Public Health

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on testing?

[Jo Churchill]

Yes, I will, but then I would like to make a little progress.

[Sir Charles Walker]

Can the Minister explain to the House, when testing is done in hotels—there is now quite a good sample or quite a good group of people—what percentage of those tests over the 10-day period are picking up traces of covid, and when covid is identified, what percentage of those cases are the South African variant, the Indian variant or the Brazilian variant?

[Jo Churchill]

I will come on in my speech to how we are picking those up, and the fact that we have world-renowned genomic sequencing actually helps us in that. We have identified, in recent days, 132 cases of the Indian variant of interest. Obviously with those, as when we pick up any positive test on day 2, we are genomic sequencing them to ensure that we have the correct information, so that we can make sure that we are following up and contacting people if they are in quarantine at home. In a red list scenario, people are in a managed quarantine facility, and their period of isolation will be expected to start from then. For the exact differences, I will be happy to write to my hon. Friend, because I do not have all the different numbers for all the different variants on me at the moment.

As I have said, to make the scheme effective, we have made limited circumstances where exemptions can be had. On the impact financially, for those who need it there are deferred payment plans. Alongside managed quarantine, we have also introduced mandatory testing, meaning travellers are required to pre-book tests before they travel. Testing takes place on day two and day eight, and allows us, as I have said, to use our world-renowned genomic sequencing expertise to better track any new cases that might be brought into the country and detect new variants.

Travellers will have to have had a pre-departure test within 72 hours of flying, and carriers should not let individuals board without a correctly filled in passenger locator form, so that we know where people are travelling onward to, and when from a red list country, that they have booked their place in a managed quarantine facility or hotel. If the carrier does not do this, they will face fines via enforcement.

Each of the measures we have introduced adds another layer of protection against the transmission of the virus, reduces the risk of a new and dangerous strain being imported and keeps people safe. However, we do not take lightly adding any country to the red list, but keep things under constant review. In India, for example, there has been an extremely rapid rise in cases detected throughout April. Normally there is a high volume of travel between India and the UK. We have already seen 132 cases of the variant under investigation appear in the UK, and that is why we have acted. As the Prime Minister said:

“We stand side by side with India in the shared fight against COVID-19”,

and our thoughts and prayers are with them at what is the most incredibly difficult time.

These decisions are based on risk assessments produced from the Joint Biosecurity Centre, which monitors the spread of variants of concern internationally. The risk assessments cover a range of factors for each country, including surveillance, genomic sequencing, in-country community transmission, evidence of exportation of new variants and travel connectivity. Informed by evidence, including JBC’s analysis and other relevant public health input information, decisions are taken by Ministers.

It is important to note—this probably goes to the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)—that countries are also removed from the list under our particular proposals. Portugal and Mauritius, for example, have been removed from the list to allow travel to commence following evidence showing that the risk of importing a variant of concern from those areas has reduced.

Speed of action where variants of concern are found in the community, with urgent tracing and investigation, can identify and rapidly control further transmission and the variant. We believe that the combination of strong border measures, managed quarantine, testing and enforcement remains the best way to effectively reduce the public health risk of importing variants of concern, as public safety is the driving force. We recognise that the additions to the red list have meant challenging times for the airport sector—a crucial sector to the economy—and businesses across the industry can draw on the unprecedented package of economic measures that we have put in place to support them.

I am grateful for the continued efforts of individuals, airline carriers, quarantine facilities, border forces and others to help us tackle the global pandemic by helping everyone follow the rules, protecting each other and saving lives. The Government objective is to see a safe and sustainable return to international travel for business and pleasure. The current border regimes will remain in place for the time being, as will the restrictions on outward-bound international travel, because at the moment we should not be going anywhere.

The global travel taskforce is developing a framework that will facilitate greater travel when the time is right. There is no single measure that mitigates the risk entirely, and each layer we have introduced helps to reduce the risk. The managed quarantine service is complemented by testing, and those measures have been put in place for all arrivals. The mandatory testing regime improves the efficacy of the post-travel isolation period for preventing onward transmission of those imported cases.

Given the incredible progress made on the vaccination programme, as well as the hard work of British people to bring down the rates, it is more important than ever that we continue to protect people with a strong approach. As the House knows, there are restrictions on travelling abroad from England, and the individual must have a justified reason, but there are those who feel we have not gone far enough and those who feel we have gone too far. That probably indicates that we are where we need to be.

However, our rationale for this policy remains clear: we must continue to be alert and able to take swift action to mitigate any negative impact on vaccine effectiveness from the risk of variants of concern and broader public health challenges. That also includes at airports. The right hon. Member for Torfaen asked me about keeping people separated. Every step is taken to reduce risk to minimise potential for passenger interaction, including tests before departure, social distancing, mandatory mask wearing, the cleaning of facilities and specific lanes to minimise any interaction between those who have come from red list countries and those who have come from amber list countries. A number of airports, including Britain’s busiest airport, Heathrow, have introduced additional measures to separate passengers from the red list ahead of the immigration hall in order to stop them mixing, so it is not fair on those who have been working so hard to produce a system that we can live and work with to say that they are not doing anything. I know this is difficult for families who have been impacted by the introduction of hotel quarantine. However, they are part of the national effort. While we learn more about variants of concern and potential new strains, it is right that we continue to take a cautious approach, allowing us to continue with the road map and move closer to a more normal, yet covid-tinged life.

Coronavirus

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

As sure as eggs are eggs, we will be back here in six months, at the end of September, being asked to renew this legislation again. It is inevitable, and anyone who thinks it is not is deluding themselves. But this afternoon I am not here to talk about eggs; I want to talk about milk.

In the remaining days of this lockdown, I am going to allow myself an act of defiance—my own protest, which others may join me in. I am going to protest about the price of milk. I am not sure whether I think the price is too high or too low—I shall come to that decision later—but for the next few days I am going to walk around London with a pint of milk on my person, because that pint will represent my protest. There may be others who will choose, too, to walk around London with a pint of milk on their person, and perhaps as we walk past each other in the street our eyes might meet. We might even stop for a chat. But I was thinking to myself, and I will continue to think to myself, what will their pint of milk represent—what will their protest be? Perhaps they will be protesting the roaring back of a mental health demon, brought on by lockdown. Perhaps they will be protesting a renewed battle with anorexia, with depression, with anxiety, with addiction. Perhaps, with their pint of milk, they will be protesting the lack of agency in their life—not being able to make a meaningful decision; maybe a loss of career or job or business. Maybe they will be protesting this country’s slide into authoritarianism, or perhaps they will be protesting the fact that we allow unelected officials to have lecterns at No. 10 to lecture us on how to live our lives. But there might even be people, with their pint of milk, quietly protesting that the route out of lockdown is too slow, or perhaps even too fast. You see, the point is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these people can project what they like—what concern they have—on to their pint of milk.

My protest, as I said, will be about none of those things. It will simply be about the price of milk and, as I said, for the next few days I will have that pint on me, it will be of symbolic importance to me, and at the end of the day it will be warm, it will have suppurated, and I can choose whether to drink it or pour it away, because it will be robbed of its refreshing elegance by the time it has been in my pocket for 12 hours. And if I pour it away, that might cause people some concern, but it does not matter because it is my pint of milk and it is my protest, and I am not seeking people’s acclaim, endorsement or support in my protest.

And you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I heard and I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This will pass; my protest will pass, the pandemic will pass, and in years to come I will be sitting at my kitchen table—perhaps with my wife, and hopefully my children, who will still want to see me—and I will break away from our excited conversation about the day because I will spot that pint of milk on the table, and that pint shall remind me that the act of protest is a freedom—a freedom, not a right, and unless you cherish freedoms every day, unless you fight for freedoms every day, they end up being taken away from you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a solemn moment. In the week when we mark the anniversary of our first lockdown and of this emergency legislation, we must start by reflecting with sadness on the loss of the lives of 125,000 of our countrymen and women: mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and friends. That is an awful lot of broken hearts, and our thoughts and prayers are with all of them.

Today, were are acting to protect the country as much as possible as we go forward, and in that spirit, we have had a really high-quality and interesting debate. I reflect particularly on the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), who talked about the disproportionate impact on black, Asian and ethnic minority individuals in our country. We should reflect on what that says about Britain. I also reflect on the contribution from the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about some of our most vulnerable people. We must hold them very much at the forefront of our minds as we act today.

I am in the slightly iniquitous position of agreeing with, but having to disagree with, a number of my own colleagues, but I do not think that it serves me, them or anybody else well to disagree with them and not say so. I agree with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) on hospitality, by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on low pay and support for those who need it, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) regarding protest. I have a lot of sympathy with many of the provisions in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), and I agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said about her desire to amend what is in front of us today. I also share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that it is wrong that this is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. I agree with all those points, but I cannot agree that the answer is to vote against these measures today. I do not think that that is the right course of action, because we would lose all these provisions. I will reflect on them shortly.

I disagree, too, with what colleagues in the Liberal Democrats have said. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) have completed the set today. On some points they have agreed with the proposals, on some points they have abstained and on some points they have disagreed. I do not think that that sort of going with the wind is what we need in a pandemic. We have been consistent: we support the Government on the restrictions we have needed to protect public health.

Reflecting on contributions from Conservative Members, I agree with everything the excellent Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), said regarding amendments. I slightly disagreed with the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—although I agree with the spirit of what he said—about being hoist by our own petard. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) talked about us being stuck with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, but there is nothing inevitable about that. The Government could have brought forward amendable provisions today, and we would have been in a much better position if they had done so. I think I would have looked fondly on what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said, and our amendment is also sensible. We could really have improved this legislation, and I hope the Government will reflect on what it is they are recoiling from when it comes to Parliament improving their laws.

There was a strong but, I would still argue, fringe line of argument from a group of colleagues that we need fewer not greater protections for the British people. It was well represented by the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the hon. Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). I believe, as I have said before, that those colleagues have been wrong at every turn and are wrong again today. It is wrong to look at the pain that this virus has caused and to continue to advocate weakening our tools to fight it.

I do not believe either that it is a question of liberty—I do not think it can be. Every one of those colleagues voted last week for draconian fetters on the right to protest.

[Sir Charles Walker]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be well aware that I was not able to vote in last week’s Divisions, because I am chairing the relevant Bill in Committee, so that is not a legitimate point of debate from the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The shadow Minister will have heard the comments, and I am sure he would want to respond himself.

Covid-19

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman makes a typically measured and sensible point. He is absolutely right: those who are exempt from wearing face coverings for medical reasons should be able to go about their lives without fear of abuse or verbal or other attacks on them for not doing so. I heard what the Prime Minister said and I echo those words. The Paymaster General and I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has just suggested in respect of what we can do as a Government to raise awareness of the fact that there are people who, for entirely legitimate reasons, are not wearing face coverings.

Finally, I turn to the third factor that has changed the situation for the better. That, of course, is our vaccine roll-out, which throughout has been key to the future. As of today, we have provided a first dose to over 17.5 million people. That is almost one in three adults in the United Kingdom. Vaccine take-up has surpassed our expectations. In England, for example, we have now given a first dose to 93% of the over-80s, to 96% of those aged between 70 and 79, and to 94% of eligible care home residents. Those are phenomenal achievements—the result of a huge team effort. In that context, I pay tribute to our NHS, to pharmacists, to the armed forces and, of course, to the army of volunteers who have done their bit to help make this process run as smoothly as it has.

Those are vital achievements because we know that vaccines save lives. The cohorts we are currently working to vaccinate by mid-April represent some 99% of covid deaths, but we will not rest until we can offer that protection to everyone. We urge, and I would urge, everyone who has been offered the vaccine to take up that offer, as I will certainly be doing when I become eligible to receive it. It is safe and it is saving lives.

With an average of 358,341 doses being given each and every day in the UK and more vaccines coming on stream in the spring, I believe that we can confidently begin to look to the future. That is why a few moments ago, at this Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister set out his road map for how we will carefully but irreversibly unlock our country. As he set out, it is based on four tests: first, that the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully; secondly, that evidence shows that vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths; thirdly, that infection rates do not pose a risk of a surge in hospitalisations that would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS; and fourthly, that our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of the virus that cause concern.

Our road map out of lockdown will be taken, as my right hon. Friend set out, in four steps, each step reflecting the reality on the ground, not just our understandable expectations and desires. At every stage, our decisions will be led by data, not dates, with at least five weeks between steps; we will review the data every four weeks and give one week’s notice of any changes. The dates that my right hon. Friend set out today are not target dates; they are, importantly, “no earlier than” dates. We will continue to undertake statutory reviews, including the one taking place today. Yet in doing so, we are ever mindful of those expectations and desires.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am confused. If we are having this driven by data, why are we worrying about timetables and dates? The Minister mentioned “no earlier than” dates, but why? This is data-driven, not date-driven. There seems to be mixed messaging here.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—indeed, my friend—for that point. The reason we are doing this is that we have been clear throughout, and the Prime Minister has been clear throughout, that this should be the last lockdown we experience and that, once we relax these restrictions, they should be irreversibly relaxed. That is why we are doing it in a staged way, one step at a time, and we will continue to monitor the data, which I hope and believe will continue to go in the right direction. But it is because we do not wish to see anything happen that could cause us to pause or reverse that we are taking it step by step.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

As we welcome the end of lockdown, dare we hope to see the banishment of its companion communication strategy, a strategy ruthlessly executed in pursuit of maximum compliance? It has been brutally effective, but so brutal that we now have children too frightened to go outdoors lest they kill their parents, adolescents isolated at home suffering from anxiety, eating disorders and self-harm, parents battling with depression, desperation and suicidal thoughts and many old people fading away from loneliness: as I say, a brutally, brutally effective strategy, but one that has created a deep well of anxiety. That anxiety will be visible at the school gate, in the classroom, in our workplace, in our homes, on our streets and in our police stations. Then it will end up in the NHS for months and years to come.

Many people will say that the victory justifies the cost: the cost in the jobs lost, the businesses ruined, the education forgone and the cost to the nation’s long-term mental health and wellbeing. But I have to ask one question, which one day I will need answered. Before we unleashed this deliberate terror on our airwaves, did anyone in the room ask, “Is what we are doing ethical?” Did the Secretary of State ask, “Is this ethical?” Did the chief medical officer ask, “Is this ethical?” Did anyone—did a voice at SAGE—ask, “Is this ethical?” Did they ask, “Is it ethical to create a level of fear that will push many people to the very edge of what they can bear, or over that edge?” Did they ask, “Is it ethical for us to embark on a strategy that will leave many of our fellow citizens debilitated with fear, anxiety and worse for years to come, or perhaps a lifetime?”

Suffering in one’s head matters. Knowingly creating that suffering strikes at the heart of the state’s own morality and our morality. So I ask the Secretary of State, the chief medical officer and the members of SAGE to look directly at the damaged and the anguished—not over them, not through them, but directly at them—because it is time those people were seen, it is time their health mattered and it is time that they counted.

Covid-19

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered covid-19.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your courtesy in slightly drawing out your introduction to allow me to take my mask off as I came to the Dispatch Box.

It is less than a year since the coronavirus was first mentioned in a debate in this House, on 22 January 2020. The House has debated this issue, which has affected all aspects of our national life, on many occasions since then. I would say at the outset that, throughout, it is important that we remember that all Members of this House share a common goal. They may have differences of opinion and there may be different perspectives on how best to achieve that goal, but it is important that we are clear that every Member of this House is clear in their determination to see this virus beaten and to see our country recover economically and in every other sense. I pay tribute to all right hon. and hon. Members and to the strength and sincerity of their views on this important topic. Since that first debate, novel SARS-CoV-2, which of course we all now know too well as covid-19, has caused untold disruption to all our lives and our way of life in this country. It is right, at this point, that we remember all those who, sadly, have lost their lives to the disease.

In this first general debate on covid-19 of 2021, it is worth reflecting that despite our painful familiarity with the challenges we face, the situation today is markedly different from many occasions in the past. For a start, and perhaps most importantly, we now see the way out. We have not one but two safe and effective vaccines being injected into people’s arms up and down the country as we speak.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, just let me take my mask off.

I thank my hon. Friend for his introductory remarks. The vaccine is being rolled out across the country, and in Broxbourne, but a number of my constituents are waiting to be informed by post, as I understand will be the case across the country. There are difficulties with the post at the moment, through nobody’s fault but the virus’s, so could he keep an eye on the postal service to ensure that, if post is not the best way, another way can be found to let people know that their number is coming up in the draw for the vaccine?

[Edward Argar]

It is always a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend, who is also my friend, in this House, and he raises an extremely important point. I can give him the reassurance that I, other Ministers and particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who is leading the vaccine deployment effort, will continue to look at ensuring that every means appropriate is utilised to ensure that people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country get notified when their turn is up, so that they have every opportunity to get that life-saving injection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I say to those who may doubt or speculate about this disease: it is real and it has, sadly, taken more than 80,000 of our fellow citizens from us. Watch the news coverage that we all see every night of our amazing frontline NHS staff explaining just what they have seen, what they have had to do on their shift, how they have fought valiantly to save people’s lives, often successfully but on occasions sadly not, and what that has meant for them. I reflect on an incredibly dignified elderly gentlemen whom I saw on the news before Christmas—I think his name was Mr Lewis from the Rhondda—who, in the space of a week, had lost his wife and two other members of his family to this cruel disease. I say to those who say that it is not serious and that it is not as dangerous as some people say: watch those news clips and listen to those people who have been bereaved, and to all those people who have been in hospital and thankfully have recovered but have been through hell and back with this disease. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We all have a part to play in following the rules and beating this disease. I, for one, as soon as I am eligible to have my vaccination—I fear that the grey hair may not get me higher up the list and that I am too young, along with my shadow, and we may have a while to wait—will certainly take up that offer.

[Sir Charles Walker]

The Minister is being so generous in giving way. Long covid will take another form: there will be mental health consequences. May I make one suggestion? We have the two eminent professors flanking the Prime Minister, Professors Whitty and Vallance. At some stage, could we have someone of equal eminence from the mental health field to talk about how we are going to do the mental health piece of the recovery?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. He, of course, has been a huge champion in this House for the cause of mental health. I know that, as we speak, the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), is involved in discussions and meetings about exactly that. There is already support in place, but she is very clear that we need to recognise, in the context of long covid and the impact of this disease, including its indirect impacts, that the future mental health of our nation is hugely important, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight it.

At this Dispatch Box, we have often had occasion to exchange grim statistics: cases, hospitalisations and, sadly, deaths. Of course, behind every one of those numbers is a person—a person with hopes, fears, dreams, families and friends—but I know that the whole House will join me in looking forward to exchanges about perhaps more positive statistics in the weeks to come, of more vaccines given, more people safe and more lives saved.

Before too long I hope we will find ourselves in a situation where we can look at the curve of a graph going up and up not with fear and trepidation about what it means but with tremendous hope, as we look at a graph of vaccines delivered. That prospect is within our grasp, and although we are not yet out of the woods and must not blow it now but must stick to the rules for a little longer until we can be safe, I believe that that prospect should cheer us through the difficult weeks ahead.

Public Health

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I cannot support this legislation. I cannot support criminalising a parent for seeing their child in the park over the coming months. It is not within my DNA to do that.

Of course I will follow the law and respect the law. We have the argument in the House of Commons; the House divides and one is on the winning side or the losing side. I will be on the losing side, no doubt, but I do not wear the fact that I will support the law with great virtue, because it is easy for me to comply with the law. It is easy for most people in this House to comply with the law. We are comfortably off, we live in nice houses, we have gardens and outdoor spaces, and we have access to family. The same is true of the journalists who fill our TV screens every night with their wisdom and wit about how people should comply with these regulations, and they sneer at those who cannot. But the next three months are going to be really hard for a lot of people—people who do not have my advantages of a monthly salary and a monthly pension payment. They will be worrying about their job, their future, their mental health and their family relationships, because they will miss people terribly. They will be living in small environs that apparently they can leave only to exercise once a day. Sadly, some of those people will break. It will be too much for them. That is when we in this place—and the journalists up there in the Gallery with all their privileges—instead of sneering and dismissing them and calling them “covidiots” should show some compassion and understanding. We should wear our advantages and privileges with great humility.

I do not want to hear from another constituent who is having a good lockdown. I am really pleased that they are, but my voice is for those who are not: for those of my friends, neighbours and constituents who are struggling day in, day out, whose mental health is not in a healthy state, but has deteriorated, and who are wondering how, in the next few months, in the middle of winter, they will cope.

I ask colleagues and people out there who are so fortunate to show some compassion and understanding for those who are not so fortunate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Many other hon. Members have also asked about the duration of the restrictions and ongoing parliamentary scrutiny. I can say that the regulations provide for the restrictions until 31 March 2021 not because we expect the full national lockdown to continue until then, but to allow a steady, controlled and evidence-led move down through the tiers on a local basis. The restrictions will, of course, be kept under continuous review. We have a statutory requirement to review them every two weeks and a legal obligation to remove them when they are no longer necessary to control the virus.

I also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and others that we absolutely do not want to continue the restrictions longer than necessary. Most particularly, we do not want to keep children at home and being home-schooled. I say that as a parent with three children who have spent the day, I hope, being home schooled—my husband has been in charge of that today. We do not want that to be the situation any longer than it has to be. Schools were the last to close, and the Prime Minister has said that we want them to be the first to open. Of course, they are still open for the children of critical workers, and that should include—to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger)—those involved in the construction of critical national infrastructure, such as the Hinkley Point power station.

While with great reluctance we have had to keep most children out of school, we have also had to require outdoor sports facilities, such as golf courses, to close. Several hon. Members have challenged that, and I want to tackle it head on. I say to hon. Members who have raised this issue that if we made an exemption for golf, we would also have to make an exemption for other outdoor activities, such as tennis, outdoor bowling, climbing walls, riding centres, dry ski slopes and go-karting—I could go on. People would then say, “I’m being told to stay at home but I can go and do all those things, so you don’t really mean that I should stay at home.” Quite apart from the fact that people congregate in those outdoor settings, we need to be really clear that the message now is, “Stay at home.”

[Sir Charles Walker]

I am pretty thick when it comes to logic. A person can go on their bicycle and that counts as exercise, but they cannot sit on their own, in a solitary way, on a riverbank. What is the problem with that?

[Helen Whately]

I do not believe that my hon. Friend is as he describes himself, but what I do think is quite clear. We are saying that people should stay at home, unless their reason for leaving home is on the very clear list of essential reasons for doing so. That covers the eligibility of the children of critical workers to be in school, healthcare appointments and, indeed, exercise. We really need to make sure that it is absolutely clear that, other than for those specific reasons, people should stay at home. That is what we need to do in order to control this raging virus. That is the message that all of us need to convey to our constituents.

Public Health

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend may well have heard the statement by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, after which he answered a large number of questions about the vaccine. As he said, we will be rolling out the vaccine as rapidly as possible, we are poised and ready to start rolling out that particular vaccine as of next week, and it is all about getting the supply of the vaccine in to enable us to do that.

There is light at the end of the tunnel, but we are not there yet. We are here today to debate regulations that increased the restrictions on parts of the country before Christmas, but we also heard the Health Secretary’s statement earlier and know the seriousness of the situation we face despite those greater restrictions. We know that we have just had the highest number of new cases in one day—over 53,000—and in many parts of the country, our hospitals are stretched to the limit. We know we are facing a new variant of covid that is more infectious and spreading rapidly in many parts of the country, so I am in no doubt that we were right to introduce further restrictions when we did.

Before going into the details of the regulations, I will give a brief overview of the measures we are debating. On 2 December, a revised tiering system was introduced following approval of the all-tiers regulations in both Houses. Those have been amended four times. On 14 and 16 December, the all-tiers regulations were amended to move some local authority areas between tiers. Those changes came into force on 16 and 19 December respectively. On 20 December, the all-tiers regulations were amended to introduce a further level of restrictions—tier 4—and to move some local authority areas into that tier and to exclude tier 4 from the Christmas easements. Finally, on 24 December, the all-tiers regulations were amended to move some local authority areas into higher tiers, and some amendments were made to the measures in tier 4.

In addition to those four amendments to the all-tiers regulations, we are debating the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation and Linked Households) (England) Regulations 2020, which reduce the self-isolation period for household and non-household contacts from 14 days to 10, based on evidence showing that the likelihood of being infectious as a contact after 10 days is low. That decision was made following advice from UK chief medical officers. To bring English policy in line with other nations in the UK, we now count the start date of this period from the day after exposure, onset of symptoms or a test. Those with covid-19 should continue to self-isolate for 10 days, as per Government guidelines. We have brought the wait time for those switching support or childcare bubbles down to 10 days, in line with those changes.

I know that some hon. Members have previously raised concerns about parliamentary scrutiny, and some may be disappointed that those amendments were made in advance of this debate. However, I am sure hon. Members will also appreciate that this virus does not wait for parliamentary procedure. The situation we faced in the run-up to Christmas, as we identified that the cause of the rapid rise in infections was the new variant, meant that we had to act, and act fast.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The great disappointment felt by many colleagues, who appreciate that the Government are under enormous pressure, is that the House rose on the Thursday, and the decision was made pretty much the next day. It is a great shame that the House was not recalled on the Friday, or possibly even the Saturday before Xmas, to scrutinise the new regulations. That is where the sense of disappointment lies. Most families are more than capable of making the right decisions for their relatives without being instructed to do that in law.

[Helen Whately]

I hear my hon. Friend’s point, and I share his view that throughout this pandemic the vast majority of people have behaved with great responsibility. I know that people in tiers other than tier 4 thought very hard about whether they should gather with relatives, even within the easing that was allowed during the Christmas period, and rightly so. We must all play our part in controlling the virus and stopping its spread.

Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions)

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I first thank the Secretary of State for everything he has done to get us to this stage tonight, but 90 minutes to debate the renewal of an Act that has fundamentally changed the nature of the relationship between the state and citizens is not good enough. If this is the portent of the promises to come, it is not good enough. I need, at some stage, more than three minutes to discuss the fundamental hardships that are going on in my constituency—the jobs that are being lost, the opportunities that are being lost, the young people struggling to find work, to get back to university and to come back from university. Ninety minutes is an utter, utter disgrace. It is actually disrespectful to this House and it is disrespectful to colleagues.

I am sorry, Secretary of State, if I sound—actually, I am not sorry that I am angry, because a lot of people in this place are angry. We want to see this virus beaten, of course we do, but it would be nice—just nice—if this House were shown some respect.

[Mr Speaker]

Rebecca Long Bailey, you have one minute —sorry about that.

Public Health

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

If my hon. Friend will indulge me as I go through my opening speech, I will address that in my concluding remarks. There is transparency in relation to the SAGE minutes, which are readily available and give a clear example of why decisions are being made and the scientific basis for them.

We are very aware of the burdens that these regulations have placed on society and on individuals. The 1 June amendments play a significant role in reducing the restrictions and lifting some of that strain. It is necessary for the Government to respond quickly to the reduced rate of transmission and to protect individual rights. At all times the regulations in place must be proportionate and necessary. Following on from the small change made to the 13 May amendments, which were debated by a Committee of this House on 10 June, these amendments go a step further. We recognise the toll placed on individuals and families unable to meet loved ones, and have amended the regulations to allow for groups of six to meet outdoors. We hope that these amendments will relieve that burden to some extent.

I will now outline the changes made on 1 June, which include allowing increased social contact outdoors, in either public or private space, for groups of up to six people from different households; enabling elite athletes to train and compete in previously closed facilities; opening some non-essential retail while expressly providing for businesses that remain closed; ensuring that venues such as community centres can open for education and childcare services; and ensuring that those required to self-isolate on arrival in the UK can stay in hotels. We have also amended the maximum review period to 28 days. This longer review period ensures that we will be able to fully take into account the impact of any previous amendments before making further changes.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I have looked at the regulations. Am I right in thinking that people are still prevented from staying over at a friend’s house or a partner’s house, or has that been amended as well?

[Jo Churchill]

It is my belief that they can stay over if they are within the guidelines of the social bubble—that is, if they are a single person. There are several distinct areas and I am happy to discuss them with my hon. Friend, or to write to him to clarify them. They are clearly laid out in the regulation of what is or is not applicable.

The Government continue to work on the process of gently easing restrictions as it is safe to do so, in line with the ambition set out in the road map. Working alongside scientists and experts, we must act swiftly to respond to current infection levels and our assessment of the five tests that have been set out previously. I am sure that we all support the aim to protect and restore livelihoods by only keeping in place restrictions that are proportionate and necessary. We of course remain ready to reimpose restrictions if the need emerges in the future, although we all hope that that will not be the case.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. In asking her a question, may I respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker)? The reason for the confusion goes back to the point that I just made. My hon. Friend asked about what has been called the “bubbling” of households, the putting of households together, which was announced at one of the press conferences last week. It has been turned into legislation, which was laid before this House on Friday, but we are not yet debating it. So we are debating one set of amendments, but a new set has already come into force and the reason for the confusion is that we are not yet debating it. I think that rather proves my point that we should really have debated that legislation in advance of it coming into force. I hope that my hon. Friend’s confusion, and he is not a man easily confused, demonstrates the point about why that is important.

[Sir Charles Walker]

I thank my hon. Friend.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for the clarity with which he put that.

I have already noted that further amendments were made on 12 June and have now come into force. Those will be debated by this House in due course. I am grateful to all parliamentarians for their continued engagement in this process, and for their continued scrutiny, which is rightly and importantly exercised for each set of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I will come on to the discourteous way in which the Prime Minister has been announcing these things to press conferences instead of this Chamber.

It is important that this Chamber has a role because these are not minor or consequential changes that can be nodded through without debate. They affect millions of people’s lives, and we know that if we get it wrong, the consequences will be devastating. Debating them weeks after the event, and in some cases when they have been superseded by the next set of regulations, demeans parliamentary democracy. Changes such as these should always be accompanied by a statement to Parliament, not just showcased at Downing Street press conferences. We are not merely a rubber-stamping exercise to create the veneer of a democratic process. We should not be debating these measures late, and we should not be debating them without seeing the full extent of the information on which the Government based their decisions. We know that the next review of the regulations must take place on or before 25 June. If that review leads to further relaxations, will the Minister commit today that any regulations introduced off the back of that will be debated here before they are implemented and not retrospectively?

The reviews, which are legally required to happen under the regulations, took place on 16 April, 7 May and 28 May. I ask the Minister: where are they? In a written question, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would publish those reviews. I received a reply last week stating that the Department of Health and Social Care had indicated that it would not be possible to answer the question within the usual time period. Why on earth not? If the Government have conducted these reviews, why are they not in a position to disclose them? I find this absolutely incredible. Here we have the most far-reaching impositions into everyday life in this country, yet we have no idea what the Government’s own reviews of them say. These are reviews that are required under legislation.

[Sir Charles Walker]

They are far-reaching, and it is a pretty poor reflection on this Chamber that it is empty. It is probably only a third full, even with the social distancing rules in place. Where are our colleagues getting upset about the removal of people’s civil liberties? Neither side here has a great story to tell.

[Justin Madders]

If these regulations were actually going to be changed as a result of what we said here, we might see a better attendance, but the Government have shown the contempt in which they hold this place by introducing them way after the event. The question is: where are the reviews? What is it that we cannot see in them? This betrays a cavalier attitude to transparency, and it does absolutely nothing to engender confidence that the decisions that are being taken are the right ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Tonight we are debating the continued removal of civil liberties and we are not having a vote at the end of this debate. We need to start voting on these matters. I find it absolutely extraordinary that 10, 11, 12 weeks into this crisis we are yet to have a vote. This is important stuff—important to my constituents, this country and Members, and we need to get back to business as usual, as much as we can.

[Peter Kyle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Charles Walker]

Very briefly.

[Peter Kyle]

I will be brief. The House of Lords—the other place—voted tonight. It did so electronically. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that would be a more sensible way forward here, because we could have been doing it already?

[Sir Charles Walker]

I will come on to that point.

We have got to get people back to work. I am going to lose hundreds of small businesses in my constituency and thousands of jobs—and that is just if we all go back to work tomorrow. If we delay week after week after week, more and more jobs will go and more and more businesses will close, not just in my constituency but in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in everyone else’s in this Chamber—all colleagues. It will be catastrophic. It is going to be really, really bad for a lot of people. Not having a job, losing your business and not having a home have bad outcomes—bad health outcomes, bad mental health outcomes, and just bad outcomes all round for your family and community.

We talk about when we do not have coronavirus any more—when we have banished this virus from our shores. Well, we may have to learn to live with this virus. I did a bit of research and found a book by the virologist F. M. Burnet, written in 1953—a very good read it is too. He was an expert on Spanish flu, and he wrote this:

“Influenza remained unduly active and unduly fatal through 1919 and 1920, but gradually reverted to normal character. The change from the young adult incidence of fatality to the standard type involving virtually only the old was not complete until 1929.”

That was a decade.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as most viruses mutate they become less fatal, and hopefully that it is what is going to happen to coronavirus; I suspect that it will be the case. There is this idea that we can stand here and say, “We’re not going to go back to work—we’re not going to go back to normal—until we banish coronavirus.” But we could see this hybrid Parliament lasting a lot longer than any of us thought it would last. We could see a lot more of our constituents out of work and a lot more businesses failing; in fact our whole country could fail.

We talk about leadership; we talk about the Government leading. That is a realistic expectation—that the Government lead—but what about our obligation to lead? Parliament came back two weeks ago after the Whitsun recess and we had a number of votes. We were asked to queue for half an hour, in the sunshine, and we started whingeing and tweeting out. Why were we whingeing that we were being asked to stand in a queue? My God, for crying out loud, our constituents had been doing it for the past 10 weeks, and yet when it is our turn we do not like it at all. Where is the leadership there, I ask you? And it did not go unnoticed by our constituents.

I will return to the issue about democratic accountability and the democratic deficit, and why this place needs to meet vibrantly to debate matters of great concern. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that during the EU debates there was heat, passion and emotion, but it never spilled over into the streets because we were the safety valve. We were allowed to let off steam in this Chamber on behalf of our constituents, and they felt they had a voice. But now in London we are seeing people who feel passionately about an issue—who feel it viscerally in their hearts—not having voices in Parliament organically, through a debate, sharing, debating and discussing their concerns.

That is why it is so important that we start voting on matters of civil liberty—that we take it upon ourselves to return to this place to lead the country back to work. It is not good enough to think we have done our bit by clapping fantastic NHS health workers and people in supermarkets, and yet when it comes to our turn we say, “No, that is for other people.” We have got to get back to work—ourselves and the nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend has a point. The reason why I have been clear in the view that I have expressed in my constituency about these protests is that I fundamentally believe that we live in a country governed by the rule of law, and one thing about the rule of law is that it applies to everybody in the country. Of course, one of the arguments that many of the people attending these protests are making is that they want everyone in our country, whatever their race, to be treated equally under the law. We already have laws in this country that protect the way people are treated and guarantee, under equality legislation, that we treat people of different races the same. It is difficult for someone to argue that they want the law to be applied to protect people of different races and guarantee their rights if, at the same time, that person is conducting a protest that in itself breaks the law. It is not a very consistent position to have.

[Sir Charles Walker]

I understand the point that my right hon. Friend is making, and it is very important that people act safely, but I find it rather wonderful that people in this country believe that the right to protest belongs to them and not Ministers. Whatever the rights and wrongs of protesting while there is a lockdown, looking ahead to the strength of the democratic right in this country, the fact that people believe the right to protest belongs to them and not Ministers should, in future, give us all hope for our democracy.

[Mr Harper]

I broadly agree with that sentiment, but I have a concern, for this reason. I think that we live in a country governed by law and I want the law to be respected, so the difficulty, if we get large-scale of breaches of that law—particularly if there is no sanction—is that all the millions of people in our country who, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) said, have been faithfully obeying the law, following the rules, not meeting members of their family and putting themselves through considerable hardship and difficulty then think it has all been rather pointless, and they do not quite understand why there appears to be a different set of standards. That is why it is important, if we are going to make rules such as this, that they apply to everybody, and that is very much the sentiment in my constituency. It is also important because if these things are the law, they are presumably the law because Ministers have determined, on advice from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, that allowing these gatherings would allow the virus to spread more widely than it would otherwise. In that case, allowing such protests to take place is going to put people’s lives at risk.

I am very fortunate that in my constituency we have had a relatively low incidence of coronavirus and a relatively low number of people have died, although every death is, for the family and friends of that individual, a tragedy. The incidence has been relatively low and I do not want to see that change, which is why I think it is important that we obey these rules.

In conclusion, although I support the regulations—I am certainly very happy to support them this evening—the Government need to think about the way they bring these sets of regulations in front of the House, the way they are debated and the way they are explained to people. They also need to look, over the coming days and weeks—as we hopefully are able to continually ease the restrictions—at the point at which it makes sense to move from the law and a legislative underpinning of these rules to advice, guidance and trust in the very good sense of the British people to follow the rules and continue driving the virus out of our community, so that we can all get back as close to normal life as possible until we develop a vaccine or a treatment.

Public Health

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am reassured by the fact that the Government will be making a statement on 7 May reviewing the current lockdown, but I need to make it absolutely clear to the Minister that business is stressed. The lockdown has collapsed demand, and the longer it goes on, the harder it will be for businesses to claw back that demand. Their future is bleak. I remind the Minister that the economy is people’s lives. It is our health service, our schools, our policing, our pensions, our roads, our mortgages, our workplace and so many more things. In short, it is us.

I urge the Government to do some modelling on the impact that the lockdown will have on the 5.9 million privately owned businesses in this country. Of that 5.9 million, 99.3% employ between one and 49 people, and if hundreds of thousands—or a million or more—of those businesses go under, we will unleash a tidal wave of human misery. Unemployment of 12% means 4 million people out of work, 4 million people suffering from mental health problems, and many more millions of people underemployed. We need to have a frank, open and honest debate about the ethics of trading lives tomorrow to save lives today. The chief medical officer has made it perfectly clear that there are people who are going to die of cancer who otherwise would not have died of cancer because of this lockdown. It may well be that, after that debate, we decide that this is a terrible trade we want to make, but we need to have that discussion, as a Parliament and as a country.

The chief medical officer has said that we may well have to learn to live with covid-19 for years to come. It may not just be a battle to beat the first wave or the second wave. There may be many waves to come, year after year, and we need an economy that is resilient and that can meet that challenge and face it down. So we have to get people back to work as safely as possible. Maybe in a few months’ time, because we want to protect our public services and the things that we value, the slogan will be: “Go to work, wash your hands, save the NHS”. Most people find their purpose, their motivation and their happiness in the workplace.

May I conclude by saying that many people in my constituency are doing truly wonderful things? Each day, they get up in the morning and go to work. I know some of them are fearful and frightened, but they go to work to keep this country running as best as they can—they are all heroes. I cannot thank everyone, because it is impossible to do so, but I would like to thank those at the little Co-op in Goffs Oak, where I live. Young men and women, and older men and women, are working on the tills, behind their glass screens. I am sure they are concerned about their own welfare, but there is always a cheery smile and a warm welcome, and they give the impression that nothing is too much to ask. There are many, many heroes, and a number of them are found at the Co-op in Goffs Oak.

Eating Disorders Awareness Week

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth). I call him my right hon. Friend because I have been working with him on diabulimia. He has huge expertise in the area and I am rather new to the field. I shall be brief.

We are all occasionally touched by surgery cases we get, and about 10 months ago a couple came to see me whose daughter had recently taken her life after a long battle with diabulimia. It is terribly distressing to talk to parents who have lost a child to suicide, and perhaps even more so given the terrible background to that suicide—although all suicides are to be mourned equally. The Minister has been fantastic. I have been in correspondence with her about the case, and about diabulimia.

For the record, I shall give a quick overview of what led to the tragedy of a young woman aged 27, who was a teacher, taking her own life. She had suffered with eating disorders for a number of years and was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. As her parents said, she became giddy with joy. This is not a normal reaction when someone is diagnosed with diabetes. She was giddy with joy because she realised that as a sufferer of diabetes, she could suppress her weight through insulin abuse. In her parents’ words, the prescribing of insulin weaponised her eating disorder.

The concern that I and the young woman’s parents have, which I have raised with the Minister, is that too many healthcare professionals are unsighted in this area. When they prescribe insulin to an adolescent female or young woman, they are not alive to the risk that there may be an undiagnosed or undeclared eating disorder, or an underlying risk of an eating disorder, and that what is actually happening is that someone with a severe condition, or a propensity to a severe condition, is being handed a toxic substance that might save their life in one way but lead to the loss of it in another. There is a need for really strong background discussions with young women and girls when they are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes about their mental wellbeing and whether there is any danger of an eating disorder being present.

I have taken the case up with the Minister and I pay tribute to her. She is aware that the NHS is currently piloting services joining up treatment for diabetes and for eating disorders in London and on the south coast. Our most recent correspondence was last summer and I hope that, if not today, at some stage the Government will be able to update the House as to the success of the pilots and whether they will lead to a wider roll-out.

As the Minister said in her letter, the pilots will provide a valuable insight into the impact insulin prescribing has on individuals at risk of developing eating disorders, and they are an important step forward in recognising and treating diabulimia and minimising its devastating impact on patients and their families. That is exactly what we want to hear from the Department of Health, and I congratulate it on recognising the scale of the problem. The Minister went on to say that raising awareness among health professionals and alerting them to the risk associated with insulin and eating disorders is one of the Government’s priorities.

The debate is hugely timely. I hope that further measures will emerge from it across the NHS—across GP and mental health surgeries—that contribute to ensuring that no families have to lose a child in the way my constituents did.