Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateAndrew Mitchell
Main Page: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)Department Debates - View all Andrew Mitchell's debates with the Department of Health and Social Care
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons Chamber Matt Hancock
        
    
    
    
    
    
        
        
        
            Matt Hancock 
        
    
        
    
        The principle of the Coronavirus Act is that it underpins so many of the actions that are necessary. To vote down the Act and not to renew it would lead to an undermining of the actions that we need to take to keep this country safe.
 Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
        
    
    
    
    
    
        
        
        
            Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) 
        
    
        
    
        I have a lot of sympathy with what the Secretary of State is saying, but may I also support what was said by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), not only about the wedding industry but about the exhibitions and events industry? Will my right hon. Friend at least bear in mind that good sense from careful people who seek to be covid-sensible and compliant would enable him to exercise some flexibility in the very inflexible rules that currently govern those two important industries, which are flat on their backs?
 Matt Hancock
        
    
    
    
    
    
        
        
        
            Matt Hancock 
        
    
        
    
        We are always happy to look at the evidence on how these things can be done—absolutely. I would be very happy to talk to my right hon. Friend about how we can take this forward.
 Sir Graham Brady
        
    
    
    
    
    
        
        
        
            Sir Graham Brady 
        
    
        
    
        I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is important to say that those of us on both sides of the House who put our names to that amendment were seeking to be eminently reasonable and accept the difficult constraints under which the Government are operating, and it is important that the Government accepted that in those terms. We believe that it was in good faith, and we will, of course, hold the Government to that.
It is also important, following this change of approach signalled by the Secretary of State, that the public—the people whom we represent—will rightly be in a position in the future to judge us, as Members of this House, on the balance that we seek to strike in the protection of their liberty, the safety of the public and their ability to support themselves and their families.
 Mr Mitchell
        
    
    
    
    
    
        
        
        
            Mr Mitchell 
        
    
        
    
        I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has done an extremely good job, and a great service to our constituents, in the work that he did in respect of his amendment. Will he confirm that the aim of this amendment was not to confront the Government in any way, but to try to ensure that the Government use the wisdom across this House in tackling this very serious problem?
 Sir Graham Brady
        
    
    
    
    
    
        
        
        
            Sir Graham Brady 
        
    
        
    
        I absolutely agree. Those were two wonderful interventions from former Chief Whips; I wonder whether there are any more in the House. That is precisely the point: it is our belief that this House can work with the Government, and that our collective knowledge and the difficult questions we will ask will improve the quality of the Government’s actions and governance.