Public Health

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). It is right that these regulations have been debated today on the Floor of the House of Commons—and, indeed, on my own living room floor.

Like many other Members, I praise the general adherence by the population to these difficult and restrictive measures. I know that they have caused pain, heartache and financial hardship for many, but I recognise from the evidence that I have heard on the Science and Technology Committee that they are working both here and abroad, and that that compliance has been higher than was originally estimated for the models—although, of course, such estimates were necessarily cautious, because nothing like this has been necessary for over a century.

The only true route out of our present predicament is a vaccine. On that note, I was greatly encouraged by my visit to Cobra Biologics in my constituency last week. It is part of the consortium that will produce the Oxford vaccine that is currently in clinical trials. I ask the Government to ensure that we put all the finance necessary for future production in place as soon as possible, putting some investment at risk—making a bet, if you like—on the basis that the potential prize is so valuable.

In the meantime, I support these regulations as a proportionate and time-limited response. As we all recall, their stated purpose was to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed, and the evidence is that we have succeeded, not least in the mercifully light use of the Nightingale hospitals. I do, however, have some concerns about aspects of the implementation of the regulations, and about the possibility of their extension over a prolonged period.

These regulations are the law—no more and no less—and we police by consent in this country, so it is of concern to me, as it has been to other Members, that some police forces, doubtless with the best of intentions, have read into them words that are not there. I stress that my criticism is emphatically not aimed at Staffordshire police, whose response, in my experience, has been balanced and proportionate. Under subsection (2)(a) of regulation 6, people can buy luxuries such as Easter eggs, a bottle of wine or even custard tarts, if they are out of the house to obtain basic necessities such as food. We should not be in the business of deciding which types of food are necessary. Under subsection (2)(b)—my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) made this point earlier—people can travel to take exercise, including by car, if reasonable. Indeed, in many urban areas that might be sensible—although I do, of course, hear and understand the concerns of my colleagues in national parks and tourist hotspots.

The biggest national misunderstanding, judging by my inbox, is over subsection (2)(f) of regulation 6. People can travel to work if the travel is essential; it is not about whether we deem the work itself to be essential. We are not trying to shut the entire private economy. Housebuilders, factories and distribution centres can and should operate, although, of course, they should all practise social distancing and good hygiene. If the scientific advice had been that we needed to close those businesses too, doubtless the Government would have followed it, but the evidence shows that the measures we have taken have reduced the famous R0—the reproduction ratio—to below one.

Talking about science brings me to my second, more philosophical point. Politics and Government are about trade-offs. That is always true because resources are not unlimited, but a crisis like this highlights it more starkly than ever. Science and its epidemiological models do not, by design, always capture all elements of those trade-offs. They can show us specific consequences of specific measures, but they cannot consider every dimension of the choices politicians must make.

There is the obvious trade-off between health and the economy, which is represented most clearly by the businesses that we have asked to close, though of course, in the long run, we can have a strong NHS and good public health only with a strong economy.

As Professor Whitty said in his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, there is also a more direct trade-off between health and health: the direct health implications of coronavirus versus the damage to people’s mental health, the tragic increase in domestic violence and the risk of cancers and other conditions going undetected as people put off visiting the doctor, even virtually. I urge anyone with such concerns to seek the appropriate professional support.

Finally, there is the trade-off between health and liberty. As I have made clear, I support the regulations as a proportionate, time-limited response to a generational challenge, but the purpose of life is not simply the extension and preservation of life itself, though, of course, that is a prerequisite. Life is for living, for adventures and journeys, for taking chances, for learning lessons, for falling in love, for being entertained and for being with friends and family. In considering the ongoing nature of the regulations and the restrictions, any future calculus needs to recognise properly all the costs of lockdown: health, economic and social. I call on the Government to consider that point carefully as they review the current situation and lead the nation through these difficult days.