Coronavirus Act 2020

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want first to register that the no-vote on the Coronavirus Act in the other House last week, with the seemingly glib statement that the House was not in the mood to vote, was unsettling. Although a majority of the most illiberal and worrying uses and abuses of the law over the last 18 months have been acted through public health legislation, none the less the Coronavirus Act remains as a legislative symbol of the state accruing enormous and unprecedented powers to deal with the public health emergency.

To be clear, when the Act was brought in there was an emergency. Whatever my own reservations or those of fellow civil libertarians, we could see that a worldwide pandemic gave an excuse to the Government in having to act quickly and respond in the way they did, and it explains some of the extreme measures. But that was then, and whatever possible excuses there were for little parliamentary scrutiny when the Act was initially passed, since then there is no excuse for the lack of post-legislative scrutiny and for accountability being so woeful. I echo the thoughts and concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

When, every six months, the House of Commons is asked to vote for or against, there is no option to amend or expire individual provisions. Sufficient time is never allocated to renewal debates to allow detailed scrutiny. It becomes more or less a fait accompli. By the time the renewals arrive here in this House, it feels, like now, that we are going through the motions and making speeches for the sake of it, which is why I assume many of us are trying to make speeches that might say something beyond nodding something through.

Let me say this: the urgency of the initial stages of the pandemic has passed. There is no longer a public health emergency. Of course Covid is still a serious challenge and needs to be managed carefully. I do not underestimate it; a family member sadly died of Covid only recently. However, the crisis stage of the pandemic has passed, and this legislation is just not needed. Its continued existence and the Government’s reluctance to revoke it represents another kind of crisis: the undermining of the rule of law in democratic decision-making under the auspices of Covid.

It really does feel as though Ministers have grown rather too accustomed to the Covid-related ease with which laws can be made, now that the Government have enhanced legislative control and seem reluctant to relinquish newly accrued powers. To quote Big Brother Watch,

“the emergency mode and its perks—rapid law-making without scrutiny and a ratcheting of executive powers—has persisted”.

Perhaps most galling for me is that the Government seem reluctant to provide impact assessment statements for legislation, which means that Parliament has often not had the information it needs to properly scrutinise measures that have profound social, economic and health impacts—let alone assaults on our liberties.

This lack of transparency also blindsides public debate. Too often, citizens are left to speculate as to why certain laws are being introduced when there seems so little evidence of their efficacy. Undoubtedly this has fuelled conspiracy-mongering and undermined trust in politics and institutions. Look at the egregious way in which proposals to mandate vaccines for care home workers was dealt with. There was a rushed 90-minute debate in the other place and a cavalier use of secondary legislation to interfere with workers’ hard-won employment rights that is likely to create a huge staff shortage crisis in care homes. All this was done in the face of a wide range of opponents pointing out the shortcomings of the proposals—I am thinking here of everyone from trades unions to Tory Back-Bench MPs agreeing—and despite a lack of evidence that this policy will lead to any extra protection for vulnerable residents, as alleged.

Now the Government are doubling down and targeting NHS staff. Just when we are told that one reason why the Government might bring in further restrictions is if the NHS cannot cope this winter, the Department of Health and Social Care has the brilliant idea of implementing a policy that will mean effectively sacking thousands of front-line health workers, creating a staff shortage crisis that could have—guess what?—catastrophic implications for healthcare and make matters worse.

Here is my great dilemma for the Minister. We have all—or almost all—welcomed the shift from legal restrictions to public health guidelines and trusting the public to take personal responsibility for weighing up risks. That was, and is, it seemed to me, the message from the Prime Minister and the Cabinet—or that was what I thought. So it is unfortunate that, despite assurances and even promises that 19 July was the terminus date and the pledges that relaxing restrictions would be irreversible, and despite the good news of extremely high vaccine take-up and levels of antibodies, and evidence, as we have heard, of the virus being under control, Ministers keep threatening the public with really quite draconian measures again. It is totally demoralising and disorientating.

What we really need to hear from the Minister today is that the Government will no longer use the criminal law to manage public health. Instead, what we have is another attack on freedoms hanging over us in the form of vaccine passports. Despite a range of U-turns and contradictory ministerial public pronouncements on vaccine passes, despite the findings of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that Covid passes have no basis “in science or logic”, despite leaked but not publicly available cost-benefit analysis from the DCMS that passes will decimate hospitality, arts and sports event venues, which I read about in a newspaper rather than in anything produced by Ministers, despite the fact that the Prime Minister inadvertently admitted that immunity from vaccination was not the same as a guarantee that you cannot contract the virus or pass it on, hence rendering vaccine passes irrelevant in containing the social spread of the virus, as was well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, despite the fact that the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine’s vaccine confidence project has found that the introduction of vaccine passports will most likely reduce vaccine take-up among the already hesitant and will more likely consolidate a loss of trust in pharmacological interventions in general, as well as in political institutions—despite all this, we still hear the misinformation from the Government that vaccine passports as a policy will protect others. They just will not.

Where is the opportunity for Parliament, never mind the public, to debate all this fully, without fear of being demonised or silenced by big tech, and discuss the implications of an illiberal, divisive, show-your-papers culture? As we talk here today about the renewal of the Coronavirus Act—the emergency, allegedly temporary Coronavirus Act—my dread is that we are signalling the permanence of a state of emergency embedded in law by even contemplating a two-tier checkpoint society. When Jacinda Ardern, the New Zealand Prime Minister, smirked as she stressed that vaccine passes would mean two classes in her country, I was chilled—and I realise that such open discrimination is also the new normal much closer to home, in Wales and Scotland.

The truth is that our Health Ministers need to move away from vaccine passes because they have enough on their plate. Rather than getting embroiled in these politicised rows over Covid-related laws, surely it is time to move on; goodness knows they now have some real public health emergencies to sort out. From the now-understood catastrophic impact that lockdown measures have had on the late diagnosis of everything from cancer to dementia, to backlogs, waiting lists for treatment and the unhelpful actions of GPs—not only are they seemingly hesitant to resume face-to-face contact; there is also the BMA’s truculent behaviour in instructing surgeries to close their lists to new patients and threatening industrial action—Ministers have a lot on their plate.

There are also reports in primary schools that the lack of social interaction during the pandemic will affect young children’s speech, language and general development, and that those problems are likely to persist for several years. Then there is the ongoing and frankly inhumane treatment of care home residents, who are still being deprived of normal social contact with loved ones by risk-averse, short-staffed residential homes, leading to entirely preventable extra health issues.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Minister because he has a lot on his plate. In this context, the now-diminishing threat of Covid as an emergency should be low down on the priority list. All legal sanctions brought into being to deal with Covid now need to be revoked for the sake of the health of the body politic and so that the noble Lord can get on with being a Health Minister for non-Covid health emergencies.

Covid-19: Plan B

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am afraid I disagree with the noble Lord on that particular question. In fact, the UK is seen as a leader in the speed and efficiency with which it adopted vaccines. Countries that criticised the UK were, only a year later, saying “How did you do it? How did you manage to roll out your vaccines so quickly?” Of course, things change, and it is very important that we balance all the factors when considering whether to move to plan B.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

One of the reasons why there is a health crisis at the moment seems to be that it is a non-Covid crisis. Would the Minister comment on the fact that the backlog, the collateral damage of lockdowns, has created a terrible situation? It is non-Covid related, so we should not overreact. Quickly, on plan B, which experts will he take advice from? Will it be Professor Reicher, a behavioural and social psychologist, or the NHS Confederation, run by someone who was on “Moral Maze” with me? Not all experts are experts, or should be listened to.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for pointing out the important issue that there is a trade-off. There are some who continue to argue against moving to plan B, and it is important that we assess the balance of arguments. There are trade-offs within health itself. There will be some patients who will be concerned about plan B because of how it will affect their access to healthcare, and there are other, wider societal factors.

Residential Social Care: Staff

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, many young people do seek a career in social care. Many of them see it as interchangeable with work in retail and in hospitality; in fact, we have seen an enormous amount of displacement between those sectors during Covid. We have to make sure that as retail and hospitality open up, those who have moved to social care continue to stay in that setting. That is one reason we are investing in the kind of education arrangements I described.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the shortage of HGV drivers has led to a hike in their wages, does the inevitable increased staff crisis in care homes—effectively 40,000 to 60,000 workers will be sacked because of the illiberal mandatory vaccine for front-line workers—mean that they might get a decent amount? But seriously, does the Minister agree that any social care policy should prioritise improving working conditions and renumeration, and that this is key to the better protection of care residents and far more of a priority than obsessing about Covid at this stage in the pandemic?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the average turnover rate in social care is high, as noted by many noble Lords, as it is in some other sectors, including retail and hospitality. However, turnover rates are 8.1% lower in the past year among social care workers, down from 37.2% to 29.1%, which reassures us that many have in fact found it a fulfilling career.

Covid-19

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I want to ask specifically about the surprise in the Statement: the need for vaccination passports in nightclubs and other venues with large crowds gathering. It was a surprise because last year the Prime Minister called vaccine passports unnecessary and intrusive. More recently, the Vaccines Minister called them “discriminatory” and Matt Hancock, when in office, declared that they were a step too far and said that

“we’re not a papers-carrying country”.

It seems as though we are, because this is about making young people’s engagement in public life contingent on papers. Would the Minister comment on whether this rowing back on previous statements will fuel cynicism among the young and the conspiratorial thinking that, “You said you wouldn’t do it and now you’ve done it”? Some Conservatives told me that I am not to worry, that it will not happen and that it is just a plan to threaten the young into compliance. Can the Minister clarify that?

If nightclubs, football grounds, pubs and so on require vaccine passports, does that mean that bar staff, cleaners, bouncers, groundsmen et cetera will need proof of vaccination to keep their jobs? I am worried about another group of workers having vaccines mandated, this time in the hospitality industry.

Finally, does

“other venues where large crowds gather”

include political conferences? I am asking for a friend or two.

[Lord Bethell (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I make no apology for changing my mind during the pandemic. I will admit readily to the House that I have changed my mind and rowed back on all sorts of things that I thought I was certain about. It has been a learning experience, to put it politely, for all of us, and we have all had to adjust our thinking on lots of matters as the evidence and the impact of the virus have affected us greatly. So, no, I do not believe in conspiracy theories, as the noble Baroness specifically asked me.

We all have to be responsible for the fact that our health touches on those we sit next to and share air with. This is a public health truism that is self-evident and has become highly apparent. There is no way out of this pandemic other than through the vaccine; there is no other silver bullet. Therefore, we all have a personal responsibility to ensure that we are as safe as possible when we share space with other people. That is the principle with which we go into this and which we are applying when it comes to domestic certification. The guidelines and precise details have not been hammered out yet, but we will do it in a way that seeks to be as inclusive as possible and is considerate to many of the concerns that the noble Baroness quite rightly articulated.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there have been some excellent speeches in this debate. I speak the day after the rather misnamed “freedom day” was used by the Prime Minister to herald a “show your papers” society. No doubt the threat of domestic passports—a policy that the Minister for Vaccines has regularly described as discriminatory—is just a ploy to nudge or blackmail young people to get vaccinated or be denied access to nightclubs and public life.

Today I am here to speak against another illiberal measure: mandated vaccines for care workers. That message is, “Get vaccinated or you will be denied access to your job”. Have the Government abandoned using the usual democratic means of persuasion—convincing citizens of the merits of policies—and resorted instead to a lazier, coercive approach, bypassing Parliament while they are at it?

The Government claim that they have tried extensive communications programmes to try to persuade care workers to get jabbed, but how hard have they tried? I think the UNISON suggestions were very helpful. We have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Bennett, about some other ways we can have targeted persuasion, peer-to-peer reassurance initiatives and so on. I just do not believe that we have tried hard enough.

We all understand that vaccine hesitancy among care workers is a moral dilemma. Ideally, those who work with vulnerable people should not put them in danger, and it would be better if they were immunised. As my mother lived in a care home and my aunt is still a resident, I am sensitive to the idea that, in certain protective environments, following health and safety rules is key to the job. If care workers who have intimate contact with our loved ones refused to wear PPE, for example, we might think them negligent, so I can see both sides. Can the Minister concede that this is an ethical minefield? This legislation is a blunt instrument that does not take into account any nuance at all.

Ministers say that the policy is based on consultation, and they claim that they have listened to the experiences and concerns of providers and people living and working in care homes, but have they really listened? A majority of the consultation respondents did not support mandated vaccines, and 62% of care home residents themselves are unsupportive of the proposal.

The consultation is credited with the extraordinary decision to broaden the scope to include, with limited exemptions, everyone who enters a care home, regardless of their role. Can the Minister explain whether the driver who regularly delivers food should be sacked too? What about the hairdressers and the arts and crafts teachers who went into my mum’s home and who service homes? Will they be banned? Will there be bouncers at the door? Will homes have fewer services?

Then there are the unintended consequences. A recent study by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine was very clear that the Covid-19 vaccine should remain voluntary for care workers or it would risk negatively affecting relationships at work, hardening stances against the vaccine and undermining the trust in all vaccines and the process of policy-making.

Let me be clear: I am an enthusiastic supporter of vaccination. The 18th-century Edward Jenner is one of my personal heroes. Specifically, Covid vaccines are proof that humanity can deploy scientific ingenuity in managing and overcoming deadly challenges. I have no time for the anti-big-pharma tropes or the rejection of pharmacological interventions—nature does not know best. But I also believe in freedom, specifically freedom of choice and conscience, and surely it is dangerous and regressive to weaponise medical interventions as the price of freedom. Ever since trade unions and radicals forced the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts in 1886, the voluntary principle of opting out has worked well. At the very least, overturning that principle in law should require far more scrutiny than a rushed-through statutory instrument given only 90 minutes of debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for forcing us to at least have this debate, but this is not the way it should be done.

The Government insisted that this was necessary, however, to protect vulnerable residents. That might be more convincing if so many vulnerable people had not died of Covid in care homes due to government policies that were not debated. All right, that was an emergency but more recently the welfare of the many of the same vulnerable residents has been jeopardised by draconian restrictions on visits from families. I commend to all noble Lords Midsummer Milestones, a briefing paper from John’s Campaign and supporters of Rights for Residents, to get a visceral sense of the horrors inflicted on those in care homes by the mandatory 14-day isolation rules. The protective ring around care homes really does ring hollow and now the everyday heroes of care homes, who worked their guts out during the pandemic, feel victimised. I have received droves of emails from front-line staff who say that they feel like third-class citizens.

Finally, and ironically, this policy could make care homes less safe in the future. We have already heard that if only 5% of staff refuse the vaccine and are sacked, that will mean tens of thousands of workers leaving a sector that already has severe staff shortages. Does the Minister think homes should operate with dangerously low staffing levels or close down? Many professionals believe that mandated vaccine policy will see them close altogether, with a loss of 50,000 beds. Does the Minister realise that that would mean residents ending up in hospitals, increasing pressure on the NHS? Oh, the irony.

This SI is not serious policy. I will abstain because regret is not strong enough for how I feel. The issue requires proper, nuanced, moral argument in this House—the vulnerable deserve it.

Covid-19

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I will definitely consider the idea of a full-page advert, and I am grateful for that suggestion. I would also be very interested to receive a submission from my noble friend to the consultation, and, if he would like to copy me in on it, I would be glad to make sure that it gets through to the right people.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully, and the mask obsession here seems to mask a certain reluctance to ever allow normal to return, even if it means a terrible toll on jobs, livelihoods or non-Covid health—so I am glad to hear the Minister being more balanced. However, I will bend the stick and ask him whether he will concede that many millions are demoralised that the Government’s irreversible freedom day comes with so many caveats that it feels like parole with an electronic tag and house arrest hanging over us like a sword of Damocles? Can we not get a bit more balance? On data, according to PHE on hospitalisations, of those who spent more than one night in a hospital with the delta variant at the end of June, 39% were patients who had gone to hospital with different conditions—so could the hospitalisations data perhaps be clarified, because I think that that would reduce fear and give a bit of perspective?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness slightly underestimates the significant step that the Government have made in order to take advantage of the vaccine, try to get the economy moving and address the very considerable backlog that we have in the NHS. The Prime Minister deserves some praise for the way in which he has moved emphatically in this direction. Therefore, I am a little bit surprised that the noble Baroness has not done more to recognise that point. On the data, I would be glad to look at the number that she describes. It is not one that I recognise, but I would be glad to correspond with her on it.

Health: Dementia

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I accept the noble Lord’s point. The corollary is right: there are those who have not had the engagement they once had, and it is fair to assume that that has accelerated their decline. The role of charities and communities in trying to provide that back-up support is critical. That is why we have provided £515,000 to the Alzheimer’s Society to support its Dementia Connect programme.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am very glad to hear the response from the Minister on virtual consultations, but can I press him to urge an immediate reinstatement of face-to-face memory services and recognise that for those with cognitive and sensory impairments, Zoom is especially disorientating—it is for me, let alone anyone else? Will he also urge GP surgeries to open fully face to face—they are not at present—as doctors often spot signs of dementia when patients access services for other reasons? I think that would help.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I completely accept the noble Baroness’s point. It is clear that the benefits of digital do not play out for the elderly and those who face dementia and other similar conditions in the same way as they do for younger people and those accustomed to and familiar with Zoom and other digital services. She is entirely right that the symptoms and features of dementia, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s are sometimes picked up only through face-to-face engagement. That is why we are working hard to reopen GP surgeries and to ensure that such appointments can take place.

Coronavirus Act 2020 (Early Expiry) Regulations 2021

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, although I welcome the early expiry of 12 temporary provisions, it is concerning that these were the only sections removed from the Coronavirus Act. Despite the Government claiming that, as part of the one-year review of the Act in March, they had combed the legislation to ensure that what remained was necessary or proportionate, and that there was robust justification for retaining all the provisions, no details were divulged, no criteria published, and no cost-benefit analysis made available. It is worrying if this was it.

When MPs voted to extend the wide-ranging powers for another six months to the end of September, the then Health Secretary stressed that legislation had been a crucial part of the Government’s strategy. Indeed, legislation has almost become a substitute for strategy, and what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, described as a “bewildering flurry” brought in in haste. I note that it is harder to remove than install provisions. There seems no hurry to get rid of them. Matt Hancock also said that, although the Act was essential,

“we have always said that we will only retain powers as long as they are necessary.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/21; col. 1115.]

Are these remaining powers necessary now? With a new Secretary of State for Health, can the Minister explain whether there is any reason why, after 19 July, any element of the Coronavirus Act will be retained? Will the new review date of 30 September be brought forward? If not, why not?

It is interesting to look at these 12 specific provisions because they tell of a mindset in drawing up the original legislation: one of a worst-case scenario, deploying the precautionary principle and therefore making laws that would perhaps have been better suited to informal arrangements. Sections 8 and 9 on emergency volunteering were intended to come into force should the delivery of health services be at risk because of the pandemic. Despite significant workforce pressure, the NHS never faced that crisis, but I know many qualified former health workers who volunteered but were never called upon. They were demoralised and felt demobilised. Maybe it is worth looking to them again for the huge backlog in the NHS. The point I am making is that the voluntary instinct was not utilised enough.

Looking at Sections 25 to 29 on food supply, it was assumed that draconian powers would be needed to force those connected with the food supply to share information, when in reality the food industry collaborated and shared data voluntarily. The law assumed the worst, and perhaps politicians should have mobilised positive solidarity rather than using the law as a coercive tool.

One reason why I mentioned the change of personnel at the Department of Health is because, despite the Minister telling me last week that the different tone and messaging on regulations has been driven by data, it feels more like a philosophical shift in emphasis from coercion to trust. The former Health Secretary spoke about the laws with a certain inflexible zealotry, once infamously responding to the Derbyshire police’s over-the-top fining of two women for merely meeting for a walk and a coffee with the quip that

“every time you try to flex the rules that could be fatal”.

This seems rather different from the new position, to quote Sajid Javid:

“We owe it to the British people … to restore their freedoms as quickly as we possibly can”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/21; col. 46.]


Hear, hear to that. Indeed, the Secretary of State noted in an article this weekend not only the economic costs of continuing lockdown measures but the health costs—a helpful antidote to those who seem sometimes oblivious to the non-Covid harms caused by the virus. I accept the moving account given by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, of those non-measurable harms that will potentially last far longer than the virus itself.

I also note the damage that has been wreaked on democracy over the past 16 months, during which freedom has been treated as a privilege, not a right. We cannot assume that democratic norms will simply spring back to the pre-March 2020 level once 19 July happens. History tells us to be wary of the dangerous precedent set. Considering the lack of scrutiny and abuse of the legislative process, which has had enormous negative consequences for every aspect of our public and private lives, we need to avoid complacency. Following on from the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on civil liberties, that is why it is the responsibility of everyone in this House and in the other place to use even such rubber-stamping exercises as this in this Room to demand that every emergency measure brought in since March is expired and deemed as unnecessary as those in the regulations we are discussing. It is time to move on.

Covid-19 Update

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My noble friend’s comments are very much appreciated and taken on board. On his question about daily lateral flow testing, he is very perceptive and correct. This is an area that we have been exploring for some months, and we are working extremely hard to bottom it out with rigorous clinical trials—clinical trials are difficult to nail down, by their nature, but we have invested substantially in them. He is right that, for schools, for international travel and for contacts—those three things—daily testing may well offer an alternative to 10-day isolation. That would be a huge relief to many in the country, and it is something that we are very focused on delivering.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I welcome the change of tone when the new Secretary of State said that the big task ahead is to restore our freedoms—freedoms no Government should ever wish to curtail. Regime change is a bit disruptive, so I ask the Minister: are all the department behind this new approach, because it is in rather stark contrast to the Secretary of State’s predecessor’s more doom-laden, illiberal approach? As we have seen in this debate, there seems some reluctance, at least within Westminster, to allow fellow citizens to embrace freedom.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The noble Baroness is quite right to ask the question, but I would say to her that it is not actually the regime that has changed, although the regime has changed; it is that the data has changed. Last Tuesday, I sat through Covid Gold, which is our big set-piece data session—a two-hour deep dive into national and local data. Every week for the past 70 weeks, that has been a very chilling experience where we have looked at the progress of and tactics of this awful virus, and I have often left it with a very heavy heart. Last week, I genuinely felt that we had reached some kind of turning point and, on Friday, when I sat in my kitchen, I felt a great weight beginning to lift off my shoulders for the first time in a very long time. I cannot disguise from your Lordships that there may well be more surprises left in this virus. I cannot promise that I will not be standing at this Dispatch Box giving bad news at some point in future, but, right now, I am more optimistic than I have ever been, and I think that the Statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State reflected that.

Covid-19: Care Homes

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I do not quite understand the noble Lord’s figures. As of 14 March 2020, the seven-day rolling average showed that there were 51,741 discharges a day from hospital, of which 1,123 were from hospitals specifically to care homes. That was at a moment when our testing capacity was 3,000 a day. A month later, on 15 April, the rolling average was 22,000, of which 548 were discharges from hospitals specifically to care homes. By that date, the testing capacity was 38,766.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we need granular details such as dates and decision-making processes not to play the blame game but because we need to understand precisely how Covid got into care homes. In that context, can the Minister tell us when and why the policy decision was made to make vaccines mandatory for care home staff, going against the Government’s stated opposition to jabs for jobs and against the crucial ethical principle of medical consent? Does the Minister understand that for care home workers, vaccinated and non-vaccinated, this looks like decisively shifting the blame from official culpability for the scandal of how Covid got into homes on to hard-pressed front-line workers?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, we are in the middle of a consultation on mandatory vaccinations for care home staff. One thing I would remind the noble Baroness of is that the vast majority of infections in care homes last year were through staff, not through discharge.