Coronavirus Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard - continued) & 2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Low, and endorse the concerns he expressed.

I want to pick up a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, about nursing and midwifery staff. Many noble Lords have begun by offering the thanks of the House and the country to NHS staff who are crucial to all our lives and working so hard under such difficult conditions. The Bill allows nursing and midwifery students who are just finishing their courses to begin working before they would normally have done so. This cohort of students is the cohort facing maximum debt. They face fees of nearly £28,000 and in many cases have had to take out loans for living costs. In London, that can total up to £34,000. They have had no bursaries. They have not had the new grant of £5,000 a year that is coming in for students starting now. I therefore ask the Government—no, I beg the Government—to make a special grant to these students, reflecting their special circumstances, of £15,000 each so that they will be placed in the same financial position as nurses and midwives starting their courses now.

Like many noble Lords, I support the Bill with great reluctance. It is a huge assumption of government powers. I welcome the Government conceding and not trying to force that it should be in force for two years and going to a six-month review. I echo other noble Lords: three months would be more appropriate, particularly given the haste with which we are passing this legislation. I also welcome the Government having yesterday introduced Clause 78, allowing for the remote meeting of councils. As many noble Lords have noted, that is crucial for their functioning in the coming weeks and months. I believe there is still an issue about parish councils to be sorted out and I hope we can work through that.

That stresses the point that, in the coming weeks and months, democracy will be crucial to the functioning of our country. I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the essential need to keep this House and the other place functioning. Last weekend the Green Party held a remote conference, over the four days when we had been planning to have our spring conference. We are a very small organisation, yet we managed to organise that in a very short time. More than 700 people took part—almost as many people as are in your Lordships’ House. We successfully held debates and people held discussions, had chats on the side and essentially did everything that we do in this House except vote. I note for your Lordships’ reference that the European Parliament will now be voting by email. I spoke to the Clerk’s office two weeks ago and was told that it was working on the remote working of the House. I urge the Government and the authorities of the House to ensure that we can fully operate remotely as soon as possible.

I have very little time and lots of points to make, so I hope the House will forgive me a bullet-point approach. I have grave concerns about some of the draconian powers, in Schedule 21, relating to “potentially infectious persons”. I am particularly concerned about the potential treatment of children under that provision.

For the cause of my noble friend Lady Jones, who cannot be with us today, I have to note the extension of powers under the Investigatory Powers Act and urge that they should be used only for the absolute minimum period possible.

I endorse the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As many noble Lords will have done, I have had many representations over the concerns of disabled people and frail people about the provisions of this Act.

What is not in the Bill is the protection of incomes. We have talked about protecting wages and businesses and the Government have acted, but we have to protect everyone’s incomes. As your Lordships’ House has heard, I am a long-term champion of a universal basic income. For the period of this crisis, we have to ensure that everyone has an income to survive. On that point I will refer, as many have, to the situation of the self-employed. There is an amendment for statutory self-employment pay, and that is something that we should definitely look at.

On food provision, there are some limited provisions in the Bill, but I would also like to see provisions in the Bill—or soon—ensuring that we do not see profiteering in food prices or other essential supplies. I would like to see provisions to help seasonal workers to get farming produce growing and to bring it in from the fields. There is talk of a land army of volunteers to help with that, and I would like to see that happening.

I turn to the question of the vulnerable in our society. We should be closing the immigration detention centres. Those people have committed no crime. To take the example of Yarl’s Wood, 70% of people who are held there are eventually released anyway. They are in an incredibly dangerous and difficult situation and should not be there. People in prison for short-term sentences and those whose sentences are going to end shortly should also be released and, as the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, said, we need much more provision for the homeless.

I am being asked by many people whether the Government will suspend the requirement for MOTs because many people are leaving their homes dangerously to deal with that.

On construction, surely only essential safety-related construction should be continuing. In London there are grave concerns about construction workers on the Tube and what that is doing to overcrowding on the Tube.

Lastly, there is the question of burning on the moors. Yesterday a controlled burn got out of control on the West Yorkshire Moors and 15 fire appliances had to be called the deal with it. Surely things like that should not be being done in this crisis.

Coronavirus Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett]

I add my support by saying that those words from the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, were very wise. On the people that we have addressed so far and who have been talked about publicly, I reinforce that it is quite right that we should seek, in whatever way we can, to provide the support that has just been described. However, there is a group that falls between those who have already been assisted in support to companies and the purely self-employed: the worker working for themselves in our economy.

There is a group of entrepreneurs, many of them with start-ups and some with continuing businesses, who cannot access what is on offer to those in slightly different circumstances because of this. If they are using serviced premises—I will give an example in this House in a second—and therefore do not pay business rates, they are not entitled to the help that is already been granted on business rates or the grants that have been put in place, all of which are extremely welcome. In addition to what we describe as the self-employed there is therefore a group of people with very small microbusinesses.

The hairdresser’s in the Palace of Westminster—I make no declaration other than that I use it—is not unique but is a good example of someone running a small business which employs people but which cannot draw down on the help currently available for the reasons I have just described. It does not pay business rates in this building, and those with serviced premises that they rent do not pay them either. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to take back to his colleagues that there is this little additional gap that we should not have to come back to and say, “We forgot about those.” I am sure that is not the case but I just want to reinforce it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I support the amendment and I stress, as others have, the extreme urgency in this. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, told us a very moving story about a situation involving an older worker, but I invite the Committee to think about the situation of many young people, who are disproportionately represented in the gig economy in these sorts of roles.

In London and many other cities, young people live in shared households. There may be four, five or six people, each with one bedroom, probably not even with a living room, because what was once a living room is now a bedroom. What happens in that household when most people cannot pay the rent? What strains will there be in that household as people struggle to get by, with the most basic cooking facilities and the smallest amount of space? One can imagine the difficulties such people will be in. They need to be rescued, to know that they have security now, and that will give stability and certainty.

As many other noble Lords have stressed, this would ensure that that person would not have to continue to operate as a courier for food travelling around the country—I am trying not to mention a brand name—or as a care worker or in any other of the roles they might be fulfilling. This is in the interests of everybody’s health, but also in the interests of people who do not have, as some in this situation will, the bank of mum and dad to rely on. It is those young people who do not have the bank of mum and dad that we really have to help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

Government figures say that there have been 477,000 new universal credit claims in the past nine days, and social media is full of accounts of some 30,000 or 40,000 people being in the queue just to apply. What steps will be taken to ensure that everyone can get access to the provisions to which the Minister has referred?

[Earl Howe]

I am aware that self-employed claimants will not be required to attend a jobcentre; universal credit can be claimed online or via the telephone. Self-employed people who are unable to work because they are directly affected by Covid-19 or are self-isolating will also be eligible for contributory employment and support allowance. As announced in the Budget, this is now payable from the first day of sickness rather than the eighth. I recognise that we are likely to see a wave of applications and that the system can cope with only a certain number at a time, but I am aware that the system has been geared up to expect that wave. I can only assure the noble Baroness that the officials and civil servants involved in this process are as keen as anyone else not to let anyone in need go without.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

6: After Clause 84, insert the following new Clause—
“Temporary modification of abortion legislation
Schedule (Abortion provision) contains temporary modifications of the Abortion Act 1967, and related provision.”

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

My Lords, first, I want to follow up on a point I made yesterday and compliment the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and through him the Government. I asked about MOTs; this morning, there was an announcement of a six-month extension, so thank you.

We have already heard some accounts of the terribly difficult situations that people around the country are in. I will begin with another, that of a woman in Lincolnshire with an autoimmune disease. Under the Government’s recommendations, for her health and well-being and to protect our NHS resources, she should remain at home and self-isolate for 12 weeks. However, she needs an abortion. She also has at home a two year-old with a heart condition—another reason why she should not leave the house—but she must leave the house and go to a clinic or approved place to take the first of the pills for an early medical abortion under our current law. I am sure that every Member of your Lordships’ House will agree that this is a terrible situation. It is also an utterly medically unnecessary situation.

Taking the pill at a clinic is not a medical necessity; the provision is in the 1967 Abortion Act—an Act that was passed 25 years before medical abortions were even introduced. In the next 13 weeks, based on the average figures, 44,000 women will have to travel to a clinic—to an approved place—to take that pill, which is utterly medically unnecessary. In countries such as the United States, Australia and Canada, it is possible for women to take both the pills necessary for an early medical abortion at home.

This amendment provides for—and I stress this—temporary modifications to the Abortion Act 1967. It provides for a woman to take both those pills at home, as happens in the countries I mentioned, and it removes the two-doctor rule whereby two doctors have to sign off on an abortion. Only a small number of doctors and health professionals provide these services. We have discussed time and again in your Lordships’ House just how much pressure our medical professionals and NHS services are under and how precious a resource those doctors are, most of whom do other services as well.

The amendment calls for allowing nurses and midwives, who are already professionally qualified and who do much of the work now, to certify these abortions to allow them to go ahead. One nurse, midwife or doctor would then report back to the Chief Medical Officer as usual. There are some points to stress about the general provisions of the Bill that perhaps we have not talked about very much. The Bill, and this amendment, would give the Government the power to switch provisions on and off as they wish. They can also do so regionally—again, we have not talked about this very much—or the nations can do so according to the needs of place and time. If, for example, there was a real problem with provision in the south-west, the Government could take a small-scale decision for a particular place and time to make sure that abortions are available for the people who need them.

The argument for having this provision—as with many such provisions—is that it is about protecting everybody. If 44,000 women have to make extra journeys, it means more chances for the coronavirus to spread. We would be playing into the virus’s hands. We have all heard, seen and have been using the slogan “Stay at home. Save lives”; this provision allows that to happen. We would be protecting our precious medical professionals. The people who are increasingly operating remotely need to be able to operate through telemedicine remotely. We would be protecting NHS resources, which we know there is already enormous pressure on. If people are not able to secure an early medical abortion, they will seek surgical abortions, which will put much more pressure—absolutely unnecessary pressure—on the NHS.

I ask the Minister to accept and incorporate this amendment into the Bill. Doing that will not force the Government to do anything; it simply creates the possibility for the Government to act. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is not in his place, said, we will not be here for a very long time to make other legal changes. We would expect that to be the time of maximum pressure from the virus, so please can this temporary change be put in place to deal with this crisis?

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to this amendment, which has support on Benches across the House. In moving this amendment, the noble Baroness described exactly what this is: a power that the Government could and should take unto themselves in order to use it if necessary. Why do we think it might be necessary? “We” includes the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives and the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare—all the providers and people within the health service who know this piece of work better than anybody else. Why do we need it? As of this morning, 25% of BPAS clinics are closed because they do not have the staff to open. That means things are becoming much more difficult for women. Yesterday, women in York needed to travel two miles to secure an earlier medical abortion. As of today, they will have to travel 40 miles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Baroness’s concerns are noted.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

My Lords, before I get to the procedural part I will refer the Minister to some of his own words. He referred to the Government’s desire to ensure that everyone should have safe, high-quality medical care. In this area in particular, given that the option has been given to provide alternatives, that is something that the Government will be judged against, and I hope that he will be able to live up to his promise. However, it is with a heavy heart that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I think the House might be keen for the noble Lord to conclude his remarks so that we can proceed at pace with this emergency legislation and hear other noble Lords’ contributions.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

My Lords, the Green group supports all the amendments in this group. I have two brief points to make.

Collectively, these amendments make this whole profoundly undemocratic, rushed but essential process that we have undertaken a little more democratic. Statistics show that in epidemics, death rates are lower in democracies than they are in autocracies. Those figures have been worked out over a range of epidemics. Democracy is an effective medicine. Your Lordships’ House has heard me comment often on what I see as the weaknesses of our democracy, both here and in the other place, but this is the best thing we have got. Let us not handicap it further: let us adopt these amendments and acknowledge that they bring the opportunity for more scrutiny and better decision-making through the involvement of more people.

I want to address particularly Amendment 7, about three-month reviews, and the timeframe for this. It was actually about three months ago, it is believed, that the coronavirus crossed the species barrier. This whole thing biologically started three months ago, somewhere in China—probably Wuhan. Two months ago, diplomats were just being flown out of Wuhan. Think about how fast things have moved. Just last night, we had a report from Oxford University—an epidemiological study that basically blew through and potentially redrew our entire understanding of what is happening right now.

Where we will be in three months’ time is utterly unknowable and may be massively different from where we are today. We need a proper, full debate in three months’ time. With regard to the other amendment and the ability of the other place to amend this legislation, we need a debate there so that it can put in and take out parts of it if they are not working. We cannot leave this for six months. That is more than double the time this entire situation has existed from its first biological moment. Six months is too long.

[Lord Tyrie]

I agree with those remarks too. Is it your Lordships’ will that I make my second point, or have people heard enough from me? I will do my best to be as brief as I can.

I said that there was one crucial piece of work to be done on wider health economics. A second piece of work that needs to be undertaken derives directly from the Imperial paper; we know that this is a very dangerous disease for the elderly but that it appears to have a very low casualty rate among young people without underlying respiratory conditions. There is no immediate prospect of effective treatment—reinforcing by implication the unsustainability of the lockdown—and no early prospect of a vaccine. It seems to me that it must be worth considering any means we can to get towards more normal economic life, and therefore not needing these amendments, by permitting young people, who are sharply less vulnerable to severe outcomes, to return to their workplaces.

Those who did this—it would have to be on a voluntary basis—would need to accept that a very high proportion of them might become infected and therefore have herd immunity develop among them. In an indefinite lockdown, massive direct financial support for the elderly would need to be maintained.

Understandably, the Government have not had time to assemble or publish elementary data for such an approach, but I do not think it would be appropriate to maintain this legislation without these sunset clauses or demonstrating an attempt to develop such approaches. The weakness of the data, in any case, is not an argument against developing such policies, any more than it is an argument against the suppression policy. Much of the data on which the current policy is based is very uncertain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven]

My Lords, I am a signatory to this amendment. I shall say two things: first, it is pleasing that the powers within the Bill talk about applying them under human rights legislation; secondly, I am glad those rights are included, because giving two and a half hours of parliamentary scrutiny to a Bill with such wide powers, even though it is emergency legislation, is not the way to make good legislation.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy; I second what she said about the prisons and would add immigration detention centres to that. People who have been accused of no crime should not be being held in dangerous conditions that threaten their lives. Particularly with this amendment, we have been focusing a lot on the level of fear. We have heard a great deal of powerful testimony about how fearful many people are—people with disabilities, people who are already ill and sick, and people who are old and frail. Regarding the kinds of reassurances that have been asked for: people may not know the fine details of the rights legislation, but a simple reassurance from the Government that they will comply with something that guarantees people’s rights will be terribly important.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I am sorry to rise again and beg the indulgence of the Committee. One of the categories of people that I am concerned about are non-documented—essentially, illegal—immigrants. The idea that they might have Covid-19 but not seek medical help because they are fearful of what might happen with regard to their immigration status should be a matter of concern to us. I hope that the Government will make a statement to say that nobody will face detriment to their position by seeking help, and that deportation will not meet them at the end of recovery. Something like that has to be said, or we will see the virus spreading through this category of people.