Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

It may be helpful to say that, since the NHS Test and Trace system started, it has contacted 78.5% of those who have tested positive, and then 77% of their contacts have been reached. There is an important part of the system where the national contact tracers are handing over to local authority contact tracers who are able to access the same system and are supported in contact tracing but, critically, are also using their local knowledge of the local area to increase the success rate. It is really important that people are reached wherever possible and advised to self-isolate.

May I also say how much I appreciate and thank all those who are doing the right thing by self-isolating, both those with symptoms and those who have been contacted by contact tracers?

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I am not going to ask about the current problems with test and trace, because it is clear from what we have heard already that the Government have no answers on that. Instead, I will ask about the so-called moonshot tests and Dido Harding’s comments that some people will have to pay for them. When the Prime Minister was given a chance in the Chamber, a fortnight ago, to deny that was on the table, he did not take it. We have real concerns about creating a two-tier system for tests where some people have to pay. It undermines a fundamental principle of the NHS and will do nothing to stop the spread of the virus. Will the Minister give us a definitive answer today? Are some people going to have to pay to access the moonshot tests, yes or no?

Public Health

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On that point, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House of the present state of negotiations with the official Opposition about a debate on the 10 o’clock curfew? The suggestion was that there would be a debate tomorrow on the 10 o’clock curfew, but it is not going to be about that—it is going to be about what is happening in the north. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what progress there has been?

[Justin Madders]

Regrettably, I am not one of the business managers of the House, so I cannot advise on that, although I expect that we will have an answer during the business statement on Thursday. I note what Members have said about national regulations being debated on the Floor of the House before they become law, if possible—obviously, that will still be after the event, but we really need to start doing a lot better in that area.

There is rightly a concern across the House and among the population that we do not have control of the virus. A central part of regaining control is ensuring that there is robust scrutiny of the regulations and their effectiveness. The Government need to stop reacting to situations too late—that is how the virus has run out of control. They need to look ahead, plan, prepare and act now to get a grip on test and trace, to have a clear and consistent message on what the public need to do and to ensure that there is widespread compliance with the rules. The latter two go hand in hand and are very much connected to the regulations that we are debating today.

As we heard from the Minister, the regulations amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations for the fourth time. The regulations restrict social gatherings to six people, unless an exemption applies. We have heard a little about some of those exemptions, so I will not list them all, but they are where the good intentions behind the regulations depart from the clear and consistent messaging that we need. For example, there is an exemption in the regulations for gatherings of up to 30 persons for a marriage or civil partnership; as Members will already be aware, that has been reduced to 15. Yet again, as with a whole host of other restrictions, we are debating regulations that are, in part at least, out of date.

The wedding industry has been decimated this year; I do not know what repeatedly inviting and uninviting people to a wedding does for family relations—maybe people could ask everyone to wear tweed to the wedding and combine it with a grouse shoot so that they could keep numbers at 30. However, this is a health debate, so I will focus on the health aspects. To that end, I would like the Minister to spell out very clearly the rationale for this decision. The limit of 30 at a wedding lasted for just two weeks before it was reduced to 15. Either a specific piece of evidence emerged during that fortnight that required the limit to be reduced for weddings but not for funerals, or the limit should never have been 30 in the first place. Which one is it?

The regulations also provide that the restrictions in private dwellings in the regional lockdown regulations remain in place; it is notable that the rules for the rule of six vary across the devolved nations, as we have already heard. Far from us having an easy-to-remember set of rules that apply to everyone, it seems that the rule of six is the baseline for around only half the UK.

In Wales, as we have heard, primary-age children are not counted in the six. The Welsh Assembly took that decision based on the evidence that it has, which shows that children are far less likely to have the most serious symptoms and are less likely to pass on the virus. The question, which has already been put today, is about how the Government have come to a different conclusion on that point. Why are younger children included in the rule of six in England, but not in Wales—or in Scotland, for that matter?

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Should I infer from the hon. Gentleman’s points that the Labour party would like children to be excluded from the rule of six? I think that is what he is saying. Obviously, this motion today is unamendable. Is he joining some of us on the Conservative side of the House in saying to the Government that we would like them to come back with a further statutory instrument to amend the regulations, so that children are excluded if they are of primary school age?

[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.”?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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?

[Mr Steve Baker]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Justin Madders]

I am conscious that more people want to speak, so I will make this my last one.

[Mr Baker]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me out. I am looking at the provision on linked households, which is introduced on page 6. I have looked at the explanatory memorandum and I cannot find the explanation of what linked households means. Is he able to clearly explain, for the benefit of the nation, what this linked households provision is all about?

[Justin Madders]

If we are going into pub quiz territory, then perhaps we can have a pint later on. I am afraid that we probably do not have time to go into that, because I know that a number of other Members wish to speak.

Compliance is a very important matter. The vast majority of people do comply with the rule of six, but where they have not, they will obviously get a fixed penalty notice, and we need to understand how realistic it is that that will be enforced. John Apter, the chair of the Police Federation, has called for the Government to start an effective information campaign. He said:

“For policing, these constant changes to legislation are becoming the norm. The pressures on policing have increased significantly over recent months, and this latest change will add to this pressure.”

Brian Booth, who I quoted earlier, said that officers

“simply can’t enforce”

the new restrictions, adding:

“We just don’t have the resources, the world has woken up again and it’s busy… Resources are outstripped with that demand, never mind adding on Mrs Miggins reporting that seven people are having a barbecue next door.”

I am not aware of any official figures for the total number of fines that have been issued for breaching the rule of six, or indeed whether Mrs Miggins has had a fine, but it is notable that three weeks down the line, it is reported that many police forces, including North Yorkshire police, who handed out the greatest number of fines in the original lockdown, had not issued any fines for breaches of these regulations.

Will the Minister update us on the number of fines that have actually been issued? The police have had an incredibly difficult job in this crisis, and we know the very real pressures on them due to the reductions in their numbers over the past decade. They simply cannot continue to be handed responsibilities if those responsibilities are not accompanied by sufficient resources to enable them to do their job. With the number of enforceable restrictions increasing, will the Minister set out what additional resources will be handed to the police to ensure compliance? On that point, we know that Halloween is coming up very soon. It is always a busy night for the police, but this year they will have the added burden of breaking up groups of children if they become too big. Given that those children have probably spent all day with the very same kids at school in groups far larger than six, I say good luck to the officer who tries to explain to them why their parents will get a fine for it. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is what is going to happen.

There will need to be a very clear public messaging campaign, or will there be an exception? After all, the Prime Minister hinted that the rule of six could be dropped for Christmas day. Of course everyone would like to see that, but how on earth is saying that on a particular day the rule of six will not apply at all consistent with the clear public health message that the rule of six is meant to be?

Will the Minister also clarify what the rule is in relation to mingling? Apparently, a person can be fined for mingling with an existing group of six, but there is no definition within the regulations of what constitutes a mingle. The debate would be absurd if the consequences were not so serious.

In respect of police powers, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) asked the Minister whether the police can go into people’s properties to enforce the law. My understanding is that they cannot. I do not know whether the Minister expects the police to stand outside people’s properties until six people come out and then take appropriate action.

On fines, will the Minister clarify whether there was an oversight in the regulations around who has committed an offence under them? I ask that because the regulations require event organisers to carry out a risk assessment in order to comply with the regulations, but there does not appear to be any penalty for them if they fail to do so. It seems that the fine in that situation would apply to the people attending the event. How can it be right that a person attending an event in good faith is liable only because the organiser has not done their job? I appreciate that subsequent regulations came into place a few days later, on 18 September, requiring hospitality venues to enforce the rule of six or face a fine of up to £4,000, but again, I do not believe that applies to outdoor events. Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case? Are there any plans to introduce a penalty for the organisers of outdoor events who fail to comply with the regulations?

I am conscious that a number of people wish to speak, so I will conclude by confirming, as we have done on many occasions, that we want the Government to succeed in fighting the virus. However, let me be clear that the rise in infections we are seeing was not inevitable and the restrictions we are debating today were not inevitable. The Government cannot continue lurching from crisis to crisis. To take people with us, we need to see more transparency, the evidence behind the restrictions that are being introduced and better communication. We need new laws introduced after the democratic process has been completed.

How can we find ourselves, eight months into this pandemic, with confidence in the Government’s response draining away, rather than growing? How can we have one of the worst death rates in the world? How can we have a test and trace system so obviously failing to deliver the basics? The regulations might not have been necessary if the Government had fixed test and trace when the sun was shining. They wasted the summer. Let us hope that the price for that is not a very bitter winter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are eight people on the call list, and I will get everyone in if it kills me. To do so, I am introducing a rule of six. It is not an arbitrary figure; I have divided the time left by how many people want to speak. The rule of six could become the rule of five or the rule of four if there are a lot of interventions.

Covid-19

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

We have heard contributions from nearly 70 Members today. From the Labour Benches, we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood)], for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). I am not going to be able to go through each contribution, but I wish to pick out a few highlights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda gave a thoughtful, considered speech, touching on a number of areas where there was a great deal of consensus across the Benches—I will return to that later. He also raised points where there will be less consensus, but I certainly agreed when he said that there was a tendency in government to focus a lot on boasting about what they were going to do rather than what they could do at this particular time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow spoke for many on these Benches and across the country when she said that the Government had squandered a great deal of good will in their handling of the pandemic. She was right to raise the issue of the disproportionate impact on BAME communities and the urgency with which we need a plan to address that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey was right when she said that a decade of austerity had weakened our defences and that the Government needed to justify their decisions better. We have heard plenty of examples of that tonight and we will go on to discuss it later. Like many, she raised the issue of problems with test and trace. I was alarmed to hear that in the Wirral area, not too far from me and where extra restrictions are in place already, people are waiting up to seven days to get their test results. It is not difficult to see why that is a huge problem that needs fixing urgently.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley gave several examples of where ministerial replies to written questions are not being provided in a timely manner, and I can certainly sympathise with that, given my experience. That ties in with the concerns that many Members raised about accountability, an issue I will come on to shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South spoke candidly about her own health and how the crisis had impacted on her. May I say how pleased we all are to see her back in the Chamber tonight? Her campaigning on issues relating to social care and mental health came to the fore in her speech, and we needed to hear from her on those issues. We could not help but be moved by the heartbreaking stories I am sure we have all heard from distressed constituents who cannot see their loved ones because they are in a care home, and I hope we can see further action on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South also raised the issue of those needing cancer treatment, the shockingly low levels of people receiving treatment for the first time at the moment and how some people are receiving their diagnosis so late that it is too late for any treatment to be effective. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central spoke passionately, as she always does, about the situation in her city and the challenges facing the care sector, which I will come on to shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool was, once again, as he always is, a strong advocate for his local hospital and the people who work there, and he, too, raised the issue of the delays in testing locally. He also made the important point that the increased restrictions locally do require more resources to follow.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East gave an excellent and wide-ranging speech, contrasting some of the measures introduced in Wales with those introduced in this country. She also highlighted some of the broader issues that persist, including the 3 million people who have been excluded from any support whatsoever and the continuing difficulty that the five-week wait for universal credit creates.

I certainly could not refer to Members’ contributions without waxing lyrical about my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), given that he is my Whip. He spoke about the challenges the university sector has faced in his city and the lack of support for the entertainment industry, of which he has considerable personal experience. There is no doubt that that represents a massive hole in the Chancellor’s winter plan that needs to be filled.

Virtually every Opposition Member talked about the well documented problems with the test and trace system, and about how the private sector national system is not working and how local public health teams should be given greater responsibility.

Many Members talked about the various sectors, including entertainment, where there is insufficient support and no immediate prospect of reopening. That concern extended to hospitality, and there was plenty of challenge of the Government’s decision to introduce a 10 pm curfew in pubs and restaurants, and whether it is working.

That is a current example of the wider issue that Members on both sides of the House have raised tonight about the sidelining of democracy and accountability during the crisis. The Minister knows these arguments well—she hears me make them every week in Delegated Legislation Committees. She will know that the Opposition have said on more than one occasion that we are more than happy to convene at short notice to debate regulations before they become law. More than 200 statutory instruments to do with coronavirus have been introduced since March, and I do not think one of them has been debated and voted on before it has become law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda was right when he said that we are in danger of losing the public’s confidence when laws are introduced without scrutiny, debate and democratic consent. It is clear tonight that Members on both sides of the House are frustrated with the Government’s approach—we heard the word “frustration” used on more than one occasion.

When does the need to act in an emergency cease and become instead a routine disregard for parliamentary scrutiny? In the early stages we of course accepted that there was a need to act quickly, but more and more regulations are being introduced that do not satisfy the test of urgency. The laws on face coverings were debated more than four months after the Government recommended the wearing of them. The increase in fines for breaching the various rules did not need to be rushed in. The offence had already been created and it was just the level of penalty that was new.

Evidence, explanation and communication are essential ingredients for a healthy democracy, never mind a healthy country. The Government should not be afraid of challenge, but should be confident of their arguments and ready to deploy them in debate. They should be prepared to show the advice that supports their decisions. If they do that, in the long-term the decisions will be better, public support will be stronger and the chances of limiting the virus will be greater.

When it comes to stopping the spread, the timing of today’s debate is important. We all recognise that we are at a perilous moment, with the virus rising across the country and new restrictions being applied on an almost daily basis. We will do what we can to support the national effort. If ever a Government needed help, it is now. They give the impression that they have lost control, lurching from one crisis to another, seemingly unable to reverse the rise in cases.

At the heart of this failure is a testing system that is collapsing just when we need it most. Every scientific adviser said that relaxing lockdown measures would work only if we had an effective test and trace system in place, yet on just about every measure we are going backwards. People up and down the country are unable to access tests. Those who get tests find that it takes longer and longer to get their results. The private testing and contact tracing service is performing more poorly now than in its early weeks. This is not the world-beating service we were promised. This is not where we should be.

No one can have failed to notice the immense strain the social care sector has been under throughout the covid-19 outbreak. Several Members raised this issue tonight, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for York Central. Reports that infection rates are beginning to rise in care homes once more should be of serious concern to us all, because it is vital to get on top of the challenges faced in social care ahead of the winter. We simply cannot afford for the action to protect our care homes and other services to be as slow and ineffective as it was at the start of the pandemic. We know that weekly testing for care home residents and staff, which the Government promised back in July, is critical to saving lives, but there have been repeated delays in the roll-out of testing and we hear that care homes are still waiting up to 15 days to receive their results. That is simply not good enough.

I want to say a few words about the workforce. Of course, we are all in awe of our wonderful NHS and social care staff and how they have coped throughout the pandemic. We pay tribute to each and every one of them, particularly those who have, sadly, lost their lives to the virus. They have worked under extreme pressure, and I know that they are dreading what appears to be heading their way. They will strain every sinew to provide the very best care; they always do. That is why they hold such a special place in our hearts.

In return, we owe it to those staff to provide them with the best support possible. No more scrabbling around for PPE and having to bring in their own home-made items, while UK manufacturers sold their products overseas; no more hospital outbreaks because there was no routine testing of patients; and no more discharges into residential homes of people already carrying the virus. This time, let us make sure that there really is a protective ring around social care. The hollowing out of public health and social care over the last decade has left us horribly exposed to the worst of this virus, and we cannot allow the same thing to happen again.

I really wish we could say that things will be better this time around, but what do we see at the moment? Children who have already missed six months of education are forced to spend more time away from school because they cannot get a test. Young people, many of whom have moved away from home for the first time, are holed up in their flats with no support because the Government did not prepare properly. Local public health teams are still not getting the data that they need from national test and trace to identify and isolate local outbreaks. It did not have to be like this. The Government have wasted the last few months boasting about moonshots and millions of daily tests at some point in the future, when they should have been dealing with the here and now to get test and trace ready for the increase in cases, which should have been anticipated, with people returning to work and students returning to school and university. We need an urgent plan to deal with testing now, not in a few months’ time.

We want the Government to succeed, and we will support them in whatever reasonable steps they propose to halt the spread of the virus, but we also want them to learn from their mistakes. It was not inevitable that we would have one of the highest death rates in the world, it was not inevitable that we would have the worst recession in Europe and it was not inevitable that we would see a second wave. And yet we are now on the cusp of one, but what do we see from Government? Confusion and ambivalence—the perfect Petri dish for the virus to thrive in.

The tension at the heart of Government is there for all to see. The Chancellor says that we should not be afraid of the virus, but the Chancellor should not be afraid of his own Back Benchers either. If scientists say that tougher measures are needed, let us see the advice, have the debate about what further economic support will be needed and then let this House decide on the right course of action. What we have now is the worst of all worlds: no transparency, no scrutiny and no leadership.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Greencore) Regulations 2020

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank the Minister for her introduction. As we know, coronavirus has not gone away; it remains an ongoing threat, which means that we still require regulations of this nature. We will no doubt hear some more in the Prime Minister’s statement later today.

The desire to avoid another national lockdown has meant that over the past few months we have seen the introduction of regulations to allow local restrictions to be introduced where they are needed to curb the spread of the virus, although I think this is the first statutory instrument to specify a workplace, rather than a geographical location. As we heard, the instrument imposed restrictions on Greencore workers and members of their households to reduce the likelihood of further transmissions of the virus to workers, their families and the wider community following an outbreak of cases at the company’s premises in Northampton.

Between 9 and 15 August, Northampton saw an increase of 8% in the number of individuals testing positive for coronavirus, raising the weekly incident rate from 38.6 per 100,000 of population the previous week to 116.4. Based on test and trace data, most of the covid-19 transmission appeared to have occurred within households and community settings that could be traced back to staff who were employed at the Greencore factories in Northampton. Following that, Greencore arranged for mass testing their workforce of 1,140 workers, of which 214 tested positive—a positivity rate of about 19% or 20%. A further 79 cases were identified through test and trace.

As the Minister outlined, these regulations, which came into force on 29 August, set out which workers were required to self-isolate, which members of their household were also required to self-isolate, and which workers were exempted from that requirement. They required those identified to self-isolate until 5 September, either in their home, the home of a friend or family member, a hotel, a hostel, or another suitable place. The regulations also set out the conditions required by self- isolation, including who the person in self-isolation does not need to isolate from, and the reasons for which the person can leave or be outside of the place where they are self-isolating. They further set out the requirement for anyone who joins the household of a person who is self-isolating to self-isolate for a further 14 days from when they joined that household.

The regulations also provide powers for an authorised person, such as a police officer, to enforce compliance with self-isolation, and create summary-only criminal offences for contravening requirements to self-isolate or, without reasonable excuse, contravening a requirement imposed under the enforcement powers. They create a further offence of wilful obstruction without reasonable excuse of any person carrying out a function under the regulations. Finally, the regulations authorise the issuing of fixed penalty notices to anyone who an authorised person has reasonable grounds to believe committed an offence under these regulations, designates persons who may prosecute the offences, and officers who may collect the fixed penalties. Again, these are similar powers to those we have seen in other regulations, although I have a little issue with the powers in this one, which I will come back to later.

As with all the restriction regulations that we have debated in Committee, we are debating these regulations late. The Greencore workers have self-isolated as per the regulations and have returned to work, so although the regulations are still in place, they are no longer relevant—as we heard, they are due to expire shortly anyway. However, it is important that we understand whether they have been effective and whether we can learn anything from this situation, because they represented the single most serious action taken to deal with an outbreak in an individual institution. This hopefully puts us in a better position to learn from the outbreak, so we are best placed to prevent similar future outbreaks and respond swiftly and effectively in future. I say that because, from the information I have received, it appears that there were opportunities that were missed, which related to three things: a failure to listen to concerns raised by those working at Greencore, a failure to provide adequate financial support for workers to self-isolate, and a failure to communicate with workers.

As far back as March, Greencore workers were challenging the adequacy of covid-19 protections, including concerns about staff access to risk assessments, social distancing, the availability of personal protective equipment, and temperature checks. In May, they also raised concerns about the effectiveness of the company’s contact tracing process after it had taken it 48 hours, following a member of staff notifying the company that they had tested positive, to inform six other staff members that they needed to self-isolate. In the same month, concerns were also raised about the lack of a written covid-19 procedure and a lack of company sick pay for most workers during self-isolation because of their flexible contracts.

When 287 cases of covid-19 were identified between 10 August and 12 August, those who tested positive and their households were told to self-isolate and did so, but the factory remained open. It was not until 21 August, following pressure from the Bakers, Food and Allied Food Workers Union, that Greencore announced that it would immediately cease production at its Northampton site in order to allow staff to self-isolate for 14 days. Of course, we will never know whether that delay had any impact on the spread of the virus, and clearly the account I have is somewhat different from the Minister’s. However, I suggest that, following the review of this regulation, we ought to consider whether any delay could have been avoided, and to what extent that had an impact on the spread of the virus.

We do know for certain that the financial impact of a complete shutdown of production was felt most harshly by the lowest paid workers. I will come back to that point momentarily, but I just want to say a word about the unions. Although not all of their concerns were listened to or acted upon swiftly, and they were not able to play their part in preventing a serious outbreak, there is no doubt that their interventions led to great improvements to protect workers and, in turn, the wider public. I pay tribute to the Bakers, Food and Allied Food Workers Union for its work, as well as the many other bodies the Minister mentioned in her opening speech.

We know that for many others in other workplaces, airing concerns can be difficult or even impossible at the moment: no space is made for it. The Office for National Statistics’ figures for May of this year found that people in low-paid manual jobs faced a much greater risk of dying from coronavirus than higher-paid, white-collar workers, with men in low-skilled jobs four times more likely to die from the virus than men in professional occupations. Raising health and safety concerns at work has never been an easy thing, and those who put their head above the parapet often face consequences for doing so. Yes, they may have legal protection in theory, but that protection is full of loopholes and having a theoretical chance of justice in an employment tribunal months down the line is far from satisfactory.

It is little wonder that workers do not always feel confident in raising their concerns. In the current climate, it is not just about individual justice, but also about making sure everyone can do their bit to stop the spread of the virus. I ask the Minister, in the light of those experiences, whether any consideration has been given to increasing protection for workers who raise concerns in relation to coronavirus.

Greencore has said, as has the Minister, that it works closely with the Department of Health and Social Care. When responding, can the Minister advise whether there has been any assessment of the effectiveness of the instrument, or any formal assessment of health and safety arrangements at Greencore following its re-opening? I mention that in particular because I believe that on 1 September the BFAWU submitted a formal grievance stating that some health and safety procedures were still not being followed. That is of concern because we do not want a repeat of the situation we had in August.

Coming back to the pay situation, the workforce at Greencore is about 2,100, with approximately 1,800 production staff, about 800 of whom are on minimum-wage, flexible contracts. Greencore also makes heavy use of agency staff, with a lot of Greencore workers also working at other factories and warehouses nearby, which is one of the concerns people had about the spread of the virus. When the 292 workers who initially tested positive in the middle of August were sent home, they were on statutory sick pay. Then, when the factory was shut down on 21 August, workers were furloughed on 80% of their wage, although it is reported that the management received full pay.

When workers were furloughed in March, they too received 80% of their wage, which for many was the minimum wage, so there was no company top-up. I assume it was the same level again here, which according to the BFAWU meant that 60% of Greencore workers received less than the minimum wage during the period of isolation. As one would expect, that would potentially make it harder for them to comply with subsequent self-isolation requirements if some felt compelled to work to make ends meet. The impact was particularly felt by those workers living in households where everyone worked for Greencore. In some cases, the families work and live in the same house and travel together to work, which, again, is another reason the virus was spreading so much.

As Members will know, the Opposition have long called for those who are self-isolating to get proper financial support. The scientific advisory group for emergencies has said that the value of SSP appears to be having a negative impact on people’s ability to self-isolate. It really should not have taken until this weekend for the Government to realise that people on low incomes need more help. It suggests a lack of basic understanding about people’s lives, which is undermining the effort to stop the spread of the virus.

The belated announcement of additional financial support for those who have to self-isolate is of little comfort to the Greencore workers who found themselves in the terrible position of having to choose between complying with regulations and putting food on the table. Did the Government consider whether the payments being made would be sufficient in that situation to encourage self-isolation? Can the Minister advise what discussions, if any, were undertaken with the company about that?

Finally, I want to say a few words about communication. The instrument was published part way through the self-isolation period over a bank holiday weekend. That is despite the placing of significant responsibilities on the workforce and, indeed, significant consequences for breaching the regulations. I am told that no effort was made to disseminate the regulations to the workforce, either in English or in any of the languages spoken by the workforce. The majority of staff who work there come from minority groups—their first language might be Romanian, Russian, Polish, Hindi or Portuguese. Clearly, the interpretation of complex regulations such as these ought to have been considered. I am sure that all of us who can read the regulations can appreciate that they are not that straightforward to understand.

I have also been informed that there was no official notification of the beginning or end of the self-isolation proceed. Instead, members of the workforce started to be called back to work by text message from 4 September. We have said from the start that communication and clear messaging matter; they are crucial in our fight against the virus. If we want public support for what we are doing—none of these measures will work without it—people need to understand what is happening and why. Unless we are clear, the public will not respond. We cannot expect them to follow instructions if they have not been communicated to them. I believe that, in this instance, more consideration could and should have been given to ensuring that the regulations were both clear and accessible to the workforce affected. Will the Government take additional steps to ensure that any future restrictions of this nature reach the entire desired audience in a clear and accessible format?

I will make one final point. Although I will not seek to divide the Committee on the regulations, I will make my customary reference to the fact that they are being debated after the event. I remind the Minister that the Opposition’s view is that parliamentary accountability remains an essential part of democracy and that decision making is improved as a result of debate. I will not repeat my entire repertoire of all the reasons why the regulations should be debated before they become law, as the Minister has no doubt heard it many times before. On this occasion, I absolutely accept that it was not possible to do that, because of the urgency of the situation and the fact that the problems emerged when the House was in recess.

Can the Minister say anything about the fact that the regulations came into force eight days after the period of self-isolation set out in the regulations began? I am sure that she can see that there might have been problems if someone had really wanted to challenge their self-isolation before 28 August. In fact, they might well have been able to do so. It cannot legally be correct to impose a power on someone before the relevant regulations came into force. There was no power for people to be required to self-isolate with the criminal offences attached before 28 August. Can the Minister say whether fixed penalty notices could have been issued if someone had failed to comply with the regulations before 28 August, and whether retrospectivity would have applied in that situation?

We will not seek to divide the Committee, but I hope the Minister can address some of the points that I have raised and tell us whether any lessons that can be learned from the impact of the regulations can be used to good effect in future.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank hon. Members for this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for his comments. If it has highlighted anything, it is that the regulations are of a timely nature and use the 1984 Act in a way that is defined and applicable. I am glad that the hon. Member sees that the Act has use for controlling the virus. We have often traded words: he would like more notice before, and I have often said, “Actually, we need to act at speed. We need this to be agile, which is why we are proceeding in this way.”

The Greencore sites were deep cleaned and inspected by the relevant agencies—the Health and Safety Executive and the Environmental Agency—before reopening. There are currently ongoing reviews, and I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that we are very much in the time zone. The regulations do not expire until Friday, but reviews of the effectiveness of the regulations are happening now.

It is my understanding that guidance was given in different languages and made available by the local authority and employers in multiple languages. Greencore used the furlough scheme to support workers who were self-isolating, and it voluntarily paid up to 80% of salaries to staff who could not be furloughed.

The restrictions that we have debated are necessary and important for three reasons. First, and most importantly, they have helped to protect the Greencore workforce and the people of Northampton and the surrounding area from the transmission of this terrible virus. The restrictions we had to impose were difficult for those affected, but I hope the Greencore employees and their households recognise that letting the virus spread unchecked would have been worse. I once again place on the record my thanks for the way they approached the matter.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answers. She is right that on this occasion we have no difficulty with the speed with which the regulations were introduced. However, there is the outstanding question of retrospective power to hand out fixed penalty notices for a period before the regulations came into force. Is that legally possible?

[Jo Churchill]

The regulations were unenforceable before coming into force, and therefore they do not operate retrospectively, which I think answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Justin Madders]

Yes, thank you.

[Jo Churchill]

Secondly, the restrictions are important because they protect those of us who do not live in Northampton. As a result of the restrictions, the risk of transmission beyond Northampton was reduced, and high infection rates in the city did not spread elsewhere. We should recognise the restrictions and the difficulties faced by Greencore employees and their households. The sacrifices they made will have benefited the whole country.

Finally, the restrictions show our absolute determination to respond to outbreaks of the virus in a focused, locally effective way. We are learning from what has happened in Greencore as we work with local authorities, directors of public health and other businesses to respond to future localised outbreaks, one of which recently happened in Norfolk. I am pleased that as of 25 August Greencore was able to restart food production and that those affected were able to return to work once they completed the required period of self-isolation.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution today, and want to conclude by recording, on behalf of the Government, my thanks to the people of Greencore in Northampton, and particularly to NHS and care workers, and all the key workers in the city, for their ongoing hard work to keep vital services running and save lives through the crisis.

Question put and agreed to.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.

I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction. As she rightly pointed out, today we are debating amendment No. 2 to the original regulations on face coverings, which we debated only a week ago, and the amendment to the regulations on the wearing of face coverings in a relevant place and on public transport.

The first amendment to the face covering regulations, which, as we heard, came into force on 8 August, required the wearing of face coverings in additional indoor premises to those listed previously. It added indoor places of worship, crematoria and burial grounds, chapels and museums, galleries, cinemas, public libraries, public spaces in hotels, such as lobby areas, and community centres to the list of relevant places.

On the face of it—if you will pardon the pun, Mr Efford—those are all indoor settings that are not fundamentally different in character from those covered by the initial set of regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister set out why, in those circumstances, an amendment was necessary. Was it that the scientific advice changed between July and August about the places where face coverings would be effective, or was it simply that those places were an oversight in the first set of regulations?

The regulations also list the premises exempted from the definition of “shop”, including premises offering certain medical services, gyms and photography studios, and add premises that were previously exempt from the definition of a shop as relevant places where face coverings must be worn, unless an exemption or reasonable excuse applies. Those include places such as nail, beauty and hair salons and barbers, tattooists, piercing parlours, massage parlours, storage and distribution centres, auction houses, spas, funeral directors, veterinary practices, premises providing professional services including legal and financial services, theatres, casinos, nightclubs, dance halls, conference and exhibition centres, bowling alleys, amusement arcades, indoor soft play areas, skating rinks or other indoor recreation activity premises. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister set out the rationale for the changes to the definitions in what would appear to be a very short period of time.

The amendment (No. 2) regulations, which came into force on 22 August, added further indoor premises where face coverings must be worn, including casinos, members’ clubs, social clubs and conference centres, and removed premises that were previously exempt, meaning that face coverings must also be worn in funfairs, theme parks or other premises for indoor sports, leisure or adventure activities. The regulations also added further examples of circumstances in which a person would be exempt from wearing a face covering in the relevant places, including for elite sportspersons, the coach of an elite sportsperson, referees, and professional dancers and choreographers when they are either acting in the course of their employment, training or undertaking competition, and for pupils at religious schools who are under the age of 19 and are undertaking educational training in a place of worship as part of the curriculum.

Finally, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which came into force on 28 August, amended the penalty amounts for fixed penalty notices issued under the legislation that governs the wearing of face coverings on public transport and in relevant places. As we have heard, this means that the penalty for a first offence remains at £100, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days. For each additional breach of the face covering regulations on public transport and in relevant places, the fixed penalty notice amount now doubles, up to a maximum of £3,200—a system that is now known as laddering.

The regulations also provide that fixed penalty notices issued before this approach was implemented will not be included in the laddering. For people who received a fixed penalty notice before 28 August, the first fixed penalty notice issued after that date will be for £200. Each subsequent fixed penalty notice will double in cost, up to a maximum of £3,200. All subsequent fixed penalty notices issued after the £3,200 limit has been reached will be levied at £3,200, and any discounts for early payments will not apply to fixed penalty notices issued for £200 and above. I very much doubt that anyone has yet been issued with the maximum fixed penalty notice of £3,200, but I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether anyone has reached the top of the ladder—or escalator, as it might well be called.

I want to make it clear, as I did during the debate last week on the initial regulations, that the Opposition support these SIs. We all have our part to play in beating this virus. It is important that we all follow the advice to wear a mask, unless someone is exempt. As we know, that is important not just for keeping each of us safe, but to ensure that people can go about their livelihoods as much as possible.

As cases begin to rise again, people are concerned about what the winter holds for them and their families. With the sharp rise in coronavirus cases and the difficulties that people across the country are facing in getting a test, there is mounting concern that we do not have the virus sufficiently under control. There is no doubt that Professor Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance gave an extremely sobering message this morning about the challenge we face over the coming months.

The Opposition will support the SIs because they will help limit the transmission of the virus, but it is also important that this place plays its role in scrutinising the legislation, which is why we are having this debate. I want to raise a number of issues, starting with the timing of the regulations. Since 11 May, the Government have been advising the public to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces where they might find it difficult to maintain social distancing and might come into contact with people whom they would not normally meet, yet face coverings became mandatory on public transport in England only on 15 June, in shops and transport hubs on 24 July, and in the other relevant places covered by the regulations on 8 and 22 August.

The question of why there was such a delay between the Government’s recommending their use and mandating their use featured heavily in the debate on the wearing of face covering regulations last Monday, more than seven weeks after they originally came into effect on 24 July. As the Minister will no doubt recall, I asked her at the time whether she could explain why there was such a delay between the Government’s advising people to wear masks on 11 May and the introduction of the wearing of face coverings regulations on 24 July—a period of some two and a half months. The Minister responded not in the debate but in subsequent correspondence, and I am grateful to her for her reply. I would have been even more grateful if I was satisfied with the answer I had; unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case.

In a letter to me, the Minister says:

“Our advice from the Deputy Chief Medical Officers is that evidence is limited but suggests that face coverings may have some benefit in reducing the likelihood of someone with the infection passing it on to others, particularly if asymptomatic disease is common, which is now established for the novel coronavirus.”

That is something that we all understand and accept—hence we are not opposing the regulations—but it does not really explain the reason for the delay in making it mandatory, although the Minister goes on to say in her written response to me:

“The Government reflected on how the public had responded to the guidance to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces.”

Again, it is not in dispute that the Government would have reflected on this, but we do not know what those reflections uncovered or why it was determined that regulations were required. The letter continues:

“As lockdown restrictions began to ease across the country, we felt it necessary to mandate the use of face covering in some indoor settings such as shops, supermarkets and indoor transport hubs. As shops reopened, we anticipated an increase in footfall and introduced these measures to provide some reassurance to people and help them benefit from some small additional protection that face coverings can offer when it is not always possible to socially distance. Nevertheless, social distancing and hand hygiene remain the most important way to control the virus.”

I think that that articulates rather better the Government’s thought processes, although it is to be noted that their position is that social distancing and hand hygiene remain the most important weapons against coronavirus; however, neither of those measures has become compulsory. It may be that it has been deemed, on balance, that they are too difficult to enforce in any meaningful way, but if the Minister could add anything on that point I would be grateful.

I have a couple of quibbles with the explanation. It talks about shops reopening, but of course supermarkets have remained open throughout, so I am not sure how that can be part of the reason for the delay. Although some shops were closed in the lockdown, most were reopening by early June and all non-essential retail was back open by 15 June. On that basis, the regulations should have come into force by that date—not five weeks later. Given that the Government’s own explanatory memorandum states that mandating the use of face coverings in a range of public indoor settings offers a reasonable protective measure to reduce the risk of infection on contamination by the virus, why was there a delay? Why not introduce the measures more uniformly across indoor settings in the case of shops when they reopened, instead of five weeks later? In the case of other settings, why do it in stages over the period of a month, causing confusion over when they were or were not required? As Members of this House and the other place have rightly said, the delays have not only fuelled confusion over where people should wear face coverings; they have caused people to lose trust in the Government’s message and, sadly, to stop following their advice.

That brings me to another issue, which is that conflicting advice and confusing statements from Government are not helpful in the fight against the coronavirus. If we want people to understand the rules and follow them, we need clear communication from the Government and the rules need to make sense.There is a struggle to understand, at times, why the rules still apply only to some people and not others. Will the Minister explain why, for example, the regulations do not apply to those who are actually working in shops, transport hubs and the other places where they apply? That was raised in the previous debate, but we did not get a satisfactory answer. Surely someone in a restaurant or pub serving members of the public is going to come into contact with large numbers of the public, so I wonder why it is not a requirement that they wear a face covering.

It is correct that many retail environments have put up screens to ensure that their checkout staff are protected, but many staff are of course engaged in other activities around the store, such as stacking shelves, often when members of the public are walking past. What is the difference between someone in that situation spending a significant amount of time in the aisles, and someone who is shopping there as a member of the public?

The last time the Committee met I also did not get a satisfactory answer about schools. It is notable that in the incredibly long list of indoor places where people gather and might find it difficult to socially distance, schools, colleges and universities barely get a mention. The National Education Union was right to say that the “slow” and “incoherent” way in which the decision was reached would not inspire confidence from parents or teachers. We are aware of the confusion caused by the Government’s 11th-hour U-turn about requiring secondary school pupils to wear face coverings in school corridors in local lockdown areas in England—an announcement made just days before schools returned. Of course that makes little sense to a pupil who lives in a local lockdown area but who is educated in an area that is not under lockdown, and who therefore is not subject to the same requirements.

Current guidance means that it is school leaders who have to make individual decisions about the use of face coverings in their school. Not surprisingly, the National Association of Head Teachers has said that that approach is “neither helpful nor fair”. I for one have received emails from concerned parents asking why the wearing of masks in schools is not compulsory. I understand their concerns when the country has about 75,000 teachers off, and 740 schools that are either wholly or partly closed because of the virus, and when teachers and pupils alike are unable to get tests.

As the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers said, it was

“in no way unpredictable or surprising that the demand for Covid-19 tests would spike when schools reopened more widely this term”.

We certainly have been calling on the Government to take more action over the summer to prepare for the autumn.

Obviously, with increasing numbers of local authorities now facing lockdown restrictions that affect more than 13 million people, more areas face local restrictions, meaning that more pupils will be required, by default, to wear face coverings in communal areas. But what about other areas? It is widely acknowledged that we are now seeing a rise in cases all across the country, with the R rate estimated at being between 1.1 and 1.4.

The Opposition support the use of face coverings becoming compulsory in communal areas in secondary schools as a step towards reducing infection rates. In her response to the debate, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why that is not being made mandatory and why instead we continue to see this variation across the country.

Also, what about universities? It has been reported that some universities require face coverings to be worn in all shared indoor spaces, while others do not. Again, the responsibility should not be placed on individual institutions. Local authorities are also rightly concerned about spikes in infection as universities return. Universities have been calling for clear national guidance on the use of face masks on campus to help reduce the spread of the virus. As many students have returned to university, will the Government or the regulator publish guidance calling for all universities to take that step?

On enforcement, as the explanatory memorandum notes, although the majority of the public have complied with the regulations, there is a minority who have not done so. We support measures against the very few people who are frequently and repeatedly breaking the rules that, of course, are there to protect us all.

As we have already discussed, the new premises cited in the amended regulations include casinos, members’ clubs, social clubs and conference centres. Putting aside for a minute the question of why they were added to the list so late on, I want to explore the inclusion of members’ clubs and social clubs in a little more detail.

There is no doubt that such clubs have been extremely hard-hit, like many other parts of the economy. In particular, the restrictions on large gatherings have affected their ability to hold functions, which for so many of them represent the difference between their making a profit or a loss. However, something perplexes me somewhat—what is the fundamentally different element between what I would generically describe as a social club and a pub? What is the difference? I do not know how often the Minister frequents either of these types of establishment—

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Could it not be argued that a social club has more control over who is inside the club? Unlike a pub or a bar, where anyone can walk in, in a registered social club people have to be members or signed in, so there is proof of who is there. Does my hon. Friend agree that social clubs have more control than a pub over who is actually in their space?

[Justin Madders]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, it was the case until fairly recently that there was no legal requirement on pubs to take test and trace details, so they were in a very different position from social clubs.

However, the main thing that perplexes me is that if we look at the layout, the function and the activity of pubs and social clubs, they seem to be extremely similar. Can the Minister explain from either a political or scientific perspective why they are being treated differently for the purposes of these regulations?

It has been said that these regulations play an important role in giving people the confidence to travel, to return to the workplace and to frequent the retail and the hospitality sector. However, for that confidence to be in place, we need the enforcement regime to be universal and rigorous, and at the moment that does not appear to be the case.

The latest figures that we have for public transport show that between the regulations being introduced, which was on 15 June, and 20 August, there were 115,423 interventions to remind passengers to wear face coverings, with at least 365 fixed penalty notices issued. However, we also know that by 20 August only eight fixed penalty notices had been issued under the relevant place regulations, but if the Minister can update us on that today I would be grateful.

Even allowing for the time difference between introducing the regulations for public transport and transport hubs, one has to wonder why there is such a disparity between those figures. They suggest that people are more compliant in transport hubs and retail spaces than they are on public transport, but frankly that is unlikely. Alternatively, is it more likely that the disparity can be explained by the lack of enforcement in transport hubs and shops? Can the Minister confirm if that is the case and can she also confirm what is being done to ensure compliance?

As several Members said in the previous debate, we need clarity on how these requirements will be enforced. What we are hearing across the country is that they are not being enforced as effectively as they could be. The legal requirement to wear a face covering when using public transport was introduced in June, and then in shops the following month, but it was clear that the police did not see it as their role to enforce that requirement

I wonder whether the high level of interventions taking place on public transport are mainly in London. The Minister will recall how we discussed during the last debate the fact that Transport for London staff were specifically mentioned in the regulations. As I know from my own constituency, however, little enforcement is happening on public transport. I have had multiple constituents complaining that when they go on buses and trains, some travellers seem to be able to travel without face coverings, and are not being challenged. Despite the regulations providing very broad powers to a wide range of people, it is still not clear who those people are, and whether bus or rail companies have the powers they need to enforce the regulations, despite their staff being an obvious choice.

We have the same unanswered questions about the retail sector, which faces similar problems with enforcement. Just as bus companies are reluctant to ask their bus drivers to enforce the rule, many of the major supermarkets are not asking their staff to police it, relying instead on encouraging shoppers to play their part through signs and public address announcements in store. Regarding enforcement numbers, it would be interesting to know how many of the fines or fixed penalty notices that have been issued so far related to transgressions in retail environments.

We know from a shopworkers’ survey carried out last month by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers that 75% of shopworkers have been abused by customers who were asked to socially distance, and almost half had experienced abuse as a result of asking shoppers to wear face masks. In that circumstance, it is not surprising that shop staff are reluctant to carry out that role. Nobody should face abuse for asking people to comply with public health measures, and such reprehensible behaviour by members of the public should not go unpunished.

The Minister has quoted a figure of 96% compliance with the wearing of face coverings in shops. I wonder if she could explain the nature of that survey: was it simply asking people whether they had complied with the regulations, or was it based on observation? I should imagine that most people contacted by a polling company and asked whether they intend to comply with the law would answer that they did—who wouldn’t? Four percent, possibly, but from my own observations, I suspect that the compliance rates are rather lower. Next time Members visit their local shops, I urge them to have a look around and see for themselves whether there is an issue of compliance and enforcement.

In July, the Prime Minister increased the pressure on the police to uphold face mask laws, seemingly at odds with the Police Federation, which described the task as “impossible”. Does the Minister agree with that description? If not, would she at least accept that the low number of fixed penalty notices may indicate a problem with enforcement?

Listening to those who represent the people on the frontline is important. With the rule of six and the new legal requirement to self-isolate, the number of enforceable restrictions is increasing. I was concerned to read, in a response to a written ministerial question I received last week, that no physical checks are currently being carried out on people who are requested to isolate. Presumably, if fines are now to be issued to those who break quarantine, there must be some kind of enforcement to make that effective. There are very real pressures on the police, due to the reduction in their numbers over the past decade, and they simply cannot continue to be handed responsibilities if those responsibilities are not accompanied by sufficient resources to enable them to do their job. We need answers that have not been forthcoming to date. Will the Minister set out what resources have been handed to the police to ensure these measures are complied with?

Despite media reports that covid marshals are already operating in the streets, we still have not got to the bottom of who they are, what their role is, or how they will be resourced. We do know that council leaders have expressed concerns that they are not able to resource them, following a decade of cuts; of course, councils are already facing significant, multi-million-pound shortfalls in their finances this year. The Minister was unable to answer questions in Committee last week, and the concern is that despite the emphasis the Prime Minister has placed on them, the scope of covid marshals will turn out to be disproportionate to the reality of what is happening on the streets.

When the Minister responds, will she be able to confirm whether covid marshals will be required to enforce the wearing of face coverings in relevant places, on public transport, or both? If that is the case, how will they be funded, and how will this be communicated? It is important that people know not only that their actions can be subject to enforcement, but by whom.

For there to be public confidence in the rules, adherence to them and compliance with their enforcement, it is vital that everyone understands who has the power to enforce them. Uncertainty about that will only create friction, tension, and greater uncertainty.We need absolutely crystal clarity from the Government about who is able to enforce these rules and the circumstances in which they are able to do so.

[The Chair]

Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the marshals are not within the scope of the orders. He should move back on to the subject.

[Justin Madders]

Unfortunately, we are not actually sure whether they are or not within the scope following the debate last week.

[The Chair]

From the Chair, I am.

[Justin Madders]

No doubt the Minister can answer the questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) last week on whether the wide enforcement powers created by the original regulations, the amendments to which we are discussing, were intended to cover face coverings as well.

[Mr Jones]

It is not clear; we have not been given a list of people who can actually enforce these powers. The regulations are relevant to marshals if marshals are given the powers and included in the list. We do not know whether marshals are in the list of individuals to whom the Secretary of State could give powers.

[Justin Madders]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that we finally get some clarity on that today.

I again raise the Opposition’s concerns about the way these regulations have been brought in, and the delayed scrutiny and debate of them. Many points and questions I and other Members have raised should not be being heard weeks after the regulations came into force. Although the amendments to the regulations on the wearing of face coverings were laid during the summer recess, as I raised earlier, had the initial regulations been debated in a timelier manner, perhaps that situation could have been avoided altogether. As the Minister will be aware, the Opposition have repeatedly called for regulations to be debated before they come into force. I have raised the issue of new regulations being introduced and not debated until weeks later on every occasion that we have discussed coronavirus regulations, yet it still happens every time we debate a new statutory instrument.

Despite the Government’s own acknowledgement that they are aware of Parliament’s concerns about allowing for the timely scrutiny of regulations, particularly in relation to the timing of debates, we are once again debating regulations weeks after the event. I note that we are perhaps debating these regulations rather more promptly than the previous face covering regulations, and that the Government have scheduled 17 sets of regulations for debate this week, which will hopefully bring us a little bit more up to date. Of course, I have made it clear on numerous occasions that we accept that the initial coronavirus regulations had to be introduced hurriedly in response to the initial threat from rising numbers of infections from what was, at the time, a new and unknown disease, but we are no longer in that situation.

Each of these regulations contains the phrase at the start:

“the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

I accept that, earlier on, that would have been the case, but that cannot really be said of these regulations. What is the urgency for these two sets of regulations to correct oversights and omissions from earlier regulations and other regulations increasing the level of fines for transgressions? Is it really the Government’s position that correcting their own mistakes is a good enough reason to override parliamentary scrutiny? What is the reason for the urgency in the increase in fines? As I say, we have no problem with the laddering proposals in these regulations, but what required them to be introduced before there was any debate?

I am concerned that the Government appear to be falling into a regrettable pattern of treating parliamentary scrutiny as an afterthought, relying on claims of urgency that are really not justified as Members on both sides of the House and in the other place have repeatedly expressed their desire for these debates to be held in a timelier way, to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny. Despite those multiple pleas and the Government’s assurances that they have listened to those concerns and are working hard to address the problem, it seems that every time we face new regulations, we still face a rubber-stamping exercise, weeks down the line.

These regulations are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law. I make this plea as I have done on a number of occasions. The Government should be aware that we remain extremely concerned about the continuing contempt being shown for parliamentary scrutiny. They can and should make time to debate regulations before they become law.

We believe it is possible to arrange, through the usual channels, for these Committees to be set up at short notice, so that important regulations such as this are debated in a proper manner before they become law. I know that many on the Government Back Benches share that view, and I will of course clear my diary, if necessary, to ensure that the Opposition play our part in ensuring proper scrutiny of, and accountability for, such regulations. It seems likely there will be more regulations on their way. I hope we can debate those in the proper and orderly manner that it is this Parliament’s duty to do.

[The Chair]

Before I call Mr Jones, I remind the Committee that the measure is about the locations where masks should be worn; it is not about the empowerment of enforcement agents. Will Members remember that when they speak?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

I will not take any more interventions, and we will now move on. Covid marshals will be subject to their own SI shortly, but this Committee is about three SIs on face coverings. I will keep to the point of face coverings, which is what I am here to address. I am not here to debate an SI on covid marshals.

I have set out why we felt it necessary to do as we did after the guidance. We were also receiving information that people were happy with wearing face coverings, and, from public compliance and people wanting to keep themselves safe, it was obviously the right thing to do at that time.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister is absolutely right to say that she has been generous in taking interventions, both today and on previous occasions. I want to try to understand what she has said about the delay. She has talked about the science evolving, and of course we accept that. However, virtually all retail was open by mid-June, and yet the regulations did not come in until 24 July. I am trying to understand why there was such a delay between those two dates.

[Ms Dorries]

I revert to the substantive point: we were constantly easing regulations at the same time as we had issues to do with Leicester. We had areas in the country where rates were rising at the same time as we had national easement. It is very complex, but at the time it was felt that the public had complied and were wearing masks to go into shops and public places. However, we felt it was important, as footfall increased and we had spikes in other parts of the country, that we introduce guidance nationally for people to wear masks.

I will answer some of the shorter points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked me how many people had received FPNs: it is eight to date. I am not aware of what fines were charged, and whether they were on the ladder or went up to the full amount, but eight FPNs have issued so far. I was also asked why we are not legislating for handwashing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

No. It is incredibly difficult to legislate for people to wash their hands. However, given how compliant and how willing the public have been to wear face coverings—we only have to see how many people are carrying hand sanitisers, and how responsible and conscientious the public have been—I am not sure there will ever be any need to legislate for handwashing. That would be an incredibly difficult piece of legislation, and I am sure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston agrees that that is not where we want to go.

The hon. Gentleman brought up the question of staff in various areas. I go back to my previous answer to the right hon. Member for North Durham: it is not compulsory for shop or supermarket staff to wear face coverings, although we strongly recommend that employers consider their obligations, where appropriate and where mitigations are not in place. It is also important to mention that the list of where to wear face coverings and where the exemptions apply is not exhaustive; it is something that is reviewed almost daily. We listen to representations from Members on both sides of the House, and from organisations and individuals, about where they think the exemptions should apply, and what else should be included in the list. This is a constantly moving feast. The fact that we are here today is not the end of it—the process will continue. Businesses are already subject to legal obligations to protect their staff, so a safe working environment is what we expect of everywhere where staff are employed and where members of the public come on to the premises.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned face coverings in schools. I will mention universities as well; I know that his son has gone back to university this week. The Department for Education has updated its guidance recently on wearing face coverings in schools, following, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the World Health Organisation’s statement about children over the age of 12. However, the Government’s absolute priority is to get children back to school and keep them in school.

The Department’s guidance sets out that face coverings should be worn by staff, by visitors and by pupils when moving around the school. They should be worn in further and higher education settings indoors, such as in corridors and communal areas where social distancing cannot be maintained. However, as we discussed last week, obviously that does not apply when people are eating, because it is difficult to eat with a mask on—it is not practical. Schools are not included in the regulations before the Committee, with the exception of an exemption for pupils of religious schools receiving educational provision in a place of worship.

It is important that university students can start the new term and the campuses can remain open. Again, education is an absolute priority, and it is also an important thing for students’ mental health and wellbeing. It is important that these things are done safely and we have been working closely with universities, and the sector, to help them to prepare for their intake of students, which, as Members know, is staggered from the beginning of September to almost the end of October, depending on where the university is, and which years are going back there.

Universities have introduced a number of measures such as staggered term times and staggered returns. There have been some assertive information notices across universities, such as “Don’t kill your nan”, and requirements about where students should wear face coverings. We have helped universities to make campuses safe by reiterating the face covering message throughout to students, including where they should wear them. Again, there is an impression that students will completely disregard all the social distancing regulations. I am not saying that they will be perfect, but universities have stepped up to the plate and are doing their bit. I am not sure which universities are providing disposable face coverings, but I think that the message about what students should be doing will be put out strongly to them.

The Government’s aim, with all the regulations and all that we are doing about face coverings, is to achieve as high a compliance rate as possible. We are incredibly impressed with the public’s response and the compliance so far.

[Justin Madders]

Will the Minister say a little about the distinctions between pubs and social clubs? As I and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham have explained, that is an important issue for our constituencies, and we want to understand that distinction.

[Ms Dorries]

I believe that social clubs were part of the original discussion. I shall find out why they were not included. I cannot guarantee that I will be able to write to the hon. Gentleman about that tomorrow, as before, but I apologise and I shall get back to him and provide an answer.

The Government have always been clear that the highest priority in managing this national crisis is protecting our public and saving lives. Face coverings and public compliance in wearing them is a part of that endeavour. I am satisfied that the additional premises included in the amending regulations are necessary, reasonable and proportionate. The amending regulations offer further clarity for members of the public on where they should wear a face covering, exempt further categories of person and update the penalty structure to maximise compliance with the policy. Our guidance has consistently set out to the public that, to protect themselves, they must continue to follow social distancing measures, wash hands regularly, adhere to the isolation guidance and wear face coverings where appropriate. The current guidance from the Government states that people should also wear a face covering in enclosed public spaces, where social distancing is more difficult to maintain and where people might come into contact with others whom they do not normally meet.

Today has provided an opportunity for the Government to hear people’s concerns through the contributions made during the debate. Parliamentary scrutiny is a vital part of the regulation-making process, and I am pleased to have been able to set out the content of the regulations to the Committee. I hope that the Committee has found the debate informative and that it will join me in supporting these amending regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 839).

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 882).—(Nadine Dorries.)

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 906).—(Nadine Dorries.)

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction. As she said, the instrument requires members of the public to wear a face covering when in the relevant place. It came into effect on 24 July.

I will be clear from the outset that we support the instrument. As the Minister said, it is an exceptional measure, but we are in exceptional times and we all have to play our part in beating the virus. Unless someone has an exemption, it is important that, where advised to wear a mask, we all should. That is important for not just keeping each other safe, but opening up the economy and saving people’s livelihoods.

As the Minister outlined, the regulations define a relevant place as a shop, including shops, supermarkets and enclosed shopping centres. It does not include areas of shops and shopping centres that are provided for the consumption of food and drink, such as seating areas provided in coffee shops, supermarket cafés and food court areas in shopping centres. It covers transport hubs, including any enclosed stations, terminals, ports or other similar premises from or to which a public transport service operates.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The regulations do include transport hubs, and they are clear about TfL having the powers to issue fines in London, but they are sketchy on other transport hubs, many of which, civil servants may wish to know, exist outside London.

[Justin Madders]

As we have commented from time to time, it seems that to this place, there is not much life outside London. Of course there are a number of transport operators operating up and down the country that the regulations do not cover. For example, my public transport operator on the railways, Merseyrail, has said that it does not currently have the powers for its staff to be able to enforce the regulations. That will certainly need to be ironed out in future regulations.

The regulations that require a person to wear a face covering unless they have a reasonable excuse also set out the categories of people to whom the requirement does not apply. They include children under the age of 11, shop employees in the course of their employment, and a non-exhaustive list of what may constitute a reasonable excuse.

I have some questions about some of the specific provisions in regulation 3 in relation to the requirement to wear a face covering, particularly regulation 3(2)(b) where the requirement does not apply to someone working in the course of their employment. The Minister set out that the regulations are not intended to cover workplaces, because employers are expected to deal with that. I appreciate that employers have a legal responsibility to create covid-secure environments, but there will be occasions when the workplace or the nature of the work mean that that is not possible. Will the Minister explain the Government’s position in respect of those situations, especially given that they are encouraging people to return to work where possible?

Regulation 3(2)(c) says that the requirement does not apply to

“any other person providing services in the relevant place under arrangements made with the person responsible for a relevant place”.

That is catchy; it trips off the tongue. The list of relevant places is in part 1 of schedule 1, but will the Minister explain who

“any other person providing services”

is intended to cover?

Part 2 of schedule 1 contains a list of premises where there is an exemption to the requirement for face coverings. Some, such as dentists, are obvious, but others, such as cinemas, theatres and libraries, require a little further explanation as to why they are exempt.

Will the Minister say a little more on that point?

These regulations were laid before Parliament on 23 July —the day after the House adjourned for the summer—despite the fact that they were announced on 14 July and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton pointed out, were discussed extensively for many weeks previously. As the Minister is acutely aware, the Opposition have repeatedly called for regulations to be debated before they come into force. I have raised the issue of new regulations being introduced and not debated until weeks later on every occasion that we have discussed coronavirus regulations. It is seven weeks later in this instance.

It was acknowledged when we were debating a previous set of regulations that the Government are aware of Parliament’s concerns about allowing the timely scrutiny of regulations, particularly in relation to the timing of the debates. The Government indicated that they would endeavour to hold the debate as soon as possible after the regulations were laid before Parliament. I have made it clear on numerous occasions that we accept that the initial coronavirus regulations had to be introduced hurriedly in response to the initial threat from the rising number of infections from what was, at the time, a new, unknown disease.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

To elaborate on the point about the timing, we understand that these things have to be introduced rapidly, and therefore it is not necessarily possible to carry out the legislative process quickly, but a debate is very important, as the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said. To return to paragraph 3.1 of the explanatory memorandum, the point is that these regulations were introduced in response to a serious and imminent threat to public health. The peak of the first wave was on 11 April —three and a half months earlier.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have, for now at least, got over the peak, although it seems that that may be changing. The explanation that the Government put forward at the time for the way these regulations were being introduced no longer applies. We have been dealing with this virus in this country for more than six months, and we really should be able to deal with legislation before it comes into force.

Members on both sides of the House and in the other place have repeatedly expressed their desire for these debates to be held in a timelier way to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny. Despite those multiple pleas and the Government’s assurances that they have listened to those concerns and are working hard to address the problem, it seems that, every time, we are still facing a rubber-stamping exercise seven weeks down the line. The Government think that that is enough to meet their democratic obligations; well, I disagree. Parliamentary scrutiny cannot be ditched because the timing is inconvenient. These regulations are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law.

Senior Government Members raised concerns about the way legislation is being introduced, in response to the statement of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care last Thursday. The weekend was full of senior Government Members raising concerns about the regulations that are coming into force today—again, without parliamentary scrutiny. It was not until about 11.45 pm last night—15 minutes before the regulations became law—that a copy of the new regulations appeared online. That gave people no time to examine them before they came into force, let alone allowing any opportunity for debate or scrutiny. That is no way to manage legislation or to govern. The Government’s handling of this pandemic has been too slow throughout, and they cannot continue to be slow in the way legislation is scrutinised.

I make this plea, as I have done on a number of other occasions: the Government should be aware that we remain extremely concerned about the continuing contempt being shown for parliamentary scrutiny. They can and should make the time to debate regulations before they become law. This week, former leaders of the Conservative party have been lining up to express their concerns about the Government’s proposals to act outside the law. Debating these issues before they become law is one way to restore public trust. It would say to people that the rule of law matters in this country, that the rules apply to everyone, that these restrictions are serious, not an optional extra, and that the Government do not consider themselves to be above the law.

We believe it is possible to arrange through the usual channels for these Committees to be set up at short notice, so that important regulations such as these are debated in a proper manner before they become law. If necessary, I will clear my diary to ensure the Opposition play their part in ensuring proper scrutiny and accountability for such regulations. We really do need to restore that—to get back to a position in which the rule of law is important in this country.

There also remains a question about why there was such a length of time between the announcement that these regulations were coming in and the laying of them. If the Government were really endeavouring to show they had listened, why did they not lay the regulations sooner, to ensure they were debated before recess and before they came into force? This concern was echoed in the other place, where a regret motion was tabled by Baroness Thornton. That motion said

“that this House welcomes the introduction of the Regulations, but regrets the delay in bringing forward the Regulations as Her Majesty’s Government has advised the public to wear face coverings in enclosed public spaces since 11 May, announced that face coverings would be mandatory in shops from 24 July on 14 July, and laid these Regulations under the made affirmative procedure on 23 July; further regrets that this delay has caused confusion over where people will have to wear face coverings due to the absence of detailed legal requirements being available in advance; and notes the concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 19th Report, published on 25 June, which urged Her Majesty’s Government ‘to ensure that the legislation follows on more closely from any announcement that they have made.’”

That sums up our concerns very neatly.

That regret motion also picks up on another issue that I am keen to raise, which is why it took so long for the Government to advise the public to wear face coverings, when the risks associated with airborne transmission were already known. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton said earlier, these matters were being debated for several months before they became law. The World Health Organisation has long recommended wearing face masks; the Secretary of State himself has warned about asymptomatic transmission, and his own advice, published on 11 May, advised in favour of wearing face masks.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I want to pick the hon. Gentleman up on that point about the WHO recommending face masks, because it was not clear. It was a movable feast. Personally, I question the way in which face masks are being used, and I would like to see the issue debated, but that is a debate for another day. However, in defence of the decisions that were taken, I would challenge the hon. Gentleman on that particular point. I do not think the information from the WHO was entirely black and white; I think it was changing as it went along.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is correct that the WHO position was not absolutely certain to start with, but it crystallised at a much earlier point than when these regulations were introduced. It is also the case that the Government’s own advice from 11 May was that face coverings ought to be worn, so the question is why it took two months to make this advice mandatory, and another 11 days for this measure to come into force. Given that the Government’s own guidance issued in May advised in favour of face coverings, one can presume that, at that point, it had been decided that the science told the Government that it was in the interests of public health to wear face coverings. I am therefore at a loss to understand why it took so long to make that advice mandatory. I hope that when the Minister responds, she is able to shed some light on that.

[Matt Western]

On that point, surely that was an inconsistency? If health professionals were being told to wear face masks in clinical settings, they surely had a purpose, did they not?

[Justin Madders]

It is fair to say that there is a difference between dealing with someone in a clinical setting and dealing with them on a day-to-day basis, but there is no doubt that, at a very early stage, there was evidence to suggest that the virus would be transmitting through the air. I think the reason it took so long to get where we ended up is to do with the question of how effective face coverings would be outside of a clinical setting. Nevertheless, the Government’s position was very clear from early May, yet it has taken until now for us to debate these regulations.

The regret motion also rightly raises concerns about the confusion that was caused regarding where people were required to wear face coverings, due to detailed legal requirements not having being made available in advance. I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that there was confusion at the time, given that Cabinet Ministers themselves appeared to be confused by the mixed messages. We all remember the debate on the Pret paradox that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was involved in. Within three days, the Prime Minister said he favoured face coverings, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said he did not and the Justice Secretary said he was not sure, but he was perhaps in favour. That kind of conflicting advice and those confusing statements from Government are not helpful in our fight against the virus. We need clear communication from the Government. That is vital in combatting the spread of covid-19.

We needed it then, and we need it now. Going forward, clear and consistent messages about the wearing of face coverings are absolutely required. Clarity was also missing in the situation concerning schools reopening, with another 11th-hour U-turn from the Government on secondary school pupils being required to wear face coverings in school corridors in local lockdown areas in England—an announcement that was made just days before schools returned. Even then, new guidance that allows headteachers in any secondary school the flexibility to introduce masks in their schools was half-baked, leaving the National Education Union describing the way the decision had been reached as “slow” and “incoherent” and saying that it would not inspire confidence from parents or teachers. The National Association of Headteachers said:

“It is neither helpful nor fair to ask school leaders to make individual decisions about face coverings in their school.”

It has been reported that some universities require face coverings to be worn in all shared indoor spaces, including study settings, while others do not. Again, that responsibility should not be placed on individual institutions. Universities have been calling for clear national guidance on the use of face masks on campus to help reduce the spread of the virus. As many students have already returned to university, can the Minister say whether there will be any last-minute guidance for universities?

The regulations permit a relevant person, namely a police constable, a police community support officer or a TfL officer in

“any transport hub from or to which a TfL public transport service is provided”

to deny a person entry to the relevant place, or to direct members of the public to wear a face covering or to leave the relevant place if they are not wearing a face covering.

[Mr Jones]

It is actually worse than that. I have no problem with a community support officer or a police officer issuing someone with a fixed-penalty fine, because they have the training and expertise to do that. It does not sit comfortably with me that these regulations extend those powers to a large number of people who would not normally have the authority to give out such fines.

[Justin Madders]

The issue is that the police are not in a position to enforce this. That has been clear from what we have heard already.

[Mr Jones]

No, it is worse than that. I am comfortable with a police officer being able to issue the fine, but these regulations do not define what a TfL officer is. It could be anyone TfL decides. There is a catch-all later in the regulations that says they are

“a person designated by the Secretary of State.”

Surely, extending the ability to be able to issue a fine in that way is pretty draconian.

[Justin Madders]

It is an important point that we are giving, to use my right hon. Friend’s term, draconian powers to people, but that is deemed necessary to fight the spread of the virus. The issue that we on the Front Bench have is whether the resources and the appropriate training are following those powers. At the moment, it seems there is a huge gap.

Turning back to the powers, and the ability to issue fines and require people to move on, we need clarity on how those requirements will be enforced, as my right hon. Friend said in his intervention. When the legal requirement to wear a face covering when using public transport was introduced in June, and then in shops the following month, it clearly appeared that the police did not see it as their role to enforce that. I know from my own constituency that there is little enforcement happening on public transport. I have had multiple constituents complaining that when they go on buses and trains, some travellers seem able to travel without face coverings and are not being challenged. Bus companies say they will not put their drivers at risk. I mentioned Merseyrail earlier, which operates in my constituency on the railways, and it says that it has not been given the powers to intervene.

We have this strange situation where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham says, there seem to be very broad powers being given to a wide range of people, yet other people, who we would think are pretty obviously the right people to have them, have not been given them.

[Mr Jones]

As I said earlier, these are very London-centric regulations, because they refer to TfL but do not refer to other types of transport operators. However, the catch-all is in regulation 7(11)(d), which talks about the people who can give fines. It says that the authorised person will be

“a person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this regulation.”

There is no list in the explanatory memorandum of the people who could be authorised. Is there any guidance on that? There is nothing at all in the explanatory memorandum to say who is being given those powers. It could potentially be anybody.

[Justin Madders]

My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I do not know whether that power relates to the announcement last week about covid marshals; we are still waiting for further information on them. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify who that particular measure relates to and whether that power has been exercised at all so far, because, clearly, one of the things that we do not want to see, in terms of public confidence in and adherence to the rules, is people about whom we have had no warning or indication that they have the power to enforce these rules coming along and starting to do so. That will create friction, tension and uncertainty. We absolutely need crystal clear clarity from Government about who is able to enforce these rules and the circumstances in which they are able to do so.

I was referring to the problems on public transport, in particular, but the same problems arise in the retail sector. Many of the major supermarkets—Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons and the Co-op—have all said they will not ask their staff to police the rule, but will instead urge shoppers to play their part, through signs and public address announcements in store. Of course, it is absolutely right that most people do play their part, and that many people have legitimate reasons for not wearing a face covering, but it remains the case that there is an element out there who will not wear a face covering on a point of principle. I am not sure what that principle is, but it is causing difficulty.

A survey of shop workers carried out last month by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers found that 75% of shop workers had been abused by customers who were asked to socially distance, and almost half had experienced abuse as a result of asking shoppers to wear face masks. That is totally unacceptable; nobody should face abuse for asking people to comply with public health measures.

At the moment, however, I am concerned that such reprehensible behaviour by members of the public is going unpunished. In July, the Prime Minister increased the pressure on the police to uphold face mask laws. It was a task that was described as “impossible” by the national chair of the Police Federation, who said that forces did not have the staff or the resources to ensure compliance. We all know the pressures on the police and the reduction in their numbers that has happened over the last decade, so it is not enough for them to be handed additional responsibilities if those responsibilities are not accompanied by sufficient resources for them to be able to do their job. When the Minister responds, will she therefore set out what resources have been handed to the police to ensure that these measures are complied with?

Of course, as we have already referred to, the Prime Minister has announced that there will be covid marshals to enforce the new rule of six. Local council leaders, who it is assumed will take over responsibility for such marshals, have already said that they are not in a position to resource them, having already faced a significant multi-million pound shortfall in their finances this year. When the Minister responds, will she confirm whether covid marshals will be required to enforce the wearing of face coverings, as is possibly implied by the regulations, and if so, how will they be funded?

I understand absolutely the Government’s desire to try to get the economy moving again and to encourage people to go back to work and to shop, but those efforts will go unrewarded if people do not feel confident enough to go out because they feel, and indeed see, that the rules on face coverings are not being properly enforced.

In her opening speech, the Minister talked about the importance of confidence for people returning to the workplace and for retail. It is really important that that confidence is supported by a rigorous and universal enforcement regime. In that regard, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how many fixed penalty notices have been issued so far under these regulations, and whether she has any details of the geographical areas or physical settings where penalties have been issued in greater numbers.

Finally, I will say a few words on the converse situation—people who are exempted from wearing coverings and why. I am sure that many Members will have been contacted by concerned constituents who, when they have been shopping, felt uncomfortable at the numbers of people not wearing a mask, or who have actually been confronted with abuse as a result of not doing so. We see stories in the press about people unable to comply with wearing a face covering for health reasons being challenged and abused and then being afraid to go out. Many charities, including Mind, Dementia UK, the National Autistic Society, Mencap, Asthma UK and Sense, have called on the Government to mount a public awareness campaign about hidden disabilities and the mask exemption rules, which allow for those who find it difficult because of physical or mental illness or disability, those who assist someone who relies on lip reading to communicate and those for whom wearing a mask could cause severe distress to be exempted from wearing a face covering in shops or on public transport. The Minister said in her opening remarks that there had been a public awareness campaign, and indicated that it might be “ramped up”, to use her terminology, so I will be grateful if she could advise on when we are likely to see that, given that these rules are likely to be in place for some time to come.

I will also be grateful if the Minister could say a little about the “severe distress” exemption. I do not want to spell out some of the reasons why people may need to rely on such an exemption, but as it is a subjective and broad exemption, it is open to misuse. Is the Minister aware of individuals who, when challenged, have sought to rely on such an exemption inappropriately, and the response of the enforcement body?

On the point of being able to communicate, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell, I am sure that many of us have been contacted by constituents concerned about the impact of the use of face coverings on deaf people and those with hearing loss who rely on lip reading and facial expressions to communicate. Back in June, the Government confirmed that they had been in discussion with audiologists in the NHS about the use of face coverings and what can be done to reduce the impact on those who rely on lip reading, so can the Minister update us on what steps the Government are taking to ensure all their face covering policies are inclusive for people who may have hearing loss?

In conclusion, we will not seek to divide the Committee on these regulations, but, as I hope I have shown in raising a number of issues, I believe that our democratic process deserves better than for such an important law to be debated so long after it has come into force. I hope the Government finally act on those concerns and hand back control to this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

This is the decision. That is what we are here debating—the decision to introduce the wearing of face coverings in public places. We have taken the decision; that is what we are doing right now.

I was asked why we were so slow to react to the wearing of face masks. It is because, to come here and introduce legislation, we needed evidence that wearing face masks works. As I think the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, this is a new virus—globally, not just for the UK—and all over the world countries have taken their own decisions on the basis of whatever evidence they could gather over a short period and in a short timeframe. We have now got to the point where we believe the evidence is such that wearing a mask will provide protection even if the wearer is asymptomatic, not showing symptoms of coronavirus and not coughing. Therefore, we are introducing the regulations.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that these things do take some time, but it is the case, is it not, that recommendations were made on 11 May about the wearing of face coverings, but they did not become law until 24 July? What is the reason for that long delay?

[Ms Dorries]

I want to be absolutely clear myself before I give a response, so I will come back to the hon. Member on that in the morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

It was an honest offer, and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives that information.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I promise that I will not intervene again.

What we have heard today from various Members is clear evidence of why it is important that regulations are debated before they become law. There is a whole series of questions in relation to covid marshals, in particular, and their powers and training and the data protection requirements that we are not able to answer. The point has been made by several Members that it is really important for public buy-in to the concept of those marshals that the powers are clear and they have democratic consent because they have been transparently debated, so can the Minister make a commitment today that any new powers given to marshals, whoever they end up being, will be debated in this House before they become law?

[Ms Dorries]

No, I cannot; I apologise. I will obtain the list of those who have the authority and ensure that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has that tomorrow. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, I am sure, was trying his hand when he asked his question. He did so knowing very well that that is not something that I can commit to.

HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NO. 2) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. As she said, they amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020, which dealt primarily with the reopening of the hospitality sector and came into force on 4 July. Those regulations were amended to allow further easing of restrictions, including the opening of outdoor swimming pools and water parks from 11 July, and nail bars and salons, tanning booths and salons, spas and beauty salons, massage parlours, tattoo parlours, and body and skin piercing services from 13 July. As she outlined, those amendments, which came into effect on 25 July, further allowed the reopening of indoor swimming pools, indoor facilities at water parks, indoor fitness and dance studios, and indoor gyms and sports courts and facilities.

I have several issues to raise about these regulations, starting with the fact that they came into effect on 25 July, which is now seven weeks ago. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that my first concern is that, once again, we are debating the regulations too late. It is, regrettably, not the first time I have raised the matter; in fact, I have had to raise it each and every time we have debated the health protection regulations in Committee, because we have not yet managed to debate one of these statutory instruments before it has come into force. That is despite the fact that we are now many months down the line from the initial crisis. As I have made clear on numerous occasions, we accepted that initial regulations had to be introduced hurriedly in response to the initial threat and the rising number of infections of a new and unknown disease, but that is no longer the situation.

I am not the only person to raise concerns about the Government continuing to table business without providing time to ensure that proposed changes are debated before they become law. Members on both sides of the House and in the other place have repeatedly expressed their desire for timely debates to ensure that such proposals are subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Despite multiple pleas and assurances that the Government had listened to those concerns and were working hard to address the problem, they still appear to believe that a rubber-stamping exercise seven weeks down the line is sufficient to meet their democratic obligations, but I disagree. Parliamentary scrutiny cannot be ditched because the timing is inconvenient. The regulations are too important not to be debated and given timely and full parliamentary scrutiny.

Senior Conservative Members raised these issues in the Chamber only last Thursday, when the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care gave his statement. Over the weekend, the airwaves were full of Members expressing their concerns about the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020, which have come into force today without any parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, it was not until 11.45 pm last night—15 minutes before those regulations became law—that a copy of them became available to look at online. That gave people no time to examine them before they came into force, let alone any opportunity for debate or scrutiny. Will those regulations be debated in seven weeks’ time? Although we no longer have a recess to contend with, more than 17 other regulations have come into effect but have not yet been debated—and that does not include four that came into effect and were revoked without ever being debated. That is no way to manage legislation, and that is no way to govern.

The Government’s handling of the pandemic has been too slow throughout, and they continue to be too slow in bringing legislation to the House to be scrutinised. I again plead with the Minister, as I have done on numerous occasions, that the Government should be made aware, in the strongest possible terms, that the Opposition remain extremely concerned about the continuing contempt that is being shown for parliamentary scrutiny. The Government can and should make time to debate these regulations properly.

Of course, the Opposition want these measures to work and for us to beat the virus. The Minister must surely agree that high levels of compliance are key to our success in achieving that aim. She will be aware that there are stirrings of discontent about the continuing restrictions that are being placed on our lives. However, some people are using perfectly reasonable concerns about the lack of democratic legitimacy surrounding these restrictions to bolster their outright opposition to the measures. Let us not give them that opportunity. Let us show them that we understand the concerns about the personal implications of such restrictions, and that we take those concerns seriously, by having a full and robust debate before the restrictions are introduced. The rubber-stamping exercises that we go through in Committee weeks after the event cannot engender confidence that the measures are introduced after full consideration and deliberation.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is, as usual, making a powerful point. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) has been particularly vocal. The challenge for us all is ensuring that we take the public with us, be they businesses or constituents. The real criticism is that if we do get the opportunity to debate the restrictions, the public increasingly will not support them.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that that does not prove to be the case but, as I say, we should not give those who want to disobey the rules the opportunity to look for reasons to do so. That is why the rule of law, Parliamentary scrutiny and timely debate are important. I understand that the situation is rapidly changing and that the Government need to act quickly, but I believe that they can act quickly and transparently at the same time. I do not see any contradiction between those two objectives.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, Conservative Members have expressed concerns about this Government’s approach to legislation. In a week when former leaders of the Conservative party have queued up to express their concerns about the Government’s proposals to act outside the law, timely debate is one way to restore public trust. It is a way of saying that the rule of law matters in this country; that rules apply to everyone; that the restrictions are serious, not an optional extra; and that the Government do not consider themselves to be above the law.

It should not be beyond the wit of even this Government to arrange, through the usual channels, for Committees to be set up at short notice so that these important regulations are debated properly before they become law. I stand ready to clear my diary, if necessary, to ensure the Opposition plays its part in providing proper scrutiny and accountability for these regulations.

My second concern, which arises as a consequence of our debating these regulations too late, is whether the scientific advice that underpins them is now out of date. If I were to take something positive from our debating the regulations so long after their introduction, it would be that we have the opportunity to look in detail at how they have worked in practice. The explanatory memorandum reminds us that the Government announced the opening of the hospitality sector from 4 July, saying that such action was possible

“due to the continuing falling of the transmission rate”.

That was consistent with the chief medical officers’ down- grading of the UK’s covid alert level from four to three, which meant that we no longer faced the exponential spread of the virus, although it remained in general circulation.

As we probably all know, it seems that that is, sadly, no longer correct. Case numbers have risen sharply in recent days. Numbers soared on Friday, with the highest rise we have seen in four months, and that continued over the weekend. The R number has gone above 1, and it is estimated to be between 1.0 and 1.2. That means that transmission is rising, not falling, contrary to what is stated in the explanatory memorandum. That is despite the fact that people cannot get tests, so we cannot even ascertain the seriousness of the problem. We know that things are deteriorating, but we cannot assess the scale of the problem because we do not have the data to measure to it.

Whatever the true scale of the increase in cases, we are in a very different position from where we were in July. It matters that we are debating, and being asked to decide whether we support, regulations that do not reflect the latest scientific evidence. I do not doubt that the advice was right at the time, but the situation has clearly moved on. Can the Minister update us on the latest scientific advice in relation to the measures in these regulations?

It is something of a nonsense that we are today debating regulations that were introduced when the picture was markedly different. Would we still be introducing these relaxations if they were due to come into force today? I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. What is the latest advice on whether any of the relaxations should be reversed? Can the Minister update us on whether the UK’s covid alert level will change, given the increase in the number of cases and the R number?

There is another reason why the regulations are out of date, and why any debate on them now does not lend itself to proper scrutiny. As the Minister said, the Government are moving away from national restrictions across sectors, which was the strategy when the regulations were introduced, to more localised measures. In a number of areas that were subject to local lockdown restrictions, businesses that the explanatory note acknowledges were the last to open because the transmission risk was considered to be higher did not reopen on 25 July. That was the case in Leicester, for example, which went into the first local lockdown on 22 July, as well as in Blackburn with Darwen and in Luton, which were subject to extra restrictions from 25 July.

To debate whether those relaxations should go ahead now, when they did not go ahead at the time in some local areas because of a spike in infections, is to make a mockery of the process. Granted, it is not as bad as debating the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations, which closed down zoos and safari parks, on the same day as another set of regulations came into force that opened them up again, but we are not too far away from that. This shows again the importance of debating future regulations in the House before they come into force.

It is a matter of considerable regret that we are being asked to debate these regulations without the full information on which the Government based their decisions. It is not the first time that has happened. The scientific evidence behind the decision to ease the restrictions is not readily available, and that is an issue when the key question that we must ask is whether the regulations will increase the spread of the virus.

The explanatory memorandum that accompanied the original No. 2 amendment regulations stated:

“There is recognition that these changes may lead to an increase in transmission rates and will continue to be kept under review.”

I have previously asked the Minister to clarify which measures, individually or collectively, were considered to be likely to lead to an increase in transmission rates. We still have not had any clarity on that, and that is not reassuring when we hear that the Government have based their legislation on the science.

The explanatory memorandum for the original No. 2 amendment regulations shared some of the scientific advice from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling on why some measures could be relaxed, but this explanatory memorandum provided no such advice. It may be that the advice no longer holds good for the reasons that I have already outlined, but unless we have complete transparency on that, we are not in a position to judge its strength or relevance. Was the decision to reopen these businesses and venues based on advice from scientific advisers? How is the risk quantified? Were any elements of the relaxation considered to be riskier than others? What, if any, mitigating measures were recommended?

As I have highlighted to the Minister on several occasions, we have not seen the legally required reviews of the regulations. We know that the Secretary of State is required to review them every 28 days. The first review was due by 31 July, which means that a second was due by the end of August. Why have we not seen the findings of those reviews to inform our decision making today? The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has called on the Government to ensure that that information is provided. Without those reviews, all that has been published alongside the regulations is an explanatory note telling us that no consultation has been carried out and no regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken. Will the Minister commit to publishing the review of the regulations alongside the full scientific evidence and full impact assessment?

We will not press the regulations to a Division, but I hope that the Minister has got the message loud and clear that the continual failure to debate these regulations in a timely manner is unacceptable. If the Government really want to live up to their ambition of Parliament taking back control, they should start by acting in a way that allows it to do so.

[Helen Whately]

I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for his response, some of which, as he mentioned, he has said before. I will address his comments head-on.

The hon. Gentleman said that he would like us to have debated these regulations sooner, and we absolutely recognise that timely scrutiny is important. There is substantial scrutiny of the Government’s decisions. For instance, there have been multiple oral statements, and numerous urgent questions have been responded to by Government Ministers. There is a great deal of challenge to decisions that are made.

However, throughout the pandemic and up to the present, we continue to need to act rapidly. We need to take rapid decisions to make restrictions to people’s normal way of living, unfortunately, when we see growing risks of the spread of the disease. We also want to be able to take rapid decisions to reduce those restrictions, recognising the difficulties that they cause for people going about their lives, whether in their family relationships, social relationships or livelihoods.

The hon. Gentleman has said that we are now at a different time, and things are different now. Yes, we have done a huge amount to bring the virus under control since the peak in the spring, and we now have a vast quantity of testing relative to the amount we had earlier on, although I fully recognise that its capacity is challenged at the moment because of the great deal of demand for it. However, we are continuing to learn all the time from the greater data we now have about how people are catching the virus—how it is spreading, but also how it is not spreading—so it is still the case that we need to be able to move quickly.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the scientific context for this, and whether because time has moved on, these easements are still the right thing to do. The restrictions are continuously reviewed, looking at what new restrictions may be appropriate and what easements might need to be introduced. As he has acknowledged, in some areas where there have been local outbreaks, restrictions have either not been lifted or have been reintroduced. We are able to do that because, thanks to the operation of Test and Trace and the Joint Biosecurity Centre, we have much more data about how the virus is spreading. For instance, we know that the virus is largely spreading through people’s social interactions. For the most part, it is not spreading in workplaces, and the risk for children in schools is very low, but we have a particular challenge with social contact. Therefore, we are, in general, able to maintain the easements that have been brought in, but are introducing the rule of six today to limit the social contact through which covid is spreading.

In some areas of the country where there are greater rates of covid, there are greater restrictions on household gatherings and even on the rule of six, because we have evidence that in some places, it is particularly spreading through households mingling in a home setting. The whole point is that having greater data and scientific insight, and following scientific advice, means that the restrictions we now have in place can be more tightly targeted, and can avoid restricting people’s lives in ways that are not essential while targeting the ways in which we know the virus is being spread. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to review the situation, including whether we need to impose further restrictions. Clearly, that would be done with great reluctance, but we cannot get to a situation that is the same as the one we were in earlier in the year. We must continue to be vigilant.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in a little more detail some of the work that is taking place to understand how the virus is spreading. Is it the case that the relaxations we have talked about today are not contributing to an increase in transmission?

[Helen Whately]

As I said, the work that is carried out by the Joint Biosecurity Centre, drawing on the information from NHS Test and Trace and other sources of data, looks at the main sources of spread. We know that the main source of spread is through social contact, rather than in more controlled settings. In business settings, we are seeing, for the most part, businesses taking great care to ensure their setting is covid secure, for which they should be commended.

I feel that this is the moment to bring the debate to a conclusion, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No.3) Regulations 2020

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I hope that your debut here is as memorable for you as it is for everyone else, and for all the right reasons.

I thank the Minister for her introduction. There was some acknowledgment that we are not yet out of the woods. Yesterday’s Government data showed the number of cases reported in the UK—2,988—was the highest on any single day since 22 May. That was a rise of 1,175 on the previous day. I understand that a similar figure of 2,948 cases has been reported on the Government website today. That trend is going in the wrong direction in terms of what we want to see.

I was surprised that we did not get a statement from the Secretary of State in the House on this today, although I understand he managed to put himself through the rough and tumble of an interview on “Newsbeat” earlier on. If the Minister can comment on the current position and, more importantly, on whether any additional measures are envisaged in relation to this recent rise, I would be grateful if she would set those out in her response. Indeed, if she anticipates a statement from the Secretary of State to the House, I would be grateful if she would indicate that that is the case.

As the Minister said, the regulations came into force on 18 July and give local authorities additional legal powers to those found under public health, environmental health, and health and safety legislation, which enable them to fully implement whatever measures are needed to prevent, protect against, delay or control the incidence or spread of coronavirus in their own areas. As the Minister outlined, this new set of regulations is intended to provide powers to allow local authority decision makers to take action to mitigate against local covid-19 outbreaks, a recognition, perhaps belatedly, that local public health teams know their areas best and are best equipped to deal with local outbreaks.

There are, of course, broad and sweeping powers in these regulations. Everyone understands the enormity of the challenge this country faces. That is why these regulations and powers continue to be necessary. Since the first coronavirus regulations were laid on 10 February, nearly seven months ago, more than 50 different pieces of legislation, including many restricting aspects of our daily lives, including how we live, gather, work and travel, have been introduced. The British people have made enormous personal sacrifices to adhere to them, sometimes at great cost to themselves, their families, their loved ones, their colleagues and their employees.

As we know, even after the figures have been adjusted down, we still have over 41,000 people who have sadly lost their life to this virus. Each life lost is a tragedy and our thoughts remain with their friends and families. It is a measure of the pervasiveness of this virus that despite all the restrictions introduced, legislation passed and efforts made by all around the country we still have such a significant death toll.

As the Minister correctly said, we know that this is far from over. The virus has not gone away. In fact, as I mentioned, the situation appears to be deteriorating. It is clear that despite covid-19 remaining an ongoing threat to public health, we will require regulations to protect our citizens now and for the foreseeable future. Given the future outlook and the desire of Government to avoid another national lockdown, the regulations will allow local restrictions to be introduced. It is right that we look at the suite of powers made available to local authorities, but the powers available are only part of the story; how those powers are exercised and how local councils, businesses and individuals are supported also matter.

Therefore I will again raise our concern that, as in all previous debates on coronavirus regulations, we are debating regulations weeks after they have come into effect—more than six weeks later in this case, as these regulations came into force before the summer recess. As we have said many times, we of course accept that the initial regulations had to be introduced hurriedly, in response to the rising number of infections, but the House has been up and running for many months now, and with Members on both sides of this House and in the other place raising concerns about why time is not being provided to ensure that future changes are debated and therefore have democratic consent before they are introduced, we see no good reason why the Government continue to act in the way they do.

These regulations are too important to be dealt with as an afterthought. They demand full parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister gave assurances that the Government had listened to our concerns and indicated that time was being made to debate the regulations as soon as possible, but I still think that we are behind the curve and I ask her again to feed back to the people who make the decisions on when these matters are debated that we still do not believe that that is being done in a way that respects parliamentary scrutiny.

Equally, it remains unacceptable that we are debating further regulations without the full information regarding any assessment of their impact. Once again, all we have seen published alongside the regulations is an explanatory note telling us that no consultation has been carried out and no regulatory impact assessment undertaken. All new regulations should involve advance warning to allow planning; they should also involve consultation with regions, local authorities and elected Mayors. These regulations provide local public health bodies with significant powers. It seems obvious that they would have a view on those powers, their scope and the resources that they might need to implement them, so it is disappointing to hear that the first time the Local Government Association saw the regulations was when they were published.

The way in which regulations are brought in matters. The Government should not announce changes or restrictions suddenly, with very little notice. It is fine to give local authorities these powers, but what assessment has been made of the financial resources that they may need to actually exercise them? We know that most local authorities, having already suffered years of central Government funding cuts, are struggling with their finances, and that the additional costs associated with covid-19 have not been met in full by Government, so what is the plan to provide assistance to a local authority that may find it necessary to issue dozens of notices in a short space of time? Issuing notices in itself takes some resource, but properly monitoring and enforcing the notices must put an extra burden on local authorities, for which they have not yet received funding, so what resources will the Minister make available in those circumstances?

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. As I understand it, other countries such as Greece, which we were discussing in the Chamber a moment ago, have in place penalties that are much higher and much tougher. They seem to me much more ambitious about containing this disease in their communities. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that perhaps this Government lack the ambition to really get to grips with this?

[Justin Madders]

It is not a question of ambition; it is a question of trusting local government and giving it the resources to do the job that it is clearly the most suited, out of everyone in the country, to do. We absolutely can learn from other countries. There are many examples around the world of how different approaches have produced different results.

It is also worth noting that the fines under this regulation for an initial offence are pretty small. Although there is a multiplier effect, a business might decide that it is worth pursuing its activities until the fines reach a level at which that is no longer economic. We will have to see how that works in practice. As we have seen with other coronavirus regulations, the Government have stepped in to increase the fines through statutory instruments, so perhaps that will happen again if we see a problem with this regulation as well.

As I understand it, there is no statutory review clause for the regulations, so they will not even be reviewed at regular intervals. How can that be right? These are new and far-reaching regulations with potentially massive resource implications for local authorities. Although we know that any directions made by local authorities under the powers in this instrument must themselves be reviewed every seven days—a sensible measure that we support—any local restrictions must also have a clear evidence base and rationale behind them, and should be regularly reviewed. That in itself is resource-intensive activity and is not the same as the Government undertaking a detailed and thorough review of whether the regulations themselves are proportionate and effective. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the regulations in due course? Will she commit to producing impact assessments and publishing them alongside such reviews? Most important, will she commit to bringing any future regulations to the House before they come into force?

I do not intend to go into the details of each regulation within the instrument, but as the regulations have been in place for approaching two months now, I want to discuss the issues that local authorities have experienced in implementing them and in the general approach to interactions with local authorities, as it is vital that the Government listen and take urgent steps to learn from their mistakes—and mistakes have been made. As we know, the Government were too slow to act in Leicester, and its local authorities have raised ongoing concerns about the way the Government have handled the situation there. It is widely believed that if Leicester had been able to access the testing data much sooner—I will come back to the wider issues with testing data later— it could have avoided a lockdown, but that did not happen.

The situation in Leicester was flagged in Government on 8 June, but another 10 days passed before the Health Secretary announced that Leicester had a problem, and it was not until 30 June that Leicester went into lockdown for two weeks. Following that, although the lockdown was extended for another two weeks in mid-July, it was not until the end of July, following ongoing pressure from Members, that the Government announced additional funding for Leicester businesses. As we know, Leicester was the first place to go into a local lockdown, but a month later, when areas in the north of England—in Greater Manchester, Lancashire and West Yorkshire—were placed into local lockdown on 30 July, it was clear at that point that lessons had not been learned. Again, the Government’s communication was chaotic and caused widespread confusion and anxiety.

The Government announced new restrictions on 30 July, the eve of Eid, less than three hours before the rules came into force. Understandably, Greater Manchester’s Mayor and deputy Mayor, along with council leaders, raised concerns about how the changes were announced by the Government. It is not acceptable to announce local restrictions late at night on Twitter, just hours before they are due to come into place. The public deserve clear and timely communication of changes and decisions that affect the everyday life of individuals, families and businesses. Importantly, there needs to be transparency about the reasons and thresholds for introducing and easing local restrictions. It is not fair to leave local areas in the dark. I hope we can avoid a repeat of that approach, although it is noted that the powers of the Secretary of State under regulation 3(5) do not require him to consult with a local authority before giving a direction. Perhaps the Minister will provide some assurances on that point.

There is an issue not only with powers being exercised centrally, but with information. Local directors of public health and local authority leaders have been asking for access to detailed data since the launch of test and trace at the end of May. Starting from July, councils were given access to weekly postcode data for their area, but it only showed positive test results and did not contain granular data on where people live or work, and was often out of date by the time it arrived. Data on local outbreaks needs not only to be shared in a timely way, but to be comprehensive and include information such as addresses, workplaces and ethnicity, which still is not routinely being shared. I hope the Minister will outline in her response what is being done to ensure that those vital details are being shared with local authorities to help them to tackle infection rates. The powers in the regulations will not be effective unless local authorities have the information in the first place to act on them.

Additionally, local authorities are concerned that the centralised Government test and trace operation has failed to reach many of the most vulnerable residents, leading to a number of councils setting up their own localised test and trace systems. That is the biggest vote of no confidence in the privatised national system of test and trace that the Government set up. Perhaps the Government heard those criticisms, because on 14 August they announced they would assign dedicated teams of contact tracers to more than 10 local authorities, after trials in Leicester, Luton, and Blackburn with Darwen. Will the Minister update us on when they expect those teams to be up and running?

It is vital that the scope of restrictions under these regulations and other laws is easily understood by local people. That is key to maintaining the public buy-in and trust that is needed for restrictions to be effective. They must also make sense. As a group of Manchester MPs highlighted in a letter to the Health Secretary on 18 August, the scope of local restrictions must make sense for local communities: where people go to work or school, socialise and shop are all important considerations, as people tend not to organise their lives around geographical administrative boundaries.

Communication also matters. Clear public health messaging is more vital than ever at this time. That is particularly so when different areas are subject to different measures. Tougher measures have been introduced in Bolton this weekend, as the infection rate has risen to 99 cases per 100,000 per week—the highest in England. The restrictions include not mixing with other households in any setting, indoors or outdoors. Those are different from some of the other restrictions in Greater Manchester.

Clear messaging matters. For example, just last week the borough found itself in what the Mayor of Greater Manchester described as a “completely unsustainable position” in which the Government planned to release restrictions despite a rising number of cases. That was, of course, before an 11th-hour U-turn. I empathise with the Mayor. Restrictions are hard enough to explain to the public without their being introduced in such a completely illogical way.

That is why it is vital that each local area must have a clear plan in place detailing steps to take in the event of an increase in cases. Those restrictions must be easily understood by local people. Telling people that they can go to the pub but not visit their family is a message that is hard to explain in public health terms and risks damaging public trust. That is why it is vital to ensure that restrictions are effective. I understand that people in Leicester, for example, are still being told they are not allowed to meet other people in their own back gardens, yet they can meet people in a pub. I should like the Minister to set out—in writing if she cannot respond now—the public health reason for that distinction.

Where councils are on the Government’s watchlist and there is a clear and imminent public health ground to take action, I think it is fair to say they feel they can take enforcement action under the regulations. However, where there is not an increase in covid cases, councils are less certain whether they can take action. It would assist them if there were a clearer steer from Government on the circumstances in which is acceptable to use the regulations. There is no accompanying guidance to the regulations to advise councils on the factors that they should consider when contemplating action. That is also an important issue for any business that might be affected by a council decision. After all, what use is the ability to challenge a decision in the magistrates court if there is no detail on the basis on which that can be done?

If a local authority were concerned that, unless a premises took account of the need to socially distance customers, the situation would lead to an increase in the spread of covid-19, would that be enough for it to take enforcement action under the regulations? Is that the baseline for action? What factors may a magistrates court take into account when considering an appeal against such a decision? I would not expect local businesses to have access to the epidemiological data that might lead to such a decision, but is the impact on a business’s viability a relevant factor? What would the timescale be for a magistrates court to hear such an appeal? It is no good having a hearing on the issue months after the event. The business might have gone bust in the meantime.

The one positive from debating the regulations so long after they were introduced is the fact that we have the opportunity to look in a little more detail at how they have worked in practice. I am grateful that the Minister has said that already 61 directions have been issued under the regulations. Can she confirm, for each of those directions, whether the Secretary of State was notified as soon as possible, and within 24 hours of the issuing of the direction, as per the guidance? I understand that one direction was appealed to the Secretary of State, and representations were made. What was the timescale for that? It would be useful for individuals who might be affected to know the timescales for decisions. How many fines have been issued under the regulations to date, for breaches of the directions issued by local authorities?

As we heard from the Minister, the regulations give the Secretary of State the power to require a local authority to make or revoke a direction, after consulting the chief medical officer or a deputy chief medical officer. I heard from the Minister that the Secretary of State has so far not given any such direction, and I hope that we can move forward, in the sense that local authorities use the power when the Secretary of State considers it appropriate. I should be grateful for more detail regarding the dialogue and processes that should happen before the Secretary of State issues such a direction. Will the Minister also explain how this set of regulations interacts with Government guidance and other legislative regimes? We are hearing from councils that they are struggling to understand that, and it would be helpful for them to have a clear set of guidelines about when the directions apply and how they interact with other restrictions.

What is the role of Members of Parliament in terms of these regulations, particularly in respect of introducing and easing restrictions? There is nothing in the regulations that requires a Member of Parliament to be consulted, but we have heard many outbursts in the media from hon. Members about their concerns about restrictions in their local areas. Will the Minister confirm that there will be an opportunity for all hon. Members, including Opposition Members, to make representations directly to the Department should consideration be given to issuing directions in their area?

A story appeared in The Observer yesterday about a report apparently prepared by Public Health England that stated that the national lockdown in parts of the north of England had little effect on the level of infections. The story says that when comparing other English regions, the study says:

“Each region has experienced its own epidemic journey with the north peaking later and the North West, Yorkshire and Humber and East Midlands failing to return to a near zero Covid status even during lockdown, unlike the other regions which have been able to return to a near pre-Covid state.”

It also questions why anyone should expect fresh local lockdowns to work in these areas now, and asks:

“If we accept the premise that in some areas the infection is now endemic - how does this change our strategy? If these areas were not able to attain near zero-Covid status during full lockdown, how realistic is it that we can expect current restriction escalations to work?”

Given the content of today’s regulations, I can only assume that the view expressed in that report is not shared by the Department. Can the Minister shed any light on the report and what assessment the Department has made of the effectiveness to date of the powers given to local authorities under these regulations? It is important that we clear that up.

Let us talk about what is not in these regulations, as well as what is in them. Perhaps the most glaring omission is financial support for those affected. The Government cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the devastating economic impact of these restrictions. They must acknowledge the economic consequences of putting certain areas or businesses back into lockdown. There are still no clear plans in place to provide targeted economic support to areas of the country that are forced to increase restrictions or become subject to local lockdowns. A tailored approach to support businesses and employment in affected areas is needed, and that must take local circumstances into account and include adequate support for those who need to self-isolate. Effective local lockdowns depend on people self-isolating when they are supposed to. We have been warning for months that the Government need to ensure that people who need to self-isolate can afford to do the right thing, but once again the Government have been too slow to recognise the problem.

The Government recently announced plans to address the issue, but that will unfortunately apply only to a limited number of areas with high rates of covid-19, meaning that only one in eight workers will be covered by the scheme. That does not make sense when the instruction to self-isolate applies to everyone in the country. If the Government accept that additional support is needed for people to self-isolate in some areas, then they should accept that it is needed everywhere. Everyone should get the support they need to self-isolate, and there is no logical reason why such a distinction is being made.

In any event, £13 a day does not go anywhere near far enough to support the lowest earners who need to self-isolate. Even the Health Secretary must agree with that, given that he has previously said that statutory sick pay in the UK is not enough to live on. Can the Minister explain how the Government have arrived at a solution that offers only some people a level of support that the Secretary of State has already acknowledged is not enough? It is not acceptable that so far into the pandemic the Government do not have a strategy on that. The Government were eventually forced to provide support in Leicester, but they have been unclear about whether they would do the same in other areas. Individuals and businesses deserve clarity and support.

And what about schools? We know that missing school is bad for child development and widens existing inequalities. Indeed, the Education Policy Institute report published at the end of last month found that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has actually stopped closing for the first time in a decade. With many schools returning last week, and more set to return this week, we have been clear that keeping schools open should be prioritised in the event of local restrictions being introduced to ensure that children’s education is not disrupted again. Will the Minister provide clarity on what steps the Government will take to prioritise schools in the event of local restrictions being introduced? What plans are there to ensure the continuation of education should exceptional circumstances mean that some children cannot attend school in person?

To come back to test and trace, without a vaccine, getting an effective test, track and isolate system is the only way to safely reopen society. It is vital to minimise the need to introduce wide-ranging local restrictions wherever possible and to effectively manage local outbreaks where they occur. Right now, however, the Government’s approach is failing and people have lost confidence in the system. With cases on the increase and the Government pushing for everyone to return to work, it is more important than ever that test and trace is working to its full potential, yet we hear of new issues with it almost every day.

The Government seem to have completely taken their eye off the ball when it comes to ensuring that tests are readily available and quickly administered. The latest figures are not encouraging. The percentage of people reached by the system decreased again last week, with the proportion of close contacts of people who tested positive for covid-19 being reached through the test and trace programme at its lowest level since the system was launched—down from 77.1% in the previous week to just 69.4%. The number of cases handled online or by call centres is even lower, at just 59.8%—a staggering 37% lower than the 97.3% of contacts reached by local health protection teams.

It is also taking longer for people to get their results. Although an improvement on the previous week, only 49.3% of tests taken at regional test sites, and 59.9% taken at mobile testing units, received their test results within 24 hours. The number of satellite tests and home tests receiving a result within 48 hours fell to just 8.1% and 17.6% respectively. Home testing kits and satellite test centres both saw an increase in the median time taken from taking a test to receiving the results, with satellite test centres increasing from 65 hours to 76 hours, and home testing kits increasing from 76 hours to 86 hours.

There are also still issues with capacity. More than 100,000 tests lie unused every day, yet at the end of last month, England and Scotland ran out of home testing kits. Last week we heard that, once again, there are clearly problems with the testing infrastructure as people across the country are being sent hundreds of miles away for testing appointments. In spite of all that, the Government seem determined to reward the private sector companies, which are still not reaching more than half the contacts of those who test positive, by renewing their contracts.

These are unprecedented times and it was always going to be challenging, but surely we can do better than that. The Government’s own scientific experts have been clear. We need tests to be done quickly. We were promised a 24-hour turnaround for test results by the end of June, but it is now September and the numbers are still nowhere near that.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Would the hon. Gentleman draw my attention to which particular regulation in the instrument he is referring to? I am not quite sure how that fits with the regulations we are discussing.

[Justin Madders]

Of course the regulations do not deal with test and trace, but it is clear that, unless we have an effective test and trace system, local lockdowns will not be successful and we will not beat the virus.

We know that the NHS and social care face significant pressure in winter months, which is likely to be further exacerbated by covid-19 this year. We do not want to head into a winter disaster with a second wave of covid-19 over us. We are far from where we need to be. We need to deliver routine testing in care homes and for NHS staff, and to prioritise airports and other frontline workers. We need contact tracing and testing to work properly and to be led by local teams that understand their local areas.

Although we support the introduction of local restrictions where they are needed to curb the spread of covid-19, and as a consequence we will not seek to divide the Committee, those restrictions must be complemented by adequate resources for the local authorities tasked with implementing and monitoring those restrictions, and proper financial support for those individuals and businesses affected by the restrictions. The Government were too slow into lockdown, too slow to protect our care homes and too slow to provide our key workers with protective equipment. We cannot afford for them to be too slow in getting these local lockdown restrictions right. I repeat the plea that resources must follow these responsibilities or we risk them being ineffective and creating economic damage across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I thank in particular the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, who have shown, in very different ways, exactly why the regulations are needed and how well they are working. Where people are talking together and using the information that is getting to the frontline, they are now able to respond and to act quickly.

In the initial stages, we were keen to have a national approach to protect the NHS, in order that we could then start to move the policy forward. That is what we have done by enabling the local authorities, Mayors and so on to talk together so that they—as both hon. Members alluded to—may deal with their local communities. They know their local communities best, and that has come across clearly.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will forgive me, but I will trot through as many of his points as I can remember that have a vague relevance to the regulations that we are discussing today. He will forgive me, perhaps, for not going off at a complete tangent and following him down the various paths on which he wished to take us. However, I thank him for his contribution.

The regulations are necessary, and they are important for three reasons. First, and most importantly, they empower local authorities to protect people in their area from this terrible virus. Giving directions is a difficult decision for local authorities to take, but they are in the best place to know the right interventions to impose in order to stop the virus spreading locally unchecked. They are often using the regulations as a warning shot and, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, they give the local authorities the power to be a little more attuned. We have seen that very much in Leicester: two particular roads appeared to be flouting the rules, and those two roads were targeted in a specific way, enabling the locality to respond to the challenge much more effectively.

Secondly, giving those powers to local authorities is important because they protect those of us who do not live in those areas. As a result of local interventions, outbreaks can be prevented or contained locally, stopping infection from spreading elsewhere, which is significant.

Thirdly, enabling local authorities to introduce these restrictions shows our absolute determination to respond to outbreaks of the virus in a focused way. As I have said, we will learn from the use of these powers as local authorities give directions for preventing transmission and respond to localised outbreaks.

These regulations are made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which sets out a framework for health protection that requires much of the detailed provision to be delivered through these regulations. The regulations enable local authorities to impose targeted local measures to prevent and control outbreaks in their area. However, occasionally there has still been the need for the Government to impose more serious restrictions, as we have seen in Leicester and parts of the north of England, in what are often referred to as local lockdowns. If the possibility of imposing more serious interventions is being considered, local leaders, chief executives and the directors of public health are consulted by the NHS test and trace team, Public Health England and the joint biosecurity centre, to inform that decision making and to be consulted on it.

Today’s debate has provided an opportunity for hon. Members to debate the range of activities that the Government have undertaken in response to coronavirus. Moving to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, we always said that there would be local outbreaks that would require local action, so I do not think that what we are doing in these regulations should come as any surprise. Will it cause confusion? Local authorities can already close premises for various reasons, such as environmental health reasons, so I do not think that it is unusual in our current environment for people to expect changes to come quite fluidly.

It is really important that we are able to act quickly and stop local outbreaks, and this is the right approach. To enable local authorities to have the power to do so, we have made another £300 million available to them to develop their plans. As we have heard, those plans are working, and as the hon. Gentleman himself said, they are very important in making sure that any action is attuned to the local area. That money is on top of the £3.7 billion provided to local authorities to support the response to the pandemic.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Secretary of State heard about things in good order; he hears as soon as is reasonably practicable about where these directions have been laid. As yet, however, we do not have any data on the fines or the fixed penalty notices; we will have it quite soon, when these regulations have been laid. That question made me smile wryly, because the summer recess was between the dates. Therefore, although six weeks have passed, there have been only a handful of parliamentary sitting days, so I think we have got on to things as speedily as possible.

An impact assessment is not required for regulations that last for less than a year, and these regulations are due to expire in less than a year, so there is no such requirement. In the other place, Baroness Thornton asked a similar question about how data was being used. Data is key to the scientific community, so that scientists can be availed of it to fight covid-19. At the start of this pandemic, only six short months ago, we had very little data. Now, as we have heard, we have the ability to drill down even to a postcode level, to know where somebody who may have had a positive test is. That data is now at our fingertips.

As of today, we have the capacity to do 357,873 tests. Although I would freely say that, yes, some of those tests are challenging, 84.3% of people taking tests have their results the next day, and over 42.2% of people taking home tests get their results within 48 hours. Some 16 million tests have been done in this country, and that has been built from a standing start. I pay tribute to Public Health England and others; it has been a broad coalition of the NHS, public health and private industry that has allowed us to do this amazing job.

[Justin Madders]

On the question of tests, the Minister gave the figure of some 375,000 capacity—

[Jo Churchill]

The figure is 357,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The Minister will be aware that the number of tests processed each day is somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000. In the context of hearing about people’s problems with accessing tests, where does she think the issue is in getting that capacity to the right places?

[Jo Churchill]

I will briefly explain, in 30 seconds. We have always said that we would go to where the problem arose, so it is right and proper that where we have an issue of rising prevalence, we will take our mobile testing centres there. We have 73 regional centres, 21 satellite centres, 236 mobile centres and 72 walk-through centres. Ensuring that we can be fluid in our approach and that we get to those places where we see a rise in numbers is, in my opinion, the right approach. Do we have more to do? Yes, we do, but I think we can proudly say that we are hitting numbers that are now ahead of many other countries in Europe and across the world, and showing that we are building a world-class system that can help to protect people.

The argument is that we need more testing, we need to be able to trace and we need to build that capacity. That is why we have recruited another 18,000 into Public Health England, to back up that effort to test and trace. Supporting the local authorities, we have contact tracing, the daily situational report, the daily exceedance report and the daily surveillance reports, so that we can help people to get the granular information that helps them to target their local area.

As I said, an impact assessment is not required for regulations that last for less than a year, and these regulations will expire in six months. However, the Government are considering the economic impact of the regulations on businesses and individuals—that was another question the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked—and the personal impact on those with protected characteristics; on people’s mental health and wellbeing; on religious groups and many others. This is a highly complex situation that we are dealing with.

The dashboards for local authorities are updated daily with all the data received to midnight the previous day. We are ensuring that all local and public health bodies have the data they need for any plans they might be making for preparedness for potential outbreaks, and we produce detailed data in dashboards for local authorities to give them clarity regarding their local area.

We have started sharing that postcode-level testing and case data with local authorities, and it is available to them at any time. It is important that we send the positive message that, while this is work in progress, we are doing more and more each week to help them to get more information, because that is vital for unlocking the economy and opening our lives up as far as we can in this covid-tinged world that we are all having to get used to.

The Department for Education has published full guidance on the protective measures for schools, colleges and childcare settings, which should help to minimise risk. The guidance includes the PHE-endorsed system of controls that helps settings to implement those measures in order to prevent and control any infection. Those are outlined more explicitly in DFE guidance.

We have agreed to provide a monthly report to Parliament detailing the measures imposed by local authorities and Ministers under these powers, and will shortly be making a written ministerial statement setting out the record of the notifications received, which will be deposited in the House Library. The Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box to answer questions more than, I think, any other Secretary of State, and I am sure that when he next does so, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will have ample opportunity to ask his questions.

However, as of 2 September, the Secretary of State had been notified of the 61 directions that had been given by the 23 local authorities to which I alluded earlier. Examples of those directions given by local authorities include closing a funfair due to be held in an area where there was a high incidence of the virus; closing a large entertainment venue for failing to ensure social distancing measures were in place, or complied with by visitors; imposing restrictions on the organiser of a large social event to ensure guests complied with social distancing guidance; controlling people gathering in a street outside restaurants—trying to ensure people stay physically distanced while waiting to go inside areas is, of course, very important too—and prohibiting a planned food festival where in excess of 8,000 visitors were expected.

The extent of the powers means that local authorities can give directions, but they are not always necessary. For example, local authorities do not need any further powers to close nightclubs, as they can already be closed under the England-wide regulations. For raves, a local authority has the power to give a direction to impose prohibitions, requirements or restrictions to stop an event, in addition to pre-existing rave legislation. Indoor raves of more than 30 people are already illegal. There are further restrictions on holding gatherings of more than 30 people in public outdoor spaces, and stricter gathering restrictions in certain protected areas under regional lockdowns.

Only the Secretary of State can close a school using the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020, but he can delegate that power to a local authority if necessary. For essential infrastructure, the regulations prohibit local authorities from giving a direction in respect of businesses that are considered essential. Guidance has been published in relation to what is essential infrastructure; that guidance is readily available, but includes registered childcare providers, airports, doctors’ surgeries, train stations, and nuclear facilities. In addition to the powers given to local authorities under the regulations, Public Health England, the joint biosecurity centre and NHS test and trace are consistently and continuously monitoring the levels of infection and other data on the prevalence of the virus across the country.

We continue to work closely with councils, local MPs and scientific experts to support local responses. Indeed, there are several people in this room to whom I have spoken about particular issues in their locality, to ensure we feed that information in so that we can make the best decisions. However, we have always been clear that we will need, and will take, swift and decisive action where necessary to contain local outbreaks by imposing more serious restrictions, often referred to as a local lockdown—for example, stopping people from different households meeting up with each other, or closing specific business sectors. Those nationally imposed measures at local level are in addition to the powers given to local authorities by the regulations that we are debating today.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the points that have been raised and the contributions that have been made. I will conclude by recording on behalf of the Government my thanks to the people of England for their ongoing observance of covid-19 guidance and legislation, helping to reduce the burden on our vital services and save lives through this crisis. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, every life lost is a tragedy, so we still need to bear down and work hard to make sure that we do absolutely everything we can to ensure that is kept to a minimum. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 750).

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady’s question is that when we are trying to reach scale fast, we use the national system. That then engages with the local system—for instance, in Croydon, as we just heard—so that we can get the boots on the ground to find those contacts who cannot be contacted through the national system. It is the combination of the two that works best. As for making sure that our systems are in the best possible place to tackle coronavirus going forward, I absolutely think that it is right constantly to be seeking to make improvements to how things operate, which is why I announced the changes that I did.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

In some areas, the private companies involved in test and trace have been reaching less than half the contacts they are supposed to reach, not the 80% that the Secretary of State has claimed. We do not need an algorithm to work out that those companies’ performance, compared with that of local public health teams, is where test and trace is failing. Why, then, are the Government rewarding private sector failure by extending the contracts?

[Matt Hancock]

As I have just explained, the test and trace system at the national level makes the immediate and rapid first attempt at contact. If no contact is made, the local teams can then go in. It is the combination of the two that works best. I really think that the Opposition —especially coming from the Front-Bench team—are making a mistake in trying to divide people between public and private. Actually, everybody is working very hard together to deliver the control of this virus.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott, and I wish you success in your first outing chairing a Committee. I thank the Minister for her introductory remarks.

I would like to start by noting a few facts and figures. This statutory instrument amends the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) for the first time. This is the second time the Minister and I have debated lockdown restrictions, although this is the fifth such debate taking place. I must apologise to the Minister in advance, because the concerns I raised on the last occasion will be repeated today, although I will be a little briefer.

It is just four days since we were here to debate the previous set of regulations following their coming into force on 4 July. We are here today to debate amendments to those regulations, which were laid on 10 July and came into force on 11 and 13 July. This will be the fifth occasion on which I am forced to highlight the unsatisfactory approach to parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations, which was at least acknowledged by the Minister last week and again today. It is still the case, however, that we continue to debate regulations after they come into effect.

I would not be so churlish as not to acknowledge that some progress has been made, as today’s debate comes only one week after the regulations came into effect, which is the shortest gap we have managed so far, but once again they have been superseded by events on Friday, when the Prime Minister announced sweeping changes to the regulations, with indoor gyms, pools and other sports facilities to reopen. In addition, the Government advice on going to work is changing from 1 August, along with the reopening of most remaining leisure settings and live indoor theatre settings.

To return to the regulations before us and the fact that we are debating them after the event, I have made it clear on numerous occasions that we accept that the initial regulations had to be hurriedly introduced in response to the rising number of infections. However, the House has now been running for more than two months and Members on both sides, and in the other place, have expressed concern about time not being provided to ensure future changes are debated before they are made. For me, it is evident that the Government are running out of excuses as to why they have failed to ensure that that happens.

As I said last Thursday, parliamentary scrutiny is not something that can be ditched because the timing is inconvenient, especially for regulations such as these, which have huge ramifications. These issues are too important not to be debated and given timely and full parliamentary scrutiny. Last Thursday, I made a plea to the Minister, and I will do so again: we need to find a better way of ensuring that these regulations are debated in a timely manner.

For example, take the set of regulations that were announced last Friday. The Government must have known that the instrument was going to be laid the next day, so surely some time could have been pencilled in this week to debate the regulations before the recess. The regulations contain a new raft of powers for local authorities to tackle local outbreaks, which is to be welcomed, but those important changes will now not be debated until September at the earliest. Without debate, we are unable to ascertain what support will be available to local authorities to utilise those powers. It is important that they have the powers, but they are being asked to exercise them without any guarantee that they will be financially recompensed for that work. What about the impact on people and businesses affected by a new local lockdown? It would have been helpful to have that debate before the recess so that the Minister could have put on record the answer to those questions so that people knew exactly where they stand.

The Committee will be relieved to hear that that is the last I am going to say about the timing of the debates, but our concern is on the record. We have also made it clear, in previous debates, that it is not acceptable for us to debate the regulations without the full extent of the information on which the Government have based their decisions. I reiterate that position again today.

I have previously asked the Minister why the legally required reviews of 16 April, 7 and 28 May and 25 June have not been published. I have not as yet had a satisfactory answer, so I ask that question again today. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has also called on the Government to ensure that that information is provided. Without those reviews, we are not in a position to judge the impact of previous regulations; and when it comes to the current regulations, all that has been published alongside them is an explanatory note telling us that no consultation has been carried out and no regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken.

The key question that we have to ask is whether these regulations will increase the spread of the virus. The answer appears to be that they may do, but the Opposition are in no position to judge the extent of that risk. The explanatory memorandum does tell us—at paragraph 7.4 —as it did with the previous regulations, that there is

“recognition that these changes may lead to an increase in transmission rates”

and that that

“will continue to be kept under review.”

Of course, we would expect all the regulations to be kept under review, but we do need some more meat on that bone.

Last week, on the previous set of regulations, I pressed the Minister on whether she was able to provide us with clarity about which measures, individually or collectively, were considered likely to lead to an increase in transmission rates, and she was not able to answer that. This is important not just for hon. Members when considering the legislation before us, but for public confidence in the Government’s handling of the pandemic, particularly when we hear conflicting views on what the advice is.

For example, last Thursday, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, told Members that there was “absolutely no reason” to change the Government’s current guidance on working from home, but on Friday, the very next day, the Prime Minister announced that the guidance on working from home would be changed. Conflicting advice and statements from the Government only hinder our fight against the virus. Clear communication is vital in combating the spread of covid-19.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making valuable points, as always. To be fair to the Government and to give them credit, when this crisis, the pandemic, started, the Government gave very clear messaging, and they are to be applauded for that. But over recent weeks—perhaps the last couple of months—it has become less clear and potentially more confused, and that is having a big impact on public confidence. Also, the businesses that the changes are designed to help cannot keep up with those changes. One seems to replace another, but it is not clear to those businesses where they are in the cycle.

[Justin Madders]

As my hon. Friend knows, I will always be fair to the Government. The point that he makes is correct: when we first entered lockdown, the messaging was clear. It was probably easier to make things clear at that point, because a clear and consistent message was being applied across the board. But when we first discussed version one of the regulations, I made the point that as we moved forward it would be really important to have a much more nuanced and clear message for the variations that we are having as a result of the changes. My hon. Friend has explained very well why we are not doing quite as well there as we would like.

In terms of clarity, it is really important that we hear from the Minister about the detail behind the statement on transmission. Is that based on advice from scientific advisers? How is the risk quantified? Which elements of the relaxation are considered more risky than others? What mitigating measures are recommended?

There are some clues in the explanatory memorandum about some of the scientific advice on the measures. For example, it tells us:

“The decision to enable the re-opening of”

outdoor settings where multiple households gather, such as

“outdoor swimming pools and waterparks…has been taken based on SPI-M’s”—

SPI-M is the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling—

“previous statement that permitting outdoor contact…while continuing to maintain a 2m distance, would have no more than a very small impact on overall transmission rates.”

That has been considered alongside

“evidence…that UV exposure can reduce the half-life of the virus and ventilation can reduce the risk of aerosol transmission.”

The explanatory memorandum also tells us:

“The decision taken to enable the reopening of close contact services on 13 July is based on an assessment that Covid-19 Secure mitigations mean that existing restrictions are no longer necessary.”

Therefore, we have a little more information than we have seen with previous regulations, but it does seem a little at odds with the statement that these regulations may lead to an increase in transmission rates and it does not replace the need for the reviews of the regulations to be published in full, alongside the full scientific evidence and a full impact assessment.

I mentioned last Thursday that the frequently asked questions on the Government website about what people can and cannot do had not been updated since 9 July, and I am pleased to note that they now have been updated, so at least someone on the Government Benches listens to our speeches.

I also think it is helpful for us to remain clear and consistent about the Government rules as they move forward, as has already been mentioned in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, particularly as changes are coming thick and fast in the next few weeks. I am sure that many hon. Members will recognise that our inboxes are still full of questions from constituents trying to navigate the constantly changing advice and guidance to keep them and their colleagues, employers, co-workers, friends and families safe. That is the barometer by which we measure the effectiveness of the Government’s communication strategy, and I think there is still some way to go.

Just this morning it has been reported that senior doctors are concerned about the Government’s mixed messages about face masks and returning to work. They warn that a second peak, if combined with a seasonal flu outbreak, could be devastating for the NHS. That highlights the challenge for us all in getting things right, and the importance of communicating changes clearly and consistently.

[Matt Western]

To amplify that point, the Government are spending a lot of money. Even in my local paper, the Leamington Courier, there is a double-page spread placed by the Government, entitled “All in, all together.” It would be interesting to know how much money is being spent on public health messaging and why the opportunity is not being used to place adverts saying clearly what should happen about wearing a face mask, and where.

[Justin Madders]

That is a fair point. I have been looking with interest at the advertising in my local newspaper. Some of it goes over the line of what would be considered public information and what would be considered the expounding of Government policies, but it is a fair point that if the contract with local newspapers still has, as I think it does, some way to run, clear messaging on the use of face masks would be beneficial as things move forward.

The Opposition will not oppose the regulations, but we remain concerned that we are entering another critical moment without having available the full information on which decisions are being made, without a clear understanding of the risks, and with the test and trace system not working at full efficiency. The gradual easing of lockdowns has to be done in a safe and cautious way. It should be carefully planned and clearly communicated, so that the public can have confidence in the measures that the Government have put in place, and the advice that has been given.

We need full transparency so that we can have confidence that the Government’s scientific advisers support the measures we are debating. That means that we need to end the promises of world-beating systems and record numbers of tests, because we know that the current system for testing and tracing is not reaching all those with suspected covid-19. Of course the app is nowhere to be seen.

It should be of concern when the director of public health in an area such as Blackburn with Darwen, where officials are currently battling a rise in cases, tells us that only 44% of the 799 close contacts of someone with coronavirus have been successfully contacted by the test and trace call handlers. That figure is roughly in line with the contact rate for non-complex cases nationally and it is clearly well below the level that is needed if we are to be confident that the system is working effectively.

We want the Government to succeed, but where things need to improve—and we have touched on only a few of those areas today—we shall continue to challenge them. It is right to challenge the Government on their decisions, because it is our constitutional duty, but also because we cannot simply risk losing control of the situation again. Any challenge that we make today is hampered, because we debate the regulations after the event, having had little sight of the scientific advice on which they are based.