual in January this year. It has meant that a number of councillors have been unable to attend their council meetings through no fault of their own. If the Lords can have a handful of people contributing virtually, and with cases going up and certain areas having problems, is it possible to return to virtual meetings and leave the matter as a choice for the local authority concerned?

I note that the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union/trigger the statement requirements under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”


However, it is only fair to point out that Section 25 gives early expiration to the power to require information relating to food supply chains to avoid serious disruption. In principle, we do not have a problem with that as a provision during the pandemic, but I say to the Minister: that statement may be true in treaty and UK legislation terms but, as we face this Christmas, there are increasing concerns about disruption to food supply chains, for three reasons.

One is a direct consequence of Brexit. European providers of food and many other products have significantly reduced or stopped exporting to the UK because of the complex, slow and, for both exporter and importer, expensive costs now that we are outside the European Union. Since Brexit, the reduction in the number of EU abattoir workers—as they leave the UK—has meant, this week and for the past month, thousands of pigs and other livestock being culled but not brought into the food chain. Worse, the increase in avian flu cases and the restrictions placed on all poultry farms mean that there are concerns about the supply of birds for the Christmas dinner table. Thirdly, there is a delay in foods and other goods coming in from around the world as a result of the pandemic. This is what one might describe as a perfect storm. Is the Minister confident that, given all these factors as well as trying to manage omicron in its early stages, it is appropriate to expire this particular provision?

We accept the expiry of emergency volunteering leave and compensation for emergency volunteers, although I do want to comment on the problems with the Bring Back Staff scheme, especially for doctors and some nurses. It was absolutely fine in principle, until it hit human resources in trusts. I know of two doctors who had recently retired and were kept hanging around for five months. One was a doctor teaching trainee doctors; however, she was unable to be used because the system just made it impossible for her. If there is any cause to reintroduce this particular provision, will the Minister ensure that we do not gold-plate the complex HR arrangements, making it impossible for staff, former staff or those who might come back on a temporary basis to do so?

We do not believe that the extension of time limits for retention of fingerprints and DNA should remain. We objected to that a year ago, when it was brought in.

Finally, I wrote to the Minister earlier today with real concerns about the problems that some returning international travellers are facing, following the new regulations that came into force at 4 am today, arising from concern over omicron. This is a logistical problem with the change from lateral flow to PCR tests and the passenger locator form. As of this morning, it was still possible to put only the details of your lateral flow test on to the passenger locator form, not the arrangements for the PCR test. One cruise company has 700 people coming into a UK port tomorrow and, despite talking to officials, it cannot get a sense of how the passengers will be able to get off if their details are not on the passenger locator form. I hope another method has been found, otherwise this may be a bit of a problem.

It is right that the Government made the provisions we face today, even if we do not agree with all of them. But I say to the Minister that, as with other statutory instruments, holding on to some of these provisions for a little longer, even if unused, might be useful in case the pandemic takes us down a course that not one of us wants, as the Government and other public services might need to call on them at short notice.

Covid-19: Road Map

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I apologise for missing the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whom I now call.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I return to my noble friend Lord Newby’s question about self-isolation. Australia and New Zealand give a straight- forward grant, set at minimum wage, for those self-isolating and quarantining, with no means testing. Their results have been outstanding, with a very high compliance level; people do not have to choose between putting food on their tables and isolating. Given our low levels of compliance, should not the Government move to a non-means-tested grant, as a tool to succeed in lifting lockdown, as a matter of urgency?