Covid-19: One Year Report

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the legislation we are reviewing today was passed in a genuine emergency. The concern on 19 March 2020 was not whether it was too rushed, but whether it had been delayed too long. That is obviously no longer the case. Today we have all had 12 months’ experience of its operation, and even with the two-monthly reports and the current reassessment it is by no means evident that Ministers have taken full advantage of the lessons that have been learned.

It is the constitutional duty of your Lordships’ House to check, in the light of that experience, whether the Act includes what should be there, excludes what should not be there and manages appropriately what it does include. In the first category, it is abundantly clear, as has just been said, that the regulations for awarding contracts for Covid-related purposes have been woefully inadequate and that their lack of transparency has been outrageous. Each week, there seems to be yet another excuse from the Government to the courts that publication of a contract was delayed because civil servants were distracted by other Covid commitments, but once a contract was signed and sealed what were they, or indeed Ministers, doing with that contract which required even a day’s delay?

In the category of matters that were included, but clearly need not have been, the current long list of changes is ample testimony to necessary exclusions. However, we also would have expected Ministers to have corrected much earlier the confusion that the police and public encountered with charges for infringing regulations. The fact that, as at the end of February, every single prosecution under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act seems to have been found to be unlawful displays a woeful failure. That the CPS should have had to overturn 252 unlawful charges since March 2020 is a stain on our judicial system. It is important to reiterate the fact that necessary restrictions on movement, businesses and gatherings do not depend on this legislation. The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 would continue to exercise that control even if the House decided to take more time examining the validity of the very complicated and extensive provisions of this Act.

In the third category, the way in which the Act deals with what is legitimately included, we again have to remind Ministers that they no longer have the excuse of urgency and an unprecedented emergency. The report of our excellent Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published just four days after the Bill was introduced in the Commons, is salutary reading. Ministers will recall that its primary recommendation was as follows:

“Whilst in no way resiling from the appropriateness of this exceptional approach, we nonetheless believe that it is important for us to state clearly that, had the country not been in the midst of a developing national emergency, there are powers in this Bill, including far-reaching Henry VIII powers, about which our commentary would have been far more trenchant and our recommendations far more robust. Given this, we have recommended that the expiry date for the Bill should be set at one year without a power to extend—not two years, with the possibility of extension—thereby enabling the Government to exercise the powers needed in the immediate future while allowing a further bill to be introduced and subject to parliamentary scrutiny in slower time.”


Tragically, Ministers resisted that powerful advice.

The committee noted a host of Henry VIII powers for a number of very significant ministerial actions. In a number of cases, it drew the attention of this House to powers which were in no sense relating only to the coronavirus outbreak. It called for an “ironclad assurance” that they would not be used elsewhere. On what was then Clause 74, the Committee warned:

“A decision to suspend or revive emergency measures might well be politically contentious. We would expect such regulations to be subject to a parliamentary procedure.”


Even when there was a process included, as with the many Henry VIII powers, the Government proposed only the very limited negative procedure.

Nearly two weeks after Royal Assent, the Minister eventually responded to the DPRRC. He blandly dismissed recommendation after recommendation on the grounds of the

“serious and imminent threat to public health.”

He argued that the Committee’s concern over Clause 74, which became Section 88, was met:

“The regular reports to and debates in Parliament provide ample transparency, oversight and potential for challenge to the use of these powers.”


Sadly, the failure of the government business managers to enable the two-monthly reports to be scrutinised effectively has made that promise worthless.

This House took into account the exceptional urgency when it gave its consent to the Bill in March 2020. It did so with the grave constitutional misgivings of the DPRRC duly noted. Unless Ministers are now claiming that they have learned nothing from the past year and that they are as unclear on how to meet the current challenge of the pandemic as they were then, there is no justification for the House to sign another blank cheque. We should insist that the rushed, rough and ready legislation of March 2020 will no longer suffice.

Finally, today I grievously miss the usual Greaves forensic analysis—

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that there is a time limit for Back-Bench contributions of five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the advisory time limit for Back-Benchers is five minutes in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, on 13 March last year, this country had a carefully prepared plan from the Department of Health, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to. It was to be used in the event of a pandemic caused by a serious respiratory disease with a projected death toll of up to 750,000. It involved shielding the elderly, the sick and the vulnerable, but keeping life as near normal for the healthy and the working population. China had imposed a draconian lockdown; Italy, France and Spain followed and got away with doing it. Overnight, our plan was dropped into the wastepaper basket and we followed the others. Was that wrong? With hindsight, I believe that it was. Would I have made the same decision on lockdown then? Possibly, but knowing what we do now I would not.

Those who advised that decision, those who made it and those who subsequently supported it were doing their best as they saw it to protect the population from a highly infectious, deeply unpleasant and sometimes fatal disease. How did they persuade us to comply? How did we so readily and swiftly surrender our freedom? First, we were told that, if we did, we would beat the virus and, in the Prime Minister’s words, put it “back in its box”. Then, this nation’s affection for our National Health Service was employed mercilessly. The fact is that successive Governments have underfunded and mismanaged the NHS, so we have the lowest critical care capacity in Europe.

Fear and guilt were part of the Government’s strategy: Don’t kill your granny”, and the advertisement with the old man pictured in a mask, asking “Can you look him in the eye?” There were swingeing fines for trivial breaches and even a government Minister urging people to report their neighbours for any rule infringements, which was presented as some sort of praiseworthy, patriotic act. All this was set against a background of relentless media coverage of hospital crises and deaths. Of course we all wanted to help to beat this virus, but a great many people were also very frightened, many unnecessarily, and many still are.

The full consequences of that decision are now much clearer. I hope that it reduced the death toll, but ours is still one of the largest in the world. However, as a result of that decision, a health crisis has been supplemented by both an economic and a social one. Massive damage has been done to the education of our children and to our businesses, industry, court system, arts and culture. There is a massive backlog of people who are in urgent need of treatment for serious, often fatal, conditions, some of whom have died or will die for lack of it. Basic human needs and civilised rights were prohibited: the need to be with a dying relative, to hold a mother’s hand in a care home, to hug grandchildren. The toll on mental health is incalculable.

We were told then, and at each successive lockdown, that this would be temporary, until a vaccine came along. I am afraid that that has proved unrealistic. Now we are being told that the virus is endemic and we will have to learn to live with it. The vaccine has been brilliantly created in record time and is being superbly administered through the NHS. It may protect the vaccinated against the worst aspects. More and better treatments will also, hopefully, be found, but this virus is going to continue indefinitely.

Against that background, we must surely resolve never again to use lockdown in this way in a health emergency such as this. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was right. Parliament, too, must not allow itself to be sidelined again. We have had legislation with virtually no debate; we have had ex post facto debate on legislation already in force. We have had guidelines that have been accorded the status of law, with constant changes and uncertainty, so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, the public, police and even parliamentarians find it impossible to keep track of the latest rules and timetables.

The police, too, have been put in an impossible position, not just in policing lawful, dignified, peaceful protests but in trying to enforce legislation, some of it so petty in its application as to be laughable. I cannot forget the image of the elderly couple with their sticks, sitting together alone on a park bench, resting briefly during their one hour of permitted exercise, being made to move on by police. It is still going on: last week, an 83 year-old woman in Cheltenham was visited by two policemen at night, having been reported for having a cup of tea with two friends in the garden of her sheltered home. She was told that she would be fined if she did it again. If you enact bad law, people lose respect for it. Look out on the streets on any fine day, or at the beaches when it is hot, and you can see it. People are making their own decisions about the level of risk that they are prepared to take for themselves, their families and their friends. If those who have never broken any rule since March were asked to put their hands up, I do not believe that there would be many in the air.

Here we are again today, doing it all again, taking a few regulations away, adding more and changing the ever-moving goalposts. These provisions go through because there are not enough people in Parliament—too few like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—who will stand up and say, “Enough is enough”.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness of the advisory time limit for Back-Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I very much thank noble Lords for an incredibly broad and wide-ranging debate. It has been a really honourable birthday party for the Coronavirus Act, and I hope that the Act is grateful for the tributes it has had. I confess that I am proud of the Act, and proud of the collaborative spirit in which it was drafted and passed. I am proud of the measures it supported to make the lives of the people of Britain a lot better during this awful pandemic and I am enormously grateful for the wide-ranging support here in this House during the last year. There has been scrutiny and challenge, but I am grateful to noble Lords for the general tone of support offered to the Government, and to myself in particular.

In terms of the regulations, I think the noble Baroness put it very well: the regulations we are debating today are tough but they are necessary, and I cannot think of a better way of putting it than that. On the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on gatherings, I would be glad to write to her with an answer. On the questions that many noble Lords had on the road map, I am not in a position to do a road map pub quiz from the Dispatch Box right now. The Prime Minister has laid out a really clear schedule and there are update sessions already built into that schedule. Noble Lords will need to wait, I fear, for updates from Downing Street on that.

Instead, I should like to pick out two or three of the major themes that noble Lords raised in this broad debate. One of the most powerful came at the beginning with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reinforced by many other noble Lords, on the issue of health and the question of levelling up. I recognise the deep concerns, which I share, about the spotlight that the pandemic has put on the health of the nation. Without doubt, one of the reasons why we have been hit hard by the pandemic is that large parts of our population are simply not in great shape at the moment. They have either poor health, poor living conditions or poor circumstances. The noble Lord’s comments were absolutely spot on.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan put an emphasis particularly on BMI, weight and fitness in the country. They are clearly not good enough and there is widespread acknowledgement of that. That is in no way to shame any individual or section of society. It is a simple fact of life that we do not compare well to other countries. The Prime Minister has spoken movingly about his personal experience and the issue is something that the nation has to have a conversation about. The obesity strategy is a framework for that, but it is not the only thing that we will be doing in this area.

Our reach-in as government—not just as national government but in local government, agencies of government and the NHS—to some parts of society is just not good enough. This is not a BAME issue, although that is part of it; I am talking about everywhere from the sweatshops of Leicester to the apple orchards of Herefordshire. There are too many communities where we simply do not get our message across or have a dialogue, and where our services are not provided in a way that people find accessible. We have to ask ourselves tough questions about how we can do better. That is because we are only as good as a nation as the health of the most vulnerable people in our society. That includes everyone from working-class white communities in South Wales all the way through to those in the mill towns of northern England. We have to work with faith groups, on our languages and on the services that we offer in a great many ways.

We have to join up our healthcare services. That is something for which the healthcare system has been calling for a long time, which was apparent during our engagement exercise two years ago. It is well built into the NHS Bill that will be coming our way very shortly. We have to join up primary, secondary and public health across the piece. Only in that way can we address the population health issues that have bedevilled the country in the past year.

Lastly, we have to embrace technology. We have done a huge amount of good work in the past year with data, med tech and a more 21st-century approach to healthcare. There is still a huge amount that we need to do. We need to encourage people to engage with their own patient records and data and help them to understand that they can take greater responsibility for personalised medicine if they engage with their patient records and systems. I am optimistic that we can make progress in that area.

My noble friend Lady Noakes and a great number of others remarked on the impact of the pandemic, not just on those who have been ill from Covid but on all the others who have not had either elective surgery or treatment, or missed out on diagnostics and testing—those secondary impacts on the healthcare system. That does not come as a surprise. It is neither a secret nor a conspiracy. It is exactly how epidemics hit healthcare systems. It happens time and again.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s speech but those participating remotely cannot hear it. Therefore, the House will adjourn while we try to resolve the technical issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that the technical problem is not yet resolved. The House will therefore adjourn until a convenient moment after 6.45 pm.