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.