Public Health
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
This is a situation of state capture. The Government are completely in thrall to a lobby driving a policy that has manifestly failed—it has failed, or we would not be here yet again. It is a complete failure, yet we go through increasing iterations of it, with ever-tighter controls and restrictions, in the hope that it might finally work. And, then, when there is a possibility of change, as a consequence of the arrival of the vaccines, the crazed lobby has already begun to signal that the social control will not be over and that some restrictions will remain; indeed, the chiefs have pointed out that they might have to be reimposed all over again next winter.
To those colleagues who are contemplating voting for these measures this evening, buoyed up by opinion pollsters telling them that, actually, the voters are in favour of them and, indeed, that they crave even tighter restraints on their liberty, I would point out that when the devastating economic consequences of this policy come home to roost, and we see double-dip recession and years of slow growth as firms cannot take up new opportunities because they are saddled with debt, those same voters, who were so enthusiastic, will abandon them, and those colleagues will be back to point a finger of blame—and, on that occasion at least, they will be right.
Covid-19 Update
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given that the main effort is the protection of the NHS, surely, the moment we start to get a reduction in hospital admissions, we can start lifting the restrictions?
Matt Hancock
Well, yes—in principle. The point is to protect the NHS and to stop people dying from the disease. While at the moment cases are a very clear proxy for future hospitalisations and future deaths, as the vaccine is rolled out, we would hope that for every number of cases we would have fewer hospitalisations and fewer deaths. It is that protection from hospitalisations and deaths that the vaccine gives us, which is why it is the route out of the crisis.
Public Health
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
This House legislated explicitly for specific arrangements to govern the celebration of Christmas, and no sooner than the House had risen itself for Christmas, the Government, by ministerial fiat, changed those arrangements. We are asked this evening to give retrospective legislative approval to the changes that they made. We are in the absurd position of being asked to vote for the ghost of Christmas past.
Sometimes in a democracy, process has an importance. I am constantly—daily—confronted by individuals and businesses facing ruin, notwithstanding the huge investment that they made in covid-secure premises and procedures. What we have never had, and what we have always been asking for, is the cost-benefit analysis that the Government made on each of the restrictive measures that make up the menu of their tier system. I do not for one moment question the motives of Ministers. I do, however, question their ability, in exactly the way that I question my own ability.
When the House rose, the lobby of Government scientific advisers—a lobby, we should remember, that had already publicly expressed their frustration that their earlier strictures on how Christmas should be celebrated had not been fully taken on board by the Government—announced that they had discovered a new strain of the disease so much more transmissible than the earlier one. They bounced the Government. I have to accept, of course, the possibility that they may be absolutely right, but I know this: were I presented by such a lobby of eminent scientists—eminent people leading in their field—and told that they had discovered this new emergency, and that so many more people were going to die, and unless I did what they said, I would be responsible for their deaths, I would find great difficulty in having the wherewithal to identify and ask the right questions to be sure that they were on the money, or 100 miles from it.
What I would certainly want, and what I believe the Government need, is an alternative source of expertise—a competitive source of expertise—particularly statisticians leading in their fields, who would be able to furnish me, to arm me, to arm Ministers, with the right questions to ask about the validity of the modelling and the data. It can only improve the decision-making process. But what is really galling in all this is then to hear on the airwaves Professor Ferguson being interviewed, giving his wisdom to the nation once again, to all intents and purposes as if he were still a key Government adviser. I do hope that the Minister winding up the debate will be able to assure us that that is most certainly not the case. I was always rather jealous of Poole, Christchurch and Bournemouth, because our infection rate in the New Forest was substantially lower than theirs, but they turned out to be in tier 2 and we were in tier 3. Now we are all together in tier 4.
Sir Christopher Chope
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we are now in tier 4, but in statutory instrument No. 1646, which was laid before this House on 29 December, we were in tier 2. Today—one day later—we are in tier 4. Is that not a mockery?
Sir Desmond Swayne
The reality is this. These are the questions that my constituents put to me, and I am reduced to saying, “It’s one of life’s great mysteries.” The decision-making process is entirely opaque. That is why I voted against it when I had the chance.
Covid-19 Update
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
The advice I have and the answer to the hon. Gentleman is, I hope, as few as possible—especially as we get the vaccine rolling out. I want to pick up something he said about this pandemic. This pandemic is caused by the virus, not by any Government around the world. It is caused by the virus, and that is why it is so important that we all come together to try to tackle it, rather than trying to take this overly politicised approach.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
His waitress tested positive, so the proprietor of the small café closed immediately and went into self-isolation, but test, track and trace has not contacted him, so he is without the wherewithal to claim the allowance. Can the Secretary of State fix it?
Matt Hancock
Yes, if my right hon. Friend has the test reference number I will get on to it right away. If NHS Test and Trace has not contacted the owner, that might imply that he does not have to self-isolate, but of course I will want to look into the details of the case before making such a recommendation. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend’s constituents get a full, clinically approved recommendation ASAP.
Covid-19
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
We have made the case against the regulations in this House and we have lost all the votes, and that is democracy. However, liberal western democracy is more than rule by the majority. It certainly includes freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom to worship. One of the most worrying aspects of our response to the coronavirus has been the way people have simply shrugged as these freedoms have been dispensed with. The Government have armed themselves with all the coercive powers of the state to tell us whom we may meet, when we may meet them, where we may meet them and what we must wear. Freedom of protest has been dispensed with, as has freedom of worship.
Is it not interesting the way that subsidiaries of the totalitarian state, in their eagerness, seek to exceed even what has been proscribed and prescribed? I have received representations from clinicians who have been threatened that their jobs will be taken from them because they have publicly expressed their doubts about the wisdom of the policy or, indeed, their doubts about the misuse or the concealment of data. We had the extraordinary scene of a nurse being charged with assault for seeking to liberate her mother from a care home. Could this have happened in our country? Then we saw those students seeking to effect a great escape from the Stalag Luft III that their university had imposed on them.
As these enormities occurred, instead of the expected rising chorus of protest, on the contrary we are told by the pollsters that actually the British people thirst for even greater restraints on their liberty. I am appalled—absolutely appalled. These liberties, as we heard in the debate earlier this afternoon, were bought at an extraordinarily high price. Now, as we move into the vaccinated sunny uplands of release and freedom, there is a danger that the state has learned a powerful lesson over the last few months—namely, that the British people do not worry too much about their liberties and that they can be dispensed with conveniently when need arises. I hope that this House will wake up to that danger and seek a remedy.
Covid-19 Update
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
Of course, we will continue to work on a clinically-led basis with everybody across the country who needs support. The vaccines were not trialled on children, and it would absolutely be a clinical decision as to how to take this matter forward. I am very glad that the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to talk to the deputy chief medical officer, Jenny Harries, who leads on shielding policy. It is a very important and very sensitive subject.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The amended graphs used to justify the lockdown now show a 40% reduction in the death rate in the upper quartile as against their first presentation, so the NHS would have coped, wouldn’t it?
Covid-19
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If we were to ask a scientist, “How do you stop a virus that spreads through human contact?”, we should not be surprised if he answers by telling us that we must stop human contact as far as is possible. It falls to us, however, to decide whether the price is worth paying in terms of the misery and unemployment it generates. We are talking about a generation marred in their life chances; and mindboggling borrowing that we will have to pay off over years, which will diminish proper investment in public services and industry. All that, and for what? The Secretary of State has told us this week that the average number of deaths is consistent with the long-term average for this time of year. Some 1,600 people die every day, but covid is by no means chief among their killers. It is no good to say, “Well, every other jurisdiction in the world is following basically the same policy”. That would strike me as herd stupidity.
Speaking of herds, I understand that a number of Ministers have questioned the existence of herd immunity, which is odd, given that a successful vaccine programme relies on herd immunity and that is the basket into which the Government have placed all their eggs. We can throw into this mix: the fact that we appear determined to claim every possible death as a covid death, as though we were in some sort of international league and competition; the failure to be absolutely up front on the limitations of the PCR—polymerase chain reaction—test as a means of tracking the disease; and the way we use large numbers to terrify people. We have been told that intensive care units are at 80% of their capacity, but of course at this time of year that is exactly what we would expect them to be. No wonder our constituents are writing to us with ever greater conspiracy theories—it is because our actions defy rational explanation.
Hallelujah—the consensus has been broken; the Prime Minister has finally resisted the advice he has been given by the scientists, just at a time when the Opposition have embraced it with enthusiasm. Now at least an argument can be had, and proper scrutiny and freedom from groupthink will arise. The danger is that if we do not change the way in which we respond to this disease, in years to come historians will pick over how a prosperous society entered into such a devastating act of self-harm.
Covid-19 Update
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
We are working incredibly hard to support the action that is needed to suppress this virus, while protecting the NHS and schools and supporting the economy as much as is possible. When it comes to the work in Greater Manchester, that is absolutely our goal. That is the work that we are doing and, given that support proportionate to that already agreed in Lancashire and Liverpool is on the table, I hope that local leaders will work with us.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the number of excess deaths above the long-term average in each of the last few weeks?
Matt Hancock
We have, thankfully, seen that the number of excess deaths is around the level of the long-term average. I want to keep it that way and that is why we are taking the action that we are, so that this does not get out of hand like we saw in the first peak.
Covid-19 Update
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
It is going pretty well, actually, and it is going to benefit the people of Scotland as well as people right across this united land.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What advantage is there to be had from accommodating non-intubated covid cases in Nightingale hospitals, and if there is an advantage what additional facilities would need to be provided?
Matt Hancock
Some of the Nightingale hospitals can take non-intubated patients—not ones who need full intensive care, if they have multiple organ failure—but not all of them can because of the way that they are set up. We need the ventilators, the space and the staff to ensure that the Nightingale hospitals can be expanded as much as possible.
Public Health
Desmond Swayne Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Do the police have powers of entry into a private dwelling to enforce these rules?
Helen Whately
I would not want to say anything incorrect at the Dispatch Box, so let me make sure that I get back to my right hon. Friend with a detailed answer to that question.
After a period of reducing or stabilising the transmission of the virus, we have been seeing daily case numbers rise rapidly across most parts of the country. That is why the Government chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser jointly agreed the changes that we announced. We know from the science of what has sadly happened in other countries that are experiencing a second wave that an increase in infections will lead to increases in hospitalisations and deaths until we take action.
In introducing the changes, we noted that clear and easily understood information about the virus and how it spreads was likely to increase adherence to public health advice. Although the majority of people report that they understand social distancing rules, feedback from the public and Members of this House indicate that people would value simpler messaging. That is why we have moved to the rule of six—one number for all settings—and have tightened the regulations so that they exactly reflect the guidance rather than there being one set of numbers in the guidance and another set of numbers in the legal framework. The rules were simplified and strengthened, so that they were easier to understand and so that the police could identify and disperse illegal gatherings.
We have acted to get the virus under control and, in doing that, we want in due course to be able to make changes and, clearly, to be able to lift the restrictions. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) asked specifically about children. The position on this is, as I have said, the need for a clear steer. We needed the guidance to be simple and absolutely clear to everybody. We wanted, on the one hand, to enable a level of socialising for the sake of people’s quality of life, while on the other hand to take steps to control the virus. That is why we took the position that the rule of six achieved that balance. I appreciate that colleagues would like a different position to have been taken, but that is the position based on the—
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her introduction.
With 1 million people worldwide and over 42,000 people in the UK having now lost their lives to covid-19, the virus is still very much with us and the threat is clear. On Friday, the Government’s scientific and medical advisers reported that the R number in the UK could be as high as 1.6, and that it was highly likely that the virus was still growing exponentially. The spread of the disease is thought to be growing between 5% and 9% each day. There were another 12,500 new cases yesterday, and that is before we see the consequences of those missing cases, where contacts have not been identified and asked to isolate.
Just about every piece of data indicates that we are heading in the wrong direction, which is why new restrictions are required, but, three weeks into them, should we not be beginning to see a sign of progress?
More than 16 million people across the country are living under additional local restrictions, and we have further national measures, such as the 10 pm curfew, which we are not debating today, yet the progress of the virus continues unabated. Indeed, Members whose constituencies are directly affected will know that some of the heaviest increases in infection appear to be taking place in areas where additional restrictions are already in place. Today’s debate is important as it gives Members the opportunity to question how effective these interventions are, whether we need to go further and what these regulations might mean for their constituents.
Before I turn to the regulations, I remind the House that Labour has been clear from the outset that we will do whatever we can to support the national effort by supporting whatever reasonable steps are necessary to protect the NHS and save lives. That does not mean, though, that we are giving the Government a free pass. We have been concerned by the months of mixed messages and confused communication from the Government. We welcome the intention behind the rule of six. It is a simple, easily understood message, although anyone who has read the 10 pages of regulations, the plethora of exceptions and the many laws that they amend will realise that the simple message has not survived the process of drafting the regulations.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Given that the Minister has pleaded simplicity for the rule of six, is it any less simple that the six should exclude children than that it should include them, or do we imagine that our constituents are stupid?
Justin Madders
I certainly do not think my constituents are stupid, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not either. A very important point has already been made about children, and I will return to that later. We have not yet had a convincing explanation why they are included in the six.
Even with the best of intentions, concerns and questions remain, not least about the way in which these regulations were introduced, how effective they are, how the Government communicated them and how they will be enforced. The timeline of these regulations is the perfect demonstration of the lack of transparency, strategy and accountably, which has been the hallmark of this Government. Following media briefings the night before, the Prime Minister made an announcement about the rule of six on 9 September, not to this place, as it should have been, even though he was in the House that day to answer Prime Minister’s questions. I call that a discourtesy to this place, and I hope we see and end of that. It shows not only a lack of respect to all Members and our constituents but a lack of confidence in what is being proposed and a lack of commitment to scrutiny. Most of all, the way that these regulations were introduced shows a lack of thought about the practicalities of enforcing them.
How can we expect anyone to adhere to the minutiae of these regulations if they appear for the first time only a quarter of an hour before they become law—at quarter to midnight on a Sunday evening? How were the police meant to enforce that? Are they supposed to google the regulations as they walk around on their beat? Brian Booth, the chair of the West Yorkshire Police Federation, said:
“Everybody is in the dark, it shouldn’t be like that…If the government says they’re going to infringe on people’s lives, they have to tell them how.”
Once again, there is no impact assessment for these regulations. Surely some thought was given to the practicalities, so what discussions did the Minister have with her counterparts in the Home Office and with police forces around the country prior to the introduction of these regulations?
The way that regulations are introduced matters. They are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law. Since March, more than 70 health protection statutory instruments have been introduced in this way, with no debate and no vote before they come into force. We recognise that, in the early stages, there was a need to act quickly under the emergency procedures, and we acknowledge that that may still be the case at times, but more and more of the regulations that are being introduced do not meet the test of urgency. The Government have slipped into bad habits. They treat this place as an afterthought—an inconvenience, an optional extra—and not as the cornerstone of the democratic process that it should be. Surely they can do better than that. Do they not realise that scrutiny, debate and challenge in the making of our laws means that, in the long run, laws are more robust, more effective and have greater public acceptance?
I repeat once again and for the record our offer to meet at short notice to debate and vote on regulations before they become law. I appreciate that that might be inconvenient for some, but, to be frank, we are in a pandemic so a bit of inconvenience should be the least that we have to put up with to ensure that democracy still functions.
Justin Madders
What I am saying is that I would like to see the evidence. I would like to know what the difference is between this country and Wales and Scotland. The Children’s Commissioner, for one, would also like an answer. If we get the answer, we can take a position on it.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The question was asked and the answer was that it was for simplicity. It was not a question of evidence: the answer was that it was simpler to include children. Given that there is no evidence, will the hon. Gentleman reassess his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)?
Justin Madders
That is probably overstating things. Certainly, it is not what has been said in the other place about the reasons why children were included. We do need some more clarity from the Government on that.
In terms of clarity, we also need more data and evidence from the Minister about what is happening to reduce the transmission of the virus. We need her to commit to publishing evidence behind all these decisions. If there is no evidence, then so be it, but we need to see the basis on which decisions are being made. I was a little unsure whether she was saying that it was too early, or not, to establish the effectiveness of these regulations. She said at one point that it would take a couple of weeks to see whether the regulations are being effective, but of course we are already past that point. I hope that we can see some clarity on that.
I would be grateful if we heard a bit more about why it is a rule of six, not seven, eight or five, for example. That is very important, because we are putting significant restrictions on people and those cannot be based on an arbitrary number. I raise this not because we want to pick holes in what the Government are saying but because the Transport Secretary, when asked why it was six, said there was no particular reason for that figure. Can anyone imagine a police officer going to hand out a fine to a group of seven people and, when asked why seven was an offence and six was not, saying, “Well, there’s no particular reason for that.”?
Justin Madders
Every suggestion the right hon. Gentleman makes is helpful, so I will.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Could I suggest 10, and then we can count them on our fingers? That would be simple enough, wouldn’t it?
Justin Madders
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that the Government’s thought processes are rather more complex than that, but, again, we need to see what has actually been said in that respect.
When we debated the first lockdown regulations, I stated that as regulations changed, it was vital that the rules remain clear and consistent. That consistency not only carries across advice but carries across laws and all forms of official communication. It is very clear that that has not happened in this case. As we know, the Prime Minister and Ministers have made contradictory statements and have been unable to answer simple questions regarding the new regulations in the media. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if the people responsible for making the rules do not understand them, how can we expect the rest of the country to understand and follow the rules?