Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lamont on two grounds. The policy is wrong for reasons that I will explain, and I am disturbed by the level of scrutiny the regulations have enjoyed.

I appreciate that life is difficult for the Government and that there are many uncertainties, which is not dissimilar to the problem that businesses face most of the time. The more difficult the problem, the more important it is to keep a cool head and have proper impact assessments or cost-benefit analyses—call them what you will. The bottom line is that urgency is not a good excuse for bad decision-making.

Such an assessment should cover at least four issues. First, is there a medical and scientific case for the measure? There seems no logic behind the rule of six other than a general wish to slow down the infection rate, but we can surely do better than that. My noble friend Lord Lamont set out the nonsenses clearly in his typically brilliant and witty speech. Dr David Strain of Exeter Medical School, in an area without much Covid, put it succinctly. He said:

“There is no science behind it and there is no logic as to why six would be useful.”


Therefore, my first question to my noble friend the Minister is: what is the scientific justification for the measure? I have asked this several times and have yet to receive a satisfactory reply, including in the Minister’s introduction.

The second issue, not yet focused on, is whether the rule can be justified economically. It is killing our service sectors—pubs, entertainment and spectator and community sport. Where is the assessment of damage that the Government should have done before embarking on such a huge step? Socially the measure has many adverse effects, notably in separating families. My third question is whether these adverse social effects are necessary or acceptable. I suspect not. Fourthly, can such a rule be implemented and enforced properly? On that, we know the answer: it cannot.

The measure fails on all four counts. Accordingly, it should be replaced with something more realistic and less damaging. I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Lamont said regarding scrutiny.

Coronavirus Act 2020: Temporary Provisions

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to be the first to congratulate my noble friend Lady Morrissey on a brilliant maiden speech. I have always admired her and the way she rose to the top in the City. She helped to change the composition of Britain’s boardrooms and the work/life balance and diversity of thought for everyone—and did so without wokeness or lecturing. She also helped to make Brexit more mainstream by arguing for it publicly in the City before the referendum. Judging from today, I am sure that she will achieve a great deal in your Lordships’ House.

I would also like to applaud the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Clark of Kilwinning, and my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, with whom I had the pleasure of working when he was Home Secretary and then Chancellor, in which posts he managed to demonstrate both cerebral sagacity and robust common sense.

As many have said very eloquently, we need greater scrutiny of coronavirus measures. Parliament agreed to the extraordinary powers in the Coronavirus Act on the basis that they were flexible and would be applied for up to two years. But—and, to me, it is a big “but”—at that time we were looking at most at a three-month lockdown and there was no suggestion of the two-metre rule, which has made life close to impossible for some businesses.

We must give Parliament a chance to debate measures before they take effect. The farce on 18 September of our debating the rule of 30 when the rule of six had just come in beggars belief. The new 10 pm rule needlessly consigns many small restaurants and others to bankruptcy. A closing time of 11 pm would allow two sittings—a deadline that might have emerged from a sensible debate.

I have three particular concerns. First, our economy is being wrecked, despite Chancellor Sunak’s admirable efforts. In February, the annual deficit was down to £44 billion, but by the end of the year it will be £372 billion or more—that is, up eight times. The consequent rise in the national debt will consign our descendants to a grim future.

Secondly, we have no official analysis of the number of lives that will be lost or ended early as a result of Covid. Oncologists warn of an extra 30,000 deaths from cancer alone. To take many medical tests, self-isolation for a week is required, and dental treatment is currently minimal.

Thirdly, the restrictions are so clumsy that many people’s lives are gravely affected by negative social externalities. There are myriad examples, including partners frequently banned from maternity wards and scans; schoolchildren unable to have parties or see their cousins; university students locked down to a ridiculous extent and not even allowed out to buy food; queuing on the phone for a GP and being unable to see your usual GP for months on end; being unable to develop relationships at work, which is awful for new staff and those in new roles; the unemployed being unable to visit a jobcentre physically; weddings reduced to a rump; grandparents unable to see their grandchildren; the disabled in care homes deprived of visitors; the loneliness of old people’s homes, even for those with only a few months to live who would be happy to take a risk to see their loved ones; and, for us all, no foreign travel or holidays. If only all that was justified—but wherever lockdowns have been imposed the virus has simply bounced back when restrictions are lifted. We are social animals and must learn to live sensibly with the virus.

I am also deeply concerned about the figures with which we are presented. Take Professor Ferguson, whose estimates have been shown to be wide of the mark for Covid, as they were for BSE. The abuse of numbers goes on, with that extraordinary doubling chart shown by the CMO and Chief Scientific Adviser last week.

As things stand, I cannot support the Government on my noble friend Lord Robathan’s Motion. However, I thank the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues for resisting a second lockdown last week. May good sense prevail more widely.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Friday 18th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to welcome in principle SIs 788 and 863 on opening up leisure facilities such as swimming pools, casinos, skating rinks, conference centres and so on. But one important point that I wish to echo is that it is a pity that it has taken so long to consider there important matters.

I regret SI 907 and its restrictions on gatherings of more than 30 with fixed penalties, including a gargantuan fine of £10,000. Even more concerning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has explained, is the subsequent SI imposing a rule of six on gatherings inside and outside. This will no doubt also be backed up by big fines and will steal half-term and Christmas from many, notably larger, families across our country.

These are examples of controls being brought in without proper parliamentary scrutiny or stakeholder consultation, as my noble friend Lord Cormack has said so eloquently. They are three of a huge pile of regulations, most of them valid for six months. I disagree with the approach reflected in SI 907 and the later rule of six one. These SIs will have major adverse effects on the economy and on treatment for other fatal diseases, at least until we have a vaccine—and that may take a very long time. When will the Government develop a new and more thoughtful strategy, which encompasses a degree of protection for those most at risk while restoring to others the possibility of an economic and social life that makes life worth living? Killing the economy, when so few people are likely to die now that treatments have improved, consigns our children and grandchildren to a needlessly bleak future.

This is a time of national emergency, and the Government need to step up to the mark.

Covid-19 Update

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, we have a very clear example of what will happen to the economy if the infection comes back. We will have to close down society as we did before, and the economy will suffer profoundly as a result.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Most of the Covid measures made under the Public Health Act 1984 have major adverse effects on the economy and on the treatment of other fatal diseases. We cannot go on like this indefinitely until we have a vaccine. We need a new strategy that offers a degree of protection where it is needed, for example in care homes and for the very elderly, and that restores economic and social life. Are the Government now developing such a strategy, and when will we hear about it?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend describes in the most beautiful and succinct way exactly the strategy that we are following. It balances on the one hand a fight against disease, a breaking of the chain of transmission, the protection of the NHS and the saving of lives, and on the other a measured, thoughtful and reasonable opening up of the economy, workplaces, schools, shops and other valued economic assets. We are working hard to get that balance right. I believe that we have got it right, but we are open to suggestion and we review the situation incessantly. Until we have a vaccine and other therapeutics to fight this disease, that is the life and the road that we will be walking.

Covid-19 Update

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is entirely right that the impact of this on our economy is profound, affecting the tourism economy, business and the professions. It is not something that we undertake lightly. However, it is the science-based belief of the CMO that the challenge presented by global travel is so profound that this is a step we have to take. When there is a surfeit of testing—when there is a vast amount of it—we may be able to put in place much more extensive measures, but, even so, the CMO remains extremely cautious on this point. However, we are working with Heathrow, the airlines and the airports to keep the matter under review. We take into consideration pilots and are working closely with them to try to resolve the issue.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not want to add to my noble friend’s difficulties, but I have received some worrying reports that pregnant women are prevented having the father of the baby with them right through labour or when undergoing related treatments, such as scans. This can be devastating, especially if there is bad news, such as a miscarriage. Can my noble friend the Minister do his best to get the rules changed across the country, so that parents can support each other at this vital time?

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we had a very good PQ debate on 28 July about the need to give greater priority to the economic impact of Covid. I argued on the basis of analysis from leading academics that the costs of the severe restrictions that we have imposed for medical reasons are much larger than the benefits. So there was a strong case for the recent lifting of national lockdown restrictions. Taking a lead from my noble friend Lady Penn, who is in her place and spoke very convincingly then, there was agreement that measures adopted to counter any flare-up in infections should be carefully targeted locally rather than being general in effect. I therefore support these regulations, the provision they rightly make for local lockdowns and the January sunset clause.

However, I have four concerns today. First, since lockdowns and local measures have now become more routine, I think that it was wrong not to consult formally on these regulations, and I would like to know who was consulted informally beyond charities. As we have seen, local closures have a huge impact and we are now talking about very few deaths, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, and much improved hospital care.

Secondly, with these emergency measures as with others, there is no attempt to measure economic impact and, I believe, still no economist on SAGE. All we know is that the debt load for our children to tackle is already horrific; we must reverse that trend.

Thirdly, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care appears to be responsible for policing whether local measures are necessary and proportionate. How is this checked and enforced? Is there not a bias here in favour of caution and Covid, when the adverse impact on shops, education and the world of work and on the number of deaths of people on NHS waiting lists are a worry?

Fourthly, why is there not more local and workplace testing—including, indeed, here in the House of Lords? Care homes, in particular, are crying out for frequent testing. There is lots of capacity, so, as the Minister in charge, my noble friend should lay down the law.

Covid-19

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The truthful answer to the noble Baroness is that I know that there is an outbreak at Banham but I do not know the operational details of the kind she describes. What I can say is that the system is deliberately constructed so that a local director of public health, or the local authority, has the option, if they think it has local relevance, to bring in the resources that are needed for any particular arrangement. If, for some reason, a local director of public health, or the local infection control team, sees an opportunity for bringing in outside resources—a charity, a company, a technology—that is entirely appropriate and welcome. That is exactly the kind of local intelligence and expertise that we depend on to be effective. A central track and trace operation cannot do everything; that point that has been made in this Chamber hundreds of times and is a point that we entirely embrace. I am, in fact, hugely encouraged by the anecdote the noble Baroness tells.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I was not surprised to see a report in July that a majority of postal tests were not really working. My husband received a surveillance test, but the lancets did not make a hole big enough to provide enough blood, the little bottle for collecting it was too narrow, and follow-up tests were equally problematic. However, my question today is about masks, which were not mentioned in the Statement. On what scientific advice are government recommendations on the wearing of masks based? This is a subject of heated debate in my household—my positive experience of masks in Asia against the scepticism of the scientifically trained.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I am terribly sorry that my noble friend’s husband had a tough time with the home testing kit. That is not the experience of hundreds of thousands of people who have taken those surveillance kits, and we know that for a fact because hundreds of thousands have been returned, providing incredibly valuable information that is informing all the conversations and decisions that we discussed earlier. As for masks, the CMO has made it very clear that the scientific evidence is not conclusive, but it is reasonably evenly balanced. It is extremely difficult to prove one way or the other the efficacy of masks, but the experience of countries that are fighting the epidemic effectively has often involved masks in one way or another, and my own experience in Asia reinforces that. That is why we have made the recommendations that we have, and we keep it under review until further science emerges. The British public have shown for themselves an interest in and a relatively high commitment to wearing masks, which I think is instructive.

Covid-19: Response

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 27th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell [V]]

The noble Lord is entirely right that Covid will lead to changes both subtle and profound in the way we do many things in our life, including patterns of commuting, and a renewed commitment to modes of transport that support our health, particularly cycling and walking. Local authorities such as TfL already have strong bicycling and walking plans. Those will undoubtedly be enhanced, and the Government entirely support them.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, with an eye to its impact on any autumn resurgence, I hark back to questions asked on 11 March by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth, about deep cleansing. My experience of countries in Asia, such as Singapore and Korea, which also pioneered mask use, is that they appear to be much better than us at cleansing medical facilities and other risky premises. They use mists and sprays, applied aggressively in the hands of cleaning professionals, rather than relying on the random impact of risk assessments, NHS and care home cleaners and controllers, and personal hygiene routines, which the Minister emphasised. What does the latest guidance say about cleaning and cleansing? Can we do better?

[Lord Bethell [V]]

My Lords, we can undoubtedly do better in the area of hygiene. The guidance is very clear on what types of detergents work and how they should best be administered. I pay tribute to the cleaning staff in the NHS, who have worked incredibly hard during the epidemic, putting themselves at risk; they have done a very good job. None the less, our view is that the greatest challenge is to change the behaviours of the British public. Work still needs to be done to persuade all of us to wash our hands more and to maintain cleaner personal hygiene. Transmission of the disease happens most often through manual contact—touching the face and shaking hands. That can only be challenged by washing hands.

Covid-19

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell]

I completely understand the history of the noble Baroness’s role at City Hall, but I completely push back against her characterisation of the Prime Minister’s intentions. He has made it very clear that he is incredibly grateful for the hard work and sacrifice of those who work in the care homes sector, and I think we can take him at his word on that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

There is a real degree of confusion about masks. Originally, Ministers said that they did not do much good; now, the President of the Royal Society claims they are essential. A study at Jena, west of Leipzig in Germany, underlines their value. Will my noble friend clarify the position and explain his reasoning?

[Lord Bethell]

The Government’s approach to the epidemic is to emphasise the three main pillars of our strategy: hygiene, social distancing and isolation. They are based on clear science and evidence. The issue of masks is highly contested. There is possibly a benefit from wearing masks—that is why we have put in place the requirement to wear masks on public transport—but the science remains clear that they are not a replacement for hygiene, social distancing or isolation. On that, we are clear.

Covid-19: Response

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend profoundly for all that he and his health colleagues—and so many people everywhere, as he said—are doing to tackle this frightful disease, but I have a concern. I believe that the move to impose quarantine on arrivals from overseas is a real own goal. By all means, quarantine arrivals from countries that pose a particular health risk, but an indiscriminate prohibition will cut the legs off struggling sectors such as aviation, tourism and our itinerant financial and business services. This could contribute to the millions of unemployed people now expected later this year. Can the Minister please urge his colleagues to rethink?