Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill [HL]

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to congratulate my noble friend Lord Farmer and my friend, the right honourable Dame Andrea Leadsom, formerly of another place, on this proportionate and timely, but none the less hugely important, measure.

One thing that I have noticed throughout my adult life is a change in political vocabulary—a semantic shift—whereby the word “investment” has tended to lose its literal meaning of an outlay that produces some kind of return and has become a general euphemism for any kind of public spending. This, however, really is an example of investment in the most literal sense, where, for a tiny sum relative to what government spends, we are investing in the most important resource we have: human development.

There is a wealth of evidence, as my noble friend suggested, that the first years are the critical time. It is when the prefrontal cortex of the brain is forming and when all the neural pathways are being formed. Being able to reach parents and, particularly, more vulnerable children in that time is not only a monetary investment but of course an investment in human happiness. I will not repeat what the Bill will do, because the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Farmer set that out very well, but the value of having one place, either physically in a hub or through the virtual side-effects of this, where you can learn about all these things—antenatal classes, midwives, breastfeeding, what is available for children with disabilities or special needs—is hugely important and valuable.

I say all this with feeling. I remember when our first child was on the way, 23 years ago, being very reluctant to go to antenatal classes; I thought there would be way too much information and that they would be talking about disgusting things that I really did not want to hear about. I said to my wife by way of compromise, “Look, I will come to one”. I had only recently been elected to the European Parliament and I thought that that would be my excuse: “I can’t be there on Monday nights, darling, but I’ll come to the first one”. In fact, I turned up to the first one and there, sitting in front of me and looking unusually glamorous, was the brilliant actress Cate Blanchett—this was 2001, when she was at the height of her fame with the first of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy having just come out. I told my wife that, actually, I had better support her through the rest and would turn up in future weeks. I am jolly glad that I did because, 14 years later, when our youngest child was born in our remote farmhouse, the midwife did not turn up on time—talk about “You had one job”— and I found myself falling back on a great deal of the information that I had picked up at those antenatal classes in order to take charge of a quite stressful situation. These things really do matter immensely.

I hope that there will be a measure of cross-party support for what I think is, just in terms of the ratio of investment to outcome, an extremely well put together proposal. Two principles have guided me all the way through politics: localism and political frugality or economy. Decisions should always be taken as close as possible to the people they affect, and we should try to get away from the culture that we sometimes have in both Houses of people airily demanding things without any talk of who is paying for them. This proposal, it seems to me, plainly passes both tests. It does not impose new, burdensome duties on local councils; all it does is require them to tell people what they are already doing and thereby, in some cases, enable people to shop around and go to neighbouring local authorities if a particular service is not available locally. We have seen already the huge success of some of these schemes, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, discussed earlier.

As for the cost, Dame Andrea tells me that the cost is something like £750,000. That is what the Government spend every 21 seconds. Indeed, in the time that I have been on my feet, the Government have spent something like £9.5 million—so I had better sit down.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, on 27 March 1913, the population of Columbus, Ohio, started running. Afterwards, nobody was exactly sure why or when. James Thurber, the comic novelist, was a schoolboy in the town and recalled the incident in a famous article some years later. He said that perhaps it was simply someone suddenly remembering an appointment to meet his wife, and then a paperboy in high spirits joined in, and then perhaps a portly man of affairs broke into a trot, and before you knew it, the entire high street, from the union depot to the courthouse, was running. After the run had begun, people began to look for a justification, and the hubbub, the noise, eventually formed into one word: the dam had burst. Nobody stopped to point out that there was zero evidence of it having burst and that, anyway, even if it had, it could not have possibly reached Columbus, Ohio. People ran on for several more miles and then, eventually, sheepishly returned to the town. Here is the point: Thurber said that years passed before anyone dared mention it. Everyone carried on with their business as usual—and woe betide you if you made some jokey remark about the day the dam did not break.

It seems to me that we are in a very similar place with the lockdowns. Then, too, we saw herd instinct at its worst: people joining in one after another without stopping to think. It is an interesting counterfactual to ask what would have happened if the first sign of the pandemic had not been in autocratic China but in a country where lockdowns, the confinement of the entire population, would have been unthinkable—let us say if it had started in the Netherlands or Canada or somewhere. It started in China; then there was the attempt by the Italian Government to stop people moving from north to south; and then, suddenly, lockdowns, which had never been foreseen in any previous planning document, were considered a standard tool of public policy overnight. We were panicked into a response that no one had foreseen prior to those days—by shrieking broadcasters such as Piers Morgan, night after night, saying, “Why aren’t we copying these other countries?”, and all the signs up saying, “Covidiots go home”—and, rather like the people of Columbus, Ohio, we did not stop to think, and we still do not want to go back and ask whether it was justified or proportionate.

It is not true to say that there was no plan or that it was a plan for the wrong pandemic. We had a plan that we had worked out in cooler-headed times, at precisely the moment when you are supposed to think rationally about these things. We heard from my noble friend Lord Lansley about a number of the things in it. He said, well, maybe we were wrong about those things, but there has been no evidence at all that the original 2011 plan was wrong to say that face masks would be ineffective at containing a disease or that closing schools would have little impact or, indeed, to make the basic supposition that if you are dealing with something that will spread throughout the population, your best bet is to do that in a way that minimises fatalities rather than pretending that you can stop it altogether.

Actually, there was one country that kept to our plan. They did not have the resources to do their own, so they simply downloaded ours. That was Sweden, which I will come back to in a moment.

Like James Thurber’s citizens in Columbus, we are finding it difficult properly to relive the indignities and horrors that we went through, from the grievous ones, such as people unable to say farewell to dying loved ones, to the trivial ones, such as the debates about whether a Scotch egg counts as a meal. We have forgotten the taped-off playgrounds, the drones sent up to pursue solitary walkers, the police in Derbyshire pouring dye into a lake so it would be less of a beauty spot, and the “pingdemic”—that bizarre period when people were self-diagnosing so that, if they could not take time off work they would self-diagnose as being all clear, and if they felt like a little time off they would claim to have been infected. We have crammed all of these into some remote corner of our memory. In fact, the very difficulty of those things became an argument for continuing. We got into the worst kind of sunk cost fallacy. In fact, the Secretary of State at the time explicitly used that argument: we have been through so much, so let us not let it all be for nothing.

By then, almost everything was pushed into a retrospective justification for the measures that we and other Governments—with one exception—had taken. If infections went up, everyone said, “Well, we can’t relax the restrictions. It would be extremely dangerous”. If they came down, everyone said, “Oh, it’s working. We just need to carry on with this”. People kept on saying, “Follow the science”, but the one thing that we were not doing was applying the normal scientific method. Karl Popper defines science as something that can be disproved, but woe betide you if you even asked the most basic questions at that time about whether there was proportionality. We already had the evidence by the end of April 2020 that Sweden had followed the same trajectory as everywhere else: that the infections had peaked and declined in a place where there were only the most minimal of measures, banning large meetings but otherwise relying on people to use their common sense.

That is what a scientific approach would have done. It would have said, “Consider the control in the experiment”. We had a laboratory-quality control there all along—we had a country that had stuck to the plan that we were panicked out of following.

What can we see about the results in Sweden? First, and most obviously, there is not a smoking crater where its economy used to be. In fact, Sweden suffered less of an economic hit in the pandemic than it did in the 2008 financial crisis. The Swedish budget was back in surplus by 2021—imagine that. The last Government were done for by our selective amnesia about the cost of these lockdown measures and the current one will be too, because people still do not like to face the fact that for the better part of two years we paid people to stay at home, we borrowed from our future selves, and that money would eventually need to be paid back.

What if it was all for nothing? Let us ask the question: what price did Sweden pay for sparing its economy? At the time we were told that there would be an almost civilisational collapse there. I remember the Sun had the headline, “Heading for disaster”, while the Guardian’s was, “Leading us to catastrophe”. The argument was not that Sweden might end up with a slightly better or worse death rate than other countries, it was that this would be an outlier by any measure—that there would be bodies piled up in the streets.

The data are now more or less in. It was very difficult to track these things at the time because different countries have different methodologies. Different countries have different ways of measuring fatalities. Were people dying of Covid or with Covid? There were some territories which could not measure even that because they did not have a sufficiently advanced healthcare system. I think of my native Peru, which had about the toughest lockdown on the planet and about the worst fatality rate—again, showing how little correlation there was.

The one thing you can measure with a consistent methodology is excess mortality. You can apply the same calculation to any given population. You can say how many people died in the previous three years, how many you would then expect to die in this period, and compare that with what actually happened. You can be more sophisticated and factor in obesity and age profile and so on. However you do it, you find that Sweden ends up with one of, or on several measures, the lowest excess mortality rate in Europe. This should be the only thing the inquiry is looking at and we are debating, and yet it is somehow considered bad form even to mention it. We are still, like the citizens of Columbus, Ohio, unwilling to face the fact that it may have been disproportionate.

Among the institutions that put Sweden as the single lowest excess mortality rate in Europe are the BBC and the ONS. This is not some Barrington declaration fringe thing, these are the data. Yet there is this extraordinary readiness to tiptoe around rather than face them.

Should this not be the sole focus of the inquiry whose provisional findings we are discussing? Should not the only question that really matters be: were non-pharmaceutical interventions effective? Given the cost of the ruined educations, the elderly people isolated and the debt, was it proportionate? We should not be asking that question in a vindictive spirit. I understand that people have to err on the side of caution, that there was a panicky atmosphere and that we were dealing with something we did not know. It is understandable that people have to go with the best models they can find. But we no longer have to rely on models. We now have actual hard data. Yet we seem extraordinarily reluctant to ask the central question: did lockdowns work? Did they work a little bit but not enough to justify the dislocation? Did they work a great deal? Or, as the Swedish case prima facie would suggest, did they not work at all? Did they in fact drive up the mortality rate because of unrelated healthcare problems—everything from unscreened diagnoses to the fact of confining people and denying them exercise?

How is it that we can have this lengthy and expensive inquiry—Sweden has completed both its inquiries and moved on while we were still getting around to phase 1 —and have had all those conversations, and not asked that one central question?

Looking at this interim report, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is results-driven, or at the very least tendentious. In fact, you could infer almost everything you needed to know about this inquiry from the fact that, incredibly, witnesses were required to take a Covid test. It must be the last place in discovered space where this is still a thing, where Covid is not treated as an endemic disease.

You could tell from the tone of the questions what the conclusions would be—that the Government should have done more; that it was insufficient; why did we not lock down earlier or why did we not lock down harder?—all of it begging the question, all of it making assumptions that have, until now at any rate, not been interrogated, let alone proved.

This matters because, as the Minister said at the start, there is bound to be another pandemic and therefore knowing whether lockdowns work should be a critical question of public policy. Although, I have a horrible feeling that even if we were to rewrite, in a cool-headed way, a response plan without lockdowns, the evidence of 2020 is that such a plan, however reasonable and moderate, would be torn up in a panic under pressure from shrieking broadcasters and angry newspaper headlines.

International Health Regulations: Amendments

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Of course, we covered much of this when we had a Question on 15 April around this. This is about making sure that we have the diagnostic capability—which we have—and the ability to scale up. We have made a £125 million-fund available for precisely the issue that the noble Lord mentions, so we have the mothballed capacity ready to operate at quick notice.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, on 14 January 2020 the World Health Organization declared that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission of the Covid virus. It was parroting the line of the Chinese Government, which at that time were terrified of any investigation of the lab leak theory. Does my noble friend the Minister worry that giving more powers of co-ordination and control to this body will mean less diversity, more homogeneity and the suppression of any attempt to be a Sweden or a Florida, or anyone else who might buck the consensus and thereby, God forbid, suggest that these extreme and draconian lockdowns may not have been the best policy response?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We are talking about two very different things here. One is ensuring that, as a country, we are armed with the information as quickly as possible so that we can act; getting the genomic sequencing of the original strain was vital for us to be able to prepare a vaccine so quickly, so that information sharing is vital. In terms of the impact on our ability to act as a sovereign Government, that is something very different; it is key and understood, and the Covid inquiry now is all about learning lessons. As my noble friend knows, I have personal views about that second lockdown: we need to be looking at the wider impact of that second lockdown in areas such as mental health and other areas in which there was an impact on children, but that is a matter that will always be for the UK Government to decide on.

Covid-19 Vaccination: Coronary Disease

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I am sure I speak for the whole House when thanking the noble Lord for his expert understanding and insights. As he said, the evidence is very clear that while no vaccine is risk-free, what it saves you from is much greater. The very firm advice is that you are much better off having the vaccine.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister about the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing transmission? It does seem to be very good at keeping people out of hospital and keeping people alive, but we built the most immense edifice of restrictions around the idea that it was preventing the transmission of Covid. We had vaccine passports and travel bans, and it now seems that both the WHO and Pfizer knew at the time that its efficacy when it came to preventing transmission was negligible. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what his department’s latest assessment is of the vaccine’s ability to prevent giving Covid to other people?

Ultra-processed Food

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That is absolutely correct. My understanding is that ultra-processed foods make up, on average, 60% of a person’s diet. If you were to try a blanket ban, it would have a massive impact. I think we all agree that it is important that we try to discourage things that are bad in ultra-processed food, not ultra-processed food per se. As I have said many times, there are many types of ultra-processed food that we encourage, such as wholemeal bread and many of the cereals.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, ultra-processed food rests on the weirdly unscientific definition of containing stuff that we do not normally find in our kitchens. My noble friend the Minister has rightly said that the advice is to cut down on salt, sugar and fat. I suggest that almost all of us have plenty of salt, sugar and fat in our kitchens, so will my noble friend the Minister join me in urging people to stick to advice that is based on science and the empirical and reasoned method, rather than going for a basically primitive fear of things that we are unfamiliar with?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That is absolutely right. We should always base this on the science. I thank my noble friend for that comment.

Ultra-processed Food

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, the noble Lord is absolutely correct and makes the point that I have been trying to make but far more eloquently; I thank him. That is precisely the point. Some ultra-processed foods are very unhealthy and we should be doing everything we can to discourage them. Others, such as wholemeal bread or baked beans, are totally fine.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The definition of ultra-processed foods to which I think noble Lords on all sides are referring comes from the recent book, Ultra-Processed People. It is food that is

“wrapped in plastic and has …one ingredient that you wouldn’t find in your kitchen”.

I suspect that is true of the contents of almost all of our cupboards, including, as my noble friend the Ministers says, sliced wholemeal bread. Is it not time that we stood up against moral panic, focused on the actual empirical data and followed the science?

Cancer Referral Targets

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I know that the Chancellor is very aware of it, and of course it was the Chancellor who in the autumn kicked off that this workforce plan should be done. The Chancellor is quite rightly very involved in making sure we get the right answer now.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, during the first lockdown we had some 40,000 fewer cancer diagnoses than we would have expected during a normal period. Cancer develops slowly and we cannot yet calculate the lethality, but will my noble friend the Minister consider, before we ever contemplate another policy of mass house arrest, the long-term consequences for health of people being confined to home? It may be, as we see the excess mortality figures coming in from around the world, that lockdowns ended up killing more people than they saved.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My noble friend is correct that there were knock-on implications of lockdown, cancer detection rates being one of them. Noble Lords have heard me speak of Chris Whitty’s concern about heart disease because those check-ups were missed, and mental health is another area. Clearly, these are some of the things we are hoping to learn from the Covid inquiry, so that we know the impact of lockdowns, not just on restricting Covid but more widely, on the population as a whole.

Excess Deaths in Private Homes

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I will happily provide the detail on that. We all know about the 62-day challenge. That has been the focus of Ministers ensuring that we are bearing down on that number, so that an increasing proportion are treated within that period.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, some of these numbers plainly reflect the diagnoses and the treatments that did not happen during the pandemic, as my noble friend the Minister has suggested. Given that we now know that the OECD country with the lowest excess death figure during those two years was Sweden, does my noble friend the Minister believe that, knowing what we now know, we would have locked down?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My noble friend makes a challenging point. This will be a subject of the inquiry, on which I look forward to hearing more.

Personal Protective Equipment: Accounting

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his persistence in asking a number of questions. I think all noble Lords appreciate that we want to recognise the huge suffering of the Uighurs in China, and that we should not do anything that can be seen to support it. I would also like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Alton: it was not the fraud squad; it was the Department of Health and Social Care’s anti-fraud unit, which has been investigating these contracts throughout the pandemic. But I will speak to my noble friend Earl Howe and check when the answer will be available. The normal process is to make sure it is available before the next session of Committee.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, what lessons are to be drawn from the difference between the fiasco of PPE procurement and the world-beating success of vaccine procurement? The first was left in the hands of the usual administrative state, that of PHE and NHS procurement; the second was deliberately lifted out of the hands of bureaucracy and placed in those of an individual from the private sector. Would the Minister like to extrapolate or infer from that distinction?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

It is important to recognise that, throughout the pandemic, people were in a state of panic and there were people dying every day. What we saw was the coming together of the state and the private sector, working in partnership in the best possible way. The vaccines started in university research but were then commercialised and exported by the private sector. People who stayed at home during lockdown were served by Uber and Deliveroo—hard-working people were serving us. This was the best of the public and private sectors, working together for the best of the British.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2021

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I envy the moral certainty of some of the loudest voices on both sides of this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, just explained, it is bound to be an issue on which there is a range of strong opinions. The only opinion that I really discount is glibness, in particular a facile imputation of base motives to the other side. It is absurd to argue either that the proponents of these measures are engaged in some plot to create an authoritarian panopticon state or that their opponents are all lunatic conspiracy theorists. We are debating the most basic question of politics, going back to Aristotelian theory: how do people live together while preserving the freedom of the individual?

The answer must hinge on whether these measures are proportionate. I say that very seriously. My noble friend the Minister makes a good argument to the effect that these measures were judiciously chosen to disrupt as little as possible, in the face of an identified threat. It would be silly to dismiss the claim that we try to slow things up while increasing the opportunity for people to get a booster jab. But I keep coming back to one question: why would that logic not now apply to every future variant or, indeed, to every disease as yet unencountered by our doctors? Are we in danger of permanently tilting the balance, so that we have pre-emptive stay-at-home orders or other restrictions, on the off-chance, every time there is something that may or may not turn out to be a severe public health risk?

It is here that we have to make our stand. Over the last 18 months, what has most alarmed me is a reversal in the burden of proof. When proposing to take away people’s elemental freedoms, the onus must be on the proponents of change to prove their case. It is not for defenders of the status quo ante, defenders of our traditional freedoms, to show why restrictions are not necessary. I am not sure that has happened in this case. Even if it has, how are we not opening the door to the same reasoning in future, so that we have a see-saw of constant lockdowns or other bans and restrictions, every time something happens, just to be on the safe side? That would be a fundamental alteration in the relationship between state and citizen.

As my noble friend Lord Cormack said, this was largely a Conservative Party debate in the other place. I tuned in and watched it: I saw 17 successive Conservative speakers, and that was not for a want of people from the other side or a bias in the Chair. The debate was largely confined to the government Benches and I do not see that as a bad thing. I am proud to be a member of a party that takes questions of personal freedom seriously. That is why I finish by saying that, on this or other issues, we must not reverse the way in which we normally determine guilt or innocence. We usually have a very high burden of proof before we confine people to house arrest and we should not lower that, either in this or in more general cases. Freedom should always be our default.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I was interested in the comments we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, and slightly surprised at how much of his speech I agreed with—in the sense that there is a danger from a constant stream of new variants, each provoking tactical responses in our own country. Therefore, I repeat the point I made yesterday at Question Time: it is in our national self-interest to ensure not only that people in this country are protected by vaccination but that people across the world are protected, because that will protect us in the future. It will stop us having these debates every two months, six months or year, ad infinitum.

The other point I will make in response to what the noble Lord said is that he is correct that we should not make this a debate between extreme positions, where you are either 100% right or 100% wrong. I am not 100% in favour of the detail of everything that is in these three SIs—but I am 100% sure that I am going to vote for them if the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, decides to divide the House.

There is a process by which we reach compromises and balances: between the threat to health from the virus and that of not having an NHS functioning as it normally does; or between the threats to mental health from the fear of contracting the virus and those from isolation—not being able to participate and work, and all those things. How we draw those balances is a very delicate exercise and it starts, as others have said, with medical and scientific advice. That must be the rock and the foundation, but of course there is a political dimension—a value weighing-up and a judgment to be made about the comparative harms and how we get our best way through.

I will make one last point about the dangers of an extremist position—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, actually takes an extremist position. The danger comes when, after the advice, the Government’s view and their proposals, and then parliamentary scrutiny and challenge, to get it as right as we can on balance, there is a sense in the public that the political is playing too large a part; and that a Government—this Government—will actually be deterred from taking the action that they need, and are advised, to take, and which we need them to take to protect ourselves.

Other noble Lords will have seen the streams of responses to the email of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, from people saying, “I’m sorry I can’t be there but I’m in bed with Covid”. On public confidence, let us face it: the current public adherence, on which we all depend, to the regulations before us will be damaged by the fear that they are not based fundamentally on the science but on fears of losing political support in the very narrow environment in which we operate. That would undermine public confidence. As others have said, it is absolutely vital that we go through this process with scientific advice, government recommendations and parliamentary scrutiny, and do the best that we can in those circumstances.