HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (SELF-ISOLATION) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2020 HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NORTH OF ENGLAND, NORTH EAST AND NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND AND OBLIGATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS (ENGLAND) ETC.) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2020

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 19th October 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 her opening remarks. As she noted, today we are debating two SIs. The first numerically, No.1045, came into force on 28 September, and strengthens the duties on those who are required to self-isolate and increases penalties for non-compliance. The second SI, No. 1057, makes changes to the restrictions on the protected areas throughout the north of England.

In common with the Minister, for the purposes of today’s debate I will largely focus on self-isolation issues. But, first, I must refer again to the timing of the introduction of multiple SIs, particularly No. 1057. The Minister will be aware that my colleagues and I have consistently raised concerns about the way in which regulations are introduced. It is the view of the Opposition and of Members on both sides of the House that the regulations are too important not to be debated before they become law, and that full parliamentary scrutiny should be required. It will not have escaped anyone’s notice that we saw some progress on that last week when the new regulations on medium, high and very high tiers of restriction were debated in the Chamber before they came into force. After arguing in this room and others along the Corridor week after week for such debate, it would be churlish not to acknowledge the improvement in such scrutiny.

The SIs before us today are back to the old ways and bad habits, I am afraid. Last week, when we debated multiple SIs that related to face covering regulations, I noted that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had pointed out that it is not helpful to have the law scattered across so many different SIs. That is exactly the case with regulation No. 1057. Although it has now been superseded, it actually amended four different SIs. That practice adds to the confusion about what is or is not lawful under health protection regulations at any given time. When we are asking people to comply with measures that are needed to protect public health, it is really important that we make that process as helpful as possible.

Because, once again, we are debating regulations several weeks down the line, much of the legislation is already out of date. The accompanying explanatory memorandum is also out of date, having been written before the new three-tier approach was introduced. I found it of little value to my understanding of what is still relevant for the purposes of today’s debate. I think the Minister has put me out of my misery by confirming what part of the regulations are still live. Regulation 3, however, which relates to restrictions on indoor gatherings and exceptions to that, has been superseded by the tiered approach that was introduced last week. I believe that regulation 4 on obligations of venues when taking bookings is still a live requirement.

[Catherine McKinnell]

On the point about clarity, everybody appreciates that this is an unprecedented situation that is difficult to manage, but the Government have to do better at communicating the decisions and changes that affect people’s everyday lives, because that is the only way that people will know how to best combat this virus. For example, three different sets of regulations for the north-east have been announced to us in three weeks. I have such admiration for the people of the north-east; they are erring on the side of caution and doing what they think is best. However, it is difficult to understand exactly what the requirements are, because we have the national rule of six, then we had local restrictions and now we have the tiers. I do not want to add to the confusion, but the Government really need to do better if they are to get the best results from any measures put in place.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which was made in the right spirit for this critical time. It is difficult to understand exactly what is and is not in force at any one time. Our businesses, in the main, want to comply with the law. In fact, they would be foolish not to, given the level of penalty applied for breaking some of these regulations. I talked to some local publicans over the weekend, and they are petrified of asking the wrong question or doing the wrong thing in terms of who they can and cannot let into their pubs and so on. We all have a responsibility to try to explain the rules as best we can, but at the moment we are not assisted by the often confusing manner in which they are set out.

I make one final point on SI No. 1057. Paragraph 6.6 of the explanatory memorandum says of regulation 2:

“There is no practical effect from these changes”.

Clearly this was written before it was superseded, but our debating a regulation that apparently has no actual effect makes me wonder whether this is the best use of our time, and whether there needs to be more attempts to try to regularise regulations before they come before us.

I do not make these points to try to catch the Government out, because as I said, we are in broad agreement with the measures being taken. However, I make the point again that, because there is such a bewildering array of regulations, we are not clear what is and is not legal, so how can we expect our constituents to be? This is particularly important given the severe financial penalties and the health issues that the regulations are trying to prevent?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Something occurred to me as my hon. Friend was speaking: it is the way that we are legislating and regulating these activities that results in such confusion. If we follow the normal procedure of announcing an intention and Parliament debating it, we will get that automatic feedback on how the regulations will work in practice, problems will be ironed out and it will be legislated for, and the country will have been briefed directly through Parliament, rather than through the papers. I think that would run much better. If the Government go back to the normal way of doing parliamentary democracy, it might help our response to the pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On many occasions, regulations have been laid—I think of the face-covering ones, for example—and points we have made about inconsistencies in the regulations have then appeared in subsequent regulations, showing the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Of course I accept that, in a pandemic, things cannot always be done as quickly as possible, but certainly for self-isolation, which been a requirement from the very early days of the pandemic, there is absolutely no need for those regulations to have been introduced at such short notice.

[Matt Western]

To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, this issue is about confusion versus simplicity. Does my hon. Friend favour, as I do, the simplicity and clarity that the Welsh Government are giving, in contrast to the UK Government?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend tempts me to go outside the scope of the regulations. His point about simplicity and clarity of message is vital. In the early days, when there was a clear, national lockdown, it was much easier to convey messages, but issues have become more complicated, and there are a whole range of areas where confusion and uncertainty arises, certainly about the self-isolation regulations. I will be taking the Committee through a number of examples of that.

The self-isolation regulations were laid before Parliament at 5 pm on a Sunday evening and came into force the following day. As we have already said, they contained significant requirements and penalties for individuals and employers alike. I do not think seven hours’ notice on a Sunday evening is the reasonable period of warning that we would want to see as the norm if we want people to understand and comply with the laws. It is not as if self-isolation is a recent development. The requirements have been in place for many months now, and with a little more thought and planning, we could have debated those regulations before they came into force. Nothing I have heard from the Minister today persuades me that there was an urgent need for the regulations to be enacted before debate in Committee.

As we heard from the Minister, the regulations strengthen the duties on those who are required to self-isolate, and increase the penalties for non-compliance. Regulation 2 states that adults who have been notified other than through the NHS app that they have tested positive for coronavirus, or have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive, must self-isolate in their home or another suitable place. Those who test positive are required to self-isolate for 10 days and those who live in the same household, or who have been in contact with someone who has tested positive, must self-isolate for 14 days. The regulation also makes it clear that they are responsible for ensuring that any child under the age of 18 in their household self-isolates.

Regulation 2 sets out the details of the people who are authorised to issue notifications regarding the duty to self-isolate, and states that notifications that are withdrawn are treated as never having been issued. It is not clear from the regulations what the process is following withdrawal, or in what circumstances such a withdrawal might take place. Could the Minister set out in more detail how a withdrawal or a proper notification might come about, and what the practical and legal consequences of such notification might be?

Regulation 3 sets out periods for self-isolation, which differ depending on whether a person has tested positive for coronavirus, lives in the same household as a person who has tested positive, or is a close contact of a person outside their household who has tested positive. As we have already said, clear communication is a key weapon in this fight. I will not recount the many confused and mixed messages we have had, but I will raise with the Minister a real and current concern I have with contradictory messages around self-isolation periods.

Regulation 3(3) states that the period of self-isolation begins on the day symptoms show and lasts for 10 days, but a number of my constituents, having had symptoms, have subsequently obtained a test, and have then been told by the Test and Trace system that their period of self-isolation of 10 days begins from the date on which they were contacted by Test and Trace. The official advice is clear, but this notification is causing confusion. Can the Minister take that away and investigate whether anything needs to change in the system and the messages it is putting out?

Can the Minister clarify the circumstances in which regulation 3(3)(a)(i) applies? Regulation 3(4) states:

“(4) The period ends with the final day of a period where regulation 2(1)(a)(ii) or (b)(ii) applies, of 14 days beginning—

(a) where P is living in the same household as the person (“C”) who tested positive for coronavirus—

(i) in a case where C, or R where C is a child, report to a person specified in regulation 2(4) of the date on which symptoms first developed, with whichever is the later of—

(aa) the date five days before the test pursuant to which notification referred to in regulation 2(1) was given”.

I quote that provision word for word because it highlights an issue to do with communicating what we are trying to do. I thought I was clear on when periods of self-isolation started, but the insertion of

“five days before the test”

in sub-paragraph (a)(i) makes me want to lie down with a hot towel over my forehead. I am trying to work out exactly what that means. People want to do the right thing, but this kind of language does not make it easy for them. When penalties are applied for not doing it, it is doubly important. We need to make it very clear exactly what the situation is in that part of the regulations.

Regulation 5 deals with the definition of “close contact”, which includes not only face-to-face contact within 1 metre, but

“spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of an individual”.

It is not expressly clear whether that applies regardless of whether face coverings are worn, but I would assume it does. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that when responding. It also includes

“travelling in a car or other small vehicle with an individual”,

which I presume is meant to exclude most forms of public transport such as buses, but may we have confirmation from the Minister of whether “small vehicle” is meant to cover all personal forms of travel or personal vehicles?

The bit in this regulation that I have more difficulty understanding is the exact remit of the phrase “close proximity” in regulation 5(c) regarding travel on an aeroplane. Is the Minister able to put “close proximity” into a measurable distance for the purposes of communicating this to our constituents?

Regulations 7 to 9 require a worker or agency worker to notify their employer of the requirement to self-isolate as soon as is reasonably possible. In addition, it prohibits employers or agencies from allowing them to work in any place except the place where they are self-isolating, and introduces fines for employers who knowingly breach the regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, there are understandable concerns from individuals who are required to comply with the self-isolation regulations, because what is missing is any kind of extra protection for the employee or worker who might be on the receiving end of detrimental treatment from their employer for self-isolating.

Throughout our legislative landscape, there are protections for individuals in the workplace. There are protections for those raising concerns about breaches of the working time regulations or about health and safety in the workplace, and protections in whistleblowing legislation for those suffering detrimental treatment. However, we do not have any equivalent protection for the employee or worker who is required to self-isolate for any of the reasons set out in these regulations. I do not know whether that is a deliberate or an accidental omission, but it is concerning to me all the same, and it places the individual who is required to self-isolate in a very vulnerable position.

We need to make it as easy as possible for people to self-isolate, and not leave them exposed to detrimental treatment, such as refusal to pay sick pay, if they are entitled to it, or possibly even dismissal. There is nothing in these regulations to stop workers receiving punishment for self-isolating from a particularly unhelpful employer. I have heard concerns from constituents that their period of self-isolation would trigger a sickness absence review, or be used as part of an absence review process that is already under way.

It is quite possible that people will have to self-isolate on multiple occasions, because, say, other members of their household get symptoms or test positive, so I am sure we can all understand the genuine anxieties people have about telling their employer that they have to self-isolate for a second or third time. Why is there nothing in these regulations to give people workplace protections for doing the right thing?

The Government website advice page entitled, “Self-isolating after returning to the UK: your employment rights”—I accept that that is a slightly different situation from the period of self-isolation envisaged within these regulations, but it was the only advice page on the site that I could find on the issue of employment rights and self-isolation—talks about people working from home if they can. That is absolutely the right and obvious thing to do, but I am sure the Minister will appreciate that that option is not available to everyone.

The website goes on to suggest that as an alternative, annual leave could be taken. That raises the very interesting question of whether that advice would apply in this situation. I very much question whether we could call a period during which someone is legally required to remain at home annual leave. I would be grateful if the Minister could state for the record what advice has been given to employers on how they should classify a forced period of self-isolation.

I would like to make it clear that I am not at all comfortable with the idea of employers being able arbitrarily to designate a period of self-isolation as annual leave. There is a tension here with what the working time regulations allow; they state that in the absence of any other agreement, an employer can designate particular periods as annual leave. My question to the Minister is whether there is anything to stop an employer declaring to an employee that, as they will not be available because of self-isolation, they will be classed as being on annual leave.

That also raises the question of whether employers could put pressure on employees to take this period as annual leave, perhaps suggesting to them that if they do not, it will be classed as an unauthorised absence and will go on their employment record. It would be helpful if the Government stated clearly through guidance or regulations that a period of self-isolation should be classed as other leave, and cannot be classed as unauthorised leave, sickness absence, or annual leave that can be counted as part of any annual entitlement, and that it cannot be used in a disciplinary or capability process. If we are to improve compliance, it is important that we have that clearly set out.

[Catherine McKinnell]

There is another aspect. The economy faces a challenging period ahead, and businesses need to make savings. There will be employers who will not necessarily cite self-isolation as the reason why they are dismissing or penalising an employee. Although we cannot legislate for everything that an employer might decide to do, the Government could do a lot more to send the clear message that such behaviour is not acceptable and will be frowned on. It is socially unacceptable for any employer or business to treat any employee detrimentally for doing the right thing in relation to coronavirus. The Government could do much more to set a very clear tone on that front.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I practised employment law, I saw an amazing number of coincidences: when employees raised complaints about or concerns with their employers, other issues would suddenly be raised from out of nowhere, in a pushback against the employee; we are used to that. There is a role for the Government here. There is something we can do to give employees more confidence that they will not face adverse consequences for doing the right thing; that is what we are trying to achieve.

The intention of the regulations, as we know, is to increase compliance. The Minister referred to a study that the Department has undertaken. I presume it is the same one that I have read about in the media, which I believe has been analysed by members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. Why did it take so long for that to come out, given that the study began in February? I will go into more detail on the findings of the study. It is reported that people were asked why they did not self-isolate for 14 days. Some of the reasons given included caring for a vulnerable person at 9.9%; going to work at 8.9%; and thinking that they had already had coronavirus and were immune at 10.4%. I hope that with greater public information and engagement, we will see a reduction in those giving the latter reason. The second reason will hopefully be dealt with by the self-isolation payment, but there is nothing I can see in the exceptions in regulation 2(3)(b) that covers the first of those situations.

I note that under the regulations someone can take their parrot to the vet when they are self-isolating, but they cannot provide care for their elderly grandparent. I am not for one minute suggesting that those who are self-isolating should do that. We do not want to risk those who are already vulnerable coming into contact with someone who has to self-isolate, but it is estimated that around one in eight adults, or 6.5 million people, is a carer. Some of those people will be asked to self-isolate, and will be unable to provide care as they would normally. Hopefully they will be able to find others in the family, or friends, to step in, but of course many family members are in the same household, and they might be required to self-isolate as well. There will be some tension when people who are asked to self-isolate have caring responsibilities that cannot be fulfilled. Is a Government strategy being adopted to try to take the pressure away from people in such situations, so that we can make sure that someone can step in and provide the necessary care when a carer is asked to self-isolate?

Perhaps the most concerning finding of the survey was that only 18% of people with symptoms self-isolated. That went down to just 11% among those who were told to self-isolate by Test and Trace. I know those figures have not been peer-reviewed, but this is the best information that we have. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the basis on which the regulations were formed?

As we know, there are questions about entitlement to self-isolation payments being tied to the receipt of universal credit, working tax credit, income-based employment and support allowance, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, income support, housing benefit and/or pension credit. Although around 4 million people are potentially covered by that, it is not everyone, and there may be those who are not in receipt of any of those benefits who do not receive any contractual sick pay, and so would be left trying to claim statutory sick pay or employment and support allowance. That is frankly not good enough.

We know SSP is far below the rates set for the self-isolation payment, and the Secretary of State himself famously said that he could not live on that amount. I ask the Minister whether there will be any consideration of whether to relax the restrictions on eligibility for this payment. We are asking those who are not eligible at the moment to take a reduction of 70% or 80% to their pay every fortnight. We are already seeing constituents who are not eligible for any support in significant financial hardship.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned, there is an issue about school children as well. This issue most notably occurs when parents are having to self-isolate to look after children who have developed symptoms or have been sent home on the instructions of the school. I ask the Minister whether there are any plans to look at the dilemma of parents of children who have been sent home from school and are not eligible for any payment.

Regulation 10 deals with enforcement and gives powers to an authorised person, such as a police officer, or a person designated by the Secretary of State to act in support of enforcement. It would enable such a person to direct people to return to the place where they should be self-isolating, and in cases where an authorised person believes that a child is repeatedly failing to comply, they may also direct the person responsible for that child to ensure compliance as far as is possible. It also sets out that reasonable force may be used to enforce the regulation’s requirements if that is necessary, and an authorised person is allowed to exercise power under this regulation only if they have reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

Regulation 11 deals with offences under these regulations that are punishable on conviction by fines. Fixed penalty notices are available as an alternative. I will not go through the full list of offences that are created or the level of fines, as other hon. Members wish to speak. Suffice it to say that there is a considerable number in there.

The explanatory memorandum states that these regulations have

“a key role to play in slowing or preventing a rise in the rate of reproduction (R) of Covid-19 and reducing the total number of infected people”.

That is the overarching intention behind most of the regulations that we have been debating in recent weeks. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has expressed its surprise that the explanatory memorandum failed to mention that it had been reported that these stronger measures are required as a result of the study that we have discussed, which mentioned low levels of compliance.

The Committee also noted its surprise that the explanatory memorandum did not mention the figure on compliance, or give the Government’s estimate of the numbers breaching quarantine, in support of policy changes. As the independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours reported on 16 September, the rate of self-isolation is very low—less than 20%, based on self-reporting. It is particularly low among the youngest and poorest. It was an oversight for the Government not to mention that in the explanatory memorandum, and not to explain that that was part of the motivation for this regulation, if indeed that is the case,.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised a concern about the potential for discrimination. As we have heard, regulation 2 requires someone to self-isolate where their sample tests positive for coronavirus, or where they have been in close contact with such a person. The exception is when they are notified by the NHS covid-19 smartphone app. That app cost £4 million, was rolled out many months late, and does not operate on phones that are more than five years old—and does not actually require people legally to self-isolate; I am sure that will come as a surprise to the millions of people who have downloaded it. That is about as far away from world-beating as possible.

The Department has confirmed the app has explicitly been designed to protect the anonymity of users, and the legal duty and fines do not apply to people notified through it. Instead, it will just advise the individual to self-isolate. The Department says:

“there is no discriminatory effect: the legal duty to self-isolate applies equally to anyone identified as a contact through standard contact tracing processes, whether or not they also happen to be an app user.”

This does raise questions about inequalities among certain groups, such as the elderly or those on low incomes who may not have the necessary technology to use the app. Although 14 million people have downloaded it, far more have not.

We know that the app is only accessible to those people whose phones have modern software, thereby excluding people who have older phones or no phone at all. Those people are typically poorer and older members of society. These groups are therefore more likely to be required to self-isolate through track and trace than through the app and are subsequently more likely to be in receipt of fines than those with the latest smartphones. The Committee pointed out that this raises concerns regarding the potential for avoidance.

The Government cannot track those who have been informed by the NHS app, creating a potential loophole for those informed by the app to avoid being fined for failing to self-isolate. If the Government do not know people are being contacted through the app, how can they be contacted? Again, there is a flaw in these regulations that there has been no impact assessment or consultation prior to their publication.

Returning to enforcement, the fines are substantial—an enormous sum of money to most people—but they are, of course, dependent on contact tracing working effectively. The most recent statistics show that only two thirds of people who tested positive were even transferred to the contact tracing system, and of those only 68.6% of close contacts were reached. That is a very low figure, almost as poor as when we first started, and it is lower for cases handled either online or by call centres. The overall proportion of people reached has decreased for each of the last three weeks and is similar now to when we first started. If we cannot actually get hold of people, how can we ask them to self-isolate? SAGE has warned that unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, the impact of testing, tracing and isolating is likely to decline in future rather than improve, which is very worrying.

It is expected that around 4 million people will qualify for the payment, but as I say, significant numbers will not qualify. On 28 September, I tabled a written question some time ago asking how many applications and approvals have been granted for the self-isolation payment in the first week of its operation. That was a named day question due for response 11 days ago, but I have not had a response yet. Is the Minister able to update us on the uptake of self-isolation payments?

It is not just about the compliance, of course, it is about enforcement. We know that the police have expressed concerns about their ability to enforce all the regulations that have been introduced. I understand that over the weekend a memorandum of understanding was signed with police forces to enable them to access Test and Trace data. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified two points in that respect. Is it the case that until this date the police forces were not able to access the data? Will she comment on the point made by many in the medical profession, that the involvement of police may dissuade people from getting a test in the first place? The Minister said in her opening remarks that it is important not to discourage people from taking part in the system. Could measures be put in place to mitigate those concerns? Police forces have made it clear in relation to the recent introduction of fines for other offences that officers do not have the resources or capacity to enforce these fines. If the Minister is able to give us a realistic assessment of the resourcing for enforcement of these regulations, I would be most grateful.

I return briefly to authorised persons under regulation 12(12)(c), which gives the Secretary of State broad powers to designate officers for the purposes of these regulations. As I have already mentioned, these officers have the ability to use reasonable force to ensure compliance with the regulations. It is, I think, quite a worrying development that we have unspecified officers able to use reasonable force. Could the Minister set out who, if anyone, has been given that designation by the Secretary of State to carry out these functions, and, if so, what skills, experience, and training do they have in the use of reasonable force?

I would also like some clarity regarding the liability of parents where children fail to comply with the self-isolation regulations. It is set out that the authorised person may direct the person responsible for the child to ensure compliance as far as that is possible, but there is some indication that parents will be found liable, in terms of fixed penalty notices, for the actions of their children. How realistic is it to expect a parent to make a burly 16-year-old stay in the house for two weeks?

With regard to the fines issued so far, new data last week showed that this is a bit of a postcode lottery, with police forces issuing wildly different levels of fines. Some have issued more than 1,000, and others fewer than 100—this is across the spectrum of regulations to deal with coronavirus. Will the Minister comment on what appears to be a postcode lottery when it comes to enforcement of regulations and say whether any steps will be taken to ensure that there is no disparity in their application? I have asked on a number of previous occasions what additional resources will be given to the police to ensure compliance with regulations. Is the disparity partly to do with resources or other priorities, and what can the Government do to address that concern?

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is making some incredibly important points, but does he share my concern about hearing just a week or two ago that in Dagenham or Redbridge—I am not sure which area it was, but it was somewhere like that—the local authority was trying to enforce regulations, but was overturned by the Government?

[Justin Madders]

Yes, I did read that with concern. I am not sure whether it has been addressed with the new tier 3, 2 and 1 regulations that were introduced last week. Clearly, we cannot have a situation in which, on the one hand, the Government’s message is that the rules have to be applied equally, but on the other hand, authorities that want to take swift enforcement action are prevented from doing so. We have to apply the law consistently and firmly in a situation such as this.

I am nearing the end of my comments and I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to ask about other measures that the Department might introduce to ensure compliance with the rules, particularly given the suggestion that Test and Trace call handlers may now be contacting more regularly people who are self-isolating. Given the shoddy record so far from the likes of Sitel and Serco, I wonder whether it is the right move to divert staff to that, taking them away from their core responsibility of contact tracing. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that Test and Trace call handlers doing these additional contacts with people who are self-isolating will be able to carry on and have the same capacity to address those needing to be contacted in the system in the first place? Will those additional responsibilities now being put on these private providers result in additional payments being made to them outside their original contract? I do not know whether the Minister will be able to give us an answer on that today, but it is very important that we have some transparency in this area.

We will not be opposing the regulations today. We have long argued for greater support for those who need to self-isolate, but questions remain, particularly about eligibility and enforceability, not to mention many other areas that we have covered during the debate today. I appreciate that I have asked lots of questions. If the Minister cannot deal with them all in her response today, I will be more than happy if she is able to put her answers in writing in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I am not familiar with that local authority, but from my experience in my own area, I think the local authority in Gloucestershire would do a very good job, and I think that we would get better results.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to data sharing with the police. Some of the headlines at the weekend were perhaps unhelpful, because they had the wrong impact. I do not know whether this was the Government’s thinking, but although one can argue that cranking up the toughness of the regime may have an impact on some people, to suggest that people may get into trouble with police may drive them away from testing and sharing their contact information. When one actually reads the information on the NHS website about how the data will be shared, it seems incredibly reasonable. In the first instance, it is shared with the local authority, and only if the local authority cannot make progress is it shared with the police. If the police are investigating a specific case, they can request it, so the impression of blanket sharing of information with the police was not helpful. I do not know whether that was the Government’s intention, but it was not entirely helpful.

My only question for the Minister is: has the memorandum of understanding between the Department and the National Police Chiefs Council been published? I have investigated but been unable to find it anywhere. It would be better if there was more transparency and we were clear about what information may be shared. We saw one of the potential risks at the weekend when the busy NHS covid-19 app Twitter account had to leap into action to reassure everybody that information from their mobile phones could not make its way to the police. The concern was that that would reduce the uptake and use of the app.

I perhaps hold a different view from the hon. Gentleman, because I was pleased that the Government changed tack and moved away from the central database option for the app and went with Google and Apple API, whereby the information is stored on a phone. A central database might have seemed attractive, but it would have reduced uptake and many people would not have wanted the app. Having more people use the app and being aware if they need to isolate, which is in their interest and that of the community, is better than having a central database and no one using the app because they do not want personal information being stored by the Government.

[Justin Madders]

We agree with that move, but we were trying to address the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about inadvertent discrimination as a result of use of the app.

[Mr Harper]

Point taken.

It is welcome that the regulations create an offence of falsely giving contact information, meaning that someone needlessly has to isolate at some considerable cost to themselves. Self-isolation is the equivalent of house arrest, which under the criminal justice system requires a high bar of evidence.

Under the regulations, if Test and Trace tells someone to self-isolate they must do so, but what procedures are available to challenge that? Some people will not have travelled on public transport or have met the criterion of having been closer to someone than 2 metres for 15 minutes. If they receive a message that they must self-isolate but know they have not been in contact with anyone, is there a mechanism whereby they can challenge that? I suspect the answer is that there is not because of the need of the person who has tested positive to be anonymous, but if that has been considered by Ministers I would like them to say so and accept that it is unfortunate but that there is nothing that can be done about it.

I am concerned about it because for those in this room self-isolation is not a massive burden: we are still paid and can do quite a lot of our job at home. But for some people self-isolation is a real problem, and if it is not necessary in order to keep the community safe I do not want people to have to do it and I do not want anything to damage their confidence in the regulations.

Regulation 2(3)(a)(i) states that somebody must self-isolate in their home or in the home of a friend or family member. When we were debating where university students had to self-isolate, I asked whether, if a university student or anyone else who potentially has more than one home tests positive, they have to self-isolate in their university accommodation. Clearly, they must not do what a Member of this House did and get on public transport to go to another place and put other people at risk. However, if they were able to travel from one location to another in a private car, for example, where they were not going to come into contact with anyone else, and the person they were staying with was perfectly happy for them to do so, is there anything in these regulations that prohibits them from doing that?

The reason I ask is that the Department for Education is putting quite a lot of effort into thinking about what changes might have to take place in the period running up to Christmas to enable students to go home. When I read these regulations, I could not quite see on the face of it any reason why even a student who had tested positive, if they could travel safely, with the agreement of their family and where there was nobody at particular risk, could not just go home anyway and have their period of self-isolation at home, while obviously taking appropriate precautions. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

The final point I will raise—I think I am perhaps a bit firmer on this than the Labour party—is that I have a particular reason to be unhappy with the enforcement powers in the regulations, particularly giving the power to use “reasonable force” to officers of the state. Let me tell the Committee briefly why I am very concerned about this, to the extent that I have already made it clear on the Floor of the House that I am not satisfied by the Minister’s answers I will seek to vote against these regulations even though I am completely in favour of people’s having to self-isolate.

I became a Minister in the Home Office shortly after some individuals who are being deported had sadly lost their lives as a result of poor restraint procedures on aircraft. We carried out a significant independent inquiry into that and into how to use force, if required, on somebody in a way that kept them safe. I have no problem with powers being given to police constables; they already have the power to use reasonable force and their use of reasonable force is governed not only by a number of pieces of primary legislation, but by common law. A new police officer has a five-day training course specifically on using reasonable force and has to attend a two-day refresher course every year. There is a national decision-making framework that officers are familiar with, which they use to make those decisions, and in all their safety training that they are assessed to ensure they understand how to use reasonable force and what their legal requirements are. They also have to state the length of time since their personal training and refresher course when they use force, and any use of force by a police officer is reviewed by an independent panel.

That part of it I am fine with, but I have a real problem with the other three groups of people being given that power. People may not be aware that police community support officers do not have the power to use reasonable force except to detain someone until a police officer arrives. They do not have the power to use force any more than a member of the public does, and they do not go through all those training procedures that I have just talked about. I have no idea what sorts of people the,

“person designated by the Secretary of State”,

will be, but I want to know who we are thinking of and what training they have undertaken to ensure that this is safe.

The final group is officers designated by the local authority. I do not want local authority employees having the power to use reasonable force. I do not think the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government does either, because if we look at the regulations that the House approved last week on tiers, there are powers to use reasonable force in those, and although they still include the powers to use reasonable force for police community support officers, the powers available to local government employees have been constrained to a specific part of the regulations. They have been narrowed—I am still not happy with them, but they have been narrowed.

The reason why that is important is that we are talking here about using force on people with coronavirus. In itself, that is a risk. Giving the power to use reasonable force to agents of the state is a big deal. We do not generally give state employees the power to use reasonable force to detain and move people. That is a limited power. Because of all the regulatory requirements, where we give that power to police officers, there is a huge number of controls around it, quite properly. Unless the Minister can give me a very good reason why the powers are here, and say what the thinking is behind them and what steps the Government have taken to make sure they will be exercised in a safe manner, I cannot support these regulations.

Not everyone will feel the same way as me, but I have been a Minister with this responsibility, and have seen what happens when powers like these are used inappropriately: they lead to deaths. I do not think they should be here. Frankly, we should take these regulations away and strip those powers out. They should be given only to police officers—people trained to use them, and who know how to use them when all the appropriate safeguards in place. This is incredibly serious. I conclude there, to give the Minister time to answer our questions in the remaining 20 minutes.

Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th October 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome this debate, and I do not intend to take up too much time, as my party supports the Bill, as I think do all Members who have spoken today.

As we know, cosmetic procedures such as botulinum toxin—or Botox, as it is more commonly known—are used to reduce the appearance of wrinkles, and dermal fillers are used to fill out wrinkles and creases in the skin and to fill the cheeks and lips. Those procedures are becoming more and more commonplace. While the effects of the procedures are not permanent—usually lasting three to four months or six to 18, depending on which procedure has been undertaken—it is recommended, as with all cosmetic procedures, that they should be carried out by an experienced and suitably qualified practitioner.

As we have heard, there are a number of associated risks. Although side-effects are rare, in the worst-case scenarios they can include infection, scarring and tissue death, as well as psychological problems. We have heard a number of stories about serious issues and problems arising from these procedures. It is, then, a concern that currently there are no statutory provisions to restrict access to these procedures for children and young people. As has been said, they should be on a par with other appearance-related procedures, such as tattoos and sunbed use, for which there is already a statutory minimum age of 18. The measures in the Bill are necessary to protect young people from the serious consequences of uninformed and unregulated procedures. The hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) summed up the mood of a number of Members when he said he could not believe that this was not already covered in law.

In 2013, the Keogh review of regulation of cosmetic interventions called for greater protection for vulnerable people, noting that young girls in particular were becoming more concerned about their appearance, as we have heard from several speakers. A Mental Health Foundation study found that 40% of teenagers said that images on social media cause them to worry about their body image. Be Real’s “Somebody Like Me” campaign found that 36% of 11 to 16-year-olds throughout the UK would do “whatever it takes” to look good, including considering surgery. Whatever it takes—what a chilling phrase in this context. Worryingly, Save Face, a national register of accredited practitioners who provide non-surgical cosmetic treatments, has reported increasing numbers of complaints from under-18s who have suffered at the hands of unregulated practitioners.

For too long we have not had the robust, consistent and enforceable standards that we need for these treatments and there has been no accountability for malpractice. The absence of standards leaves practitioners with no support and customers with no guarantee of safety. The Bill is a big step in terms of addressing those issues. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) on bringing the Bill to the House and on her hard work. As we have heard, it is quite a lot of work to get a private Member’s Bill not only debated but passed into law. Her introductory speech was compelling and she made a powerful case about the need for additional safeguards. She was right to say that some of the examples of malpractice that have impacted on women’s health go far beyond today’s discussion, but there are a number of other examples of where things have gone on for too long without intervention.

I wish to recognise the contributions from the other hon. Members who have spoken today. There is clearly a great deal of knowledge and expertise in this debate. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) in particular gave us a comprehensive overview of the medical aspects of this issue. He was absolutely right about accountability being at the heart of the Bill. Most Members spoke about the pervasive influence of social media in particular and its impact on young people in terms of the pressure that it puts on them. Clearly, that is beyond the scope of today’s discussion, but there is certainly a mood in the House in favour of doing more in that policy area.

While I am talking about Members’ contributions, I wish to pay tribute to the work of the all-party group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing, and particularly its co-chairs, my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). The group has been highlighting the lack of age restrictions for these procedures and has also raised concerns about advertising and social media promotion that leaves young people vulnerable and at risk. The group’s inquiry on non-surgical cosmetic procedures is the first to assess the regulation of such procedures and its adequacy. The inquiry has brought together people from across the sector to talk about the lack of robust, consistent and enforceable standards and the all-party group is looking to reach consensus on those issues. The inquiry is still ongoing, but I am sure that when it reports it will be a helpful tool for the Government in respect of future legislation, should any be necessary.

Coming back to the Bill itself, as we know, it is intended to safeguard children from the potential risks associated with these procedures. The Bill prohibits specific cosmetic procedures, commonly known as botox and dermal fillers, being performed on young people under the age of 18 in England for purely aesthetic purposes, although, as I understand it, the procedures will still be available to under-18s through registered health professionals where there is an assessed medical need. The Bill provides that the administration of botulinum toxin and cosmetic fillers by injection on a person of the age of 18 will be an offence and that the person who commits that offence is liable on summary conviction to an unlimited fine. The Bill also imposes a duty on businesses to ensure that they do not arrange or perform procedures on under-18s and that will be enforced by a local authority regulatory regime.

The offence is a strict liability offence, which means that if it is committed by a business, or arrangements are made for the administration of one of the substances covered by the Bill for a cosmetic purpose, it will unfortunately be found guilty automatically. However, a defence of reasonable precautions and due diligence will be available to businesses if they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to require proof of a person’s age before any procedures took place. The Bill, if it becomes law, will also provide that any body corporate that commits an offence, or if one is attributable to the neglect of an officer of the body corporate, then that officer, as well as the body corporate, will be guilty of the offence.

Finally, although the Bill does not create any new enforcement or investigatory powers, it does set out that local authorities can enforce the provisions in the Bill using their powers available under schedule 5 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Clearly, these are significant new responsibilities for local authorities. Of course we have expressed concern over the way that councils have had their funding stripped over the past decade, so it does raise questions about how comprehensive the enforcement regime will be. That probably is an issue that this House will return to on many other occasions, but it is not a reason for us to reject the Bill today. I conclude by welcoming what the Bill seeks to achieve, and I wish it a speedy passage through the rest of its parliamentary process.

Public Health: Coronavirus Regulations

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

On buying-in the local community, would the Secretary of State consider having a Government postcode checker so that people know exactly where they should be, in having the three tiers?

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

That was my idea.

[Matt Hancock]

My friend, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), says from a sedentary position that that was his idea, but success has many fathers and I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) that such a postcode checker was launched this morning. I will send him the link. It is still in beta, so it will be constantly improved, not least to ensure that, if a postcode covers an area that is in two different levels, that is clear. That is being sorted at the moment. A postcode checker is a great idea. It tells you the level of local risk. Furthermore, the NHS covid app, which has now been downloaded by over 17 million people, has a link to the local alert level as well.

To turn back to the measures before us, we will keep the measures under constant review. The overarching regulations sunset after six months, but regulation 8(1) of statutory instrument 1105 makes clear that the allocation of a particular area to local alert level 3 will automatically expire after 28 days. We will work with local areas on the level they need to be at and that work continues at pace. Decisions to move local areas between the levels will be considered by the JBC, working across Government and with local government on the normal weekly cycle. While, of course, there will be times when we need to act quickly to contain the virus, we want to give the House the opportunity to consider the measures on the medium and high local alert levels, and the baseline measures for the very high alert level. I urge the House to support the measures set out today.

Draft European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (EFTA States) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 7th October 2020 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Fovargue.

I thank the Minister for his introduction to the regulations. Dry and technical though they are, they are none the less extremely important, as he outlined. As we have heard, the regulations seek to implement parts of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement and the EEA EFTA separation agreement concerning RPQ—the recognition of professional qualifications of health and care professionals and those that are not covered by the existing “no deal” RPQ legislation, which was adopted in March 2019. As we also heard, these regulations will also make minor corrections to the 2019 EU exit regulations.

Current EU law sets out a reciprocal framework of rules for the recognition of doctors’ professional qualifications. This enables EEA and Swiss nationals to have their qualifications recognised and gain access to the regulated profession in which they are qualified, in order to work on a permanent or temporary basis. After the end of the Brexit transition period, those arrangements will no longer apply to the UK because current legislation to implement them will not operate effectively.

New provisions detailing the route that EEA qualified health and social care professionals will take to join the register were added in March 2019. The regulations ensure that the same provisions are available for Swiss and EFTA qualified health and social care professionals.

With just under three months until the end of the transition period it is not only right but prudent to put arrangements in place to clarify how Swiss and EFTA health and social care professionals will join the relevant UK medical registers. That is vital to mitigate any possible disruption to the NHS medical workforce, and it is a matter of regret that we are dealing with this rather late in the day. I am sure that the individuals concerned would have liked greater certainty earlier, but we are where we are.

I have several questions about the possible impact of the regulations on the delivery of health care. As we know, the nationals of the EU and other countries make up 9.1% of doctors in England’s hospitals and community health services. They account for 6% of all nurses and 5.8% of scientific, therapeutic and technical staff. Given the record number of NHS vacancies, there is clear potential for workforce disruption if EEA and Swiss nationals cannot register in the UK. We must do all that we can to minimise that risk in a no-deal scenario. That is a particularly important consideration given that, prior to the covid-19 outbreak, there were 106,000 vacancies across the NHS, including 44,000 nursing vacancies and around 120,000 vacancies in social care.

There is no doubt that the current workforce challenge has been exacerbated by the referendum result, or since then at the very least. The percentage of doctors and nurses with EU nationality grew between 2009 and 2016, but since then the percentage of EU national nurses has fallen and the Nursing and Midwifery Council has reported that the number of people from the EEA on its permanent register has decreased steadily from 38,024 in 2016-17 to just 31,385 in 2019-20, with 1,650 people, or equivalent to 5%, leaving the register in the last year. At the same time, the number of EU nurses and midwives coming to work in the UK has also fallen from 6,382 in 2016-17 to just 913 who joined the register in 2019-20.

Given the contribution of EEA and Swiss-qualified professionals to the NHS, it is vital that we stem the tide of vacancies. For that reason, when we debated the previous regulations more than 18 months ago, I asked the then Minister what assurances he could give that the NHS would be able to stem the huge losses of those important health and social care staff. Given the numbers I have cited today, I ask that question of the current Minister.

The Government have previously acknowledged that changes to the procedures for recognising qualifications could make access to health and care professions more difficult. That too could affect the availability of professionals. Given that no impact assessment was published alongside today’s measure, can the Minister confirm whether any study has been made of the costs or barriers that may prevent applicants from the EEA and Switzerland from entering the country, and the possible impact on the health service?

Can the Minister clarify who would be captured by enforceable EU rights, as drafted? I know that EU regulators have raised concerns about that. The regulations allow a four-year period for Swiss and certain UK nationals who have professional qualifications, or are in the process of obtaining a qualification before the completion of the transition period, to apply for recognition under pre-exit rules, and that includes those with third-country qualifications that have been recognised or are in the process of being recognised in Switzerland at the end of the transition period. Regulators are concerned that it is not clear whether that requirement is just intended to capture third-country nationals with enforceable EU rights or EEA nationals with enforceable EU rights. I understand that the current drafting refers to third-country nationals, which appears to suggest that it applies to the former example rather than to the latter. Some regulators are calling for clarity and guidance so that they can operate within the new rules from 1 January 2021. Can the Minister confirm that such guidance will be available ahead of that date?

Although it is clear that the regulations are temporary, there is no clarity about plans to introduce sustainable, long-term arrangements for registering and licensing EEA and Swiss nationals. Will the Minister give us some further information on what plans he has beyond the current timeframe, and the four-year period provided for by the statutory instrument? I recognise that the measure is an improvement on where we were before, but clearly work will still need to be done at the end of that four-year period, so can he confirm that he will work with health and care regulators to design a bespoke system for the recognition of professional qualifications? How will he ensure that such a system puts patient safety at the forefront, applies consistent standards and is fair and transparent for all overseas-trained professionals to join the relevant professional register, regardless of where in the world they qualified?

Finally, the impact on UK professionals wishing to work in the EEA must not be forgotten. Of course, under the current rules, up until the end of 2020 the current UK qualifications will be recognised in other EEA member states under the current legal framework. But while the amendments to the Medical Act 1983 that were adopted in March 2019, and which are being tweaked by today’s regulations, allow for the majority of EEA-qualified professionals to have their qualification recognised by UK regulators after the end of the transition period, those provisions are not automatically mutually reciprocated by the EU. So, after 31 December 2020, UK nationals and EEA nationals holding a UK medical qualification will be treated as third-country nationals if they seek to have their qualification recognised in an EEA state. Has the Minister had any discussions with his EU counterparts about the impact on UK professionals wishing to practise in the EU after the end of the transition period? I think he said there were some talks about mutual recognition, but can he confirm whether EU countries are intending to continue to recognise UK qualifications once that becomes a matter for the regulators in the EEA area? Does he have an estimate of how many UK professionals will be affected by that issue?

We do not oppose the regulations or what they seek to achieve. We recognise, as the Minister—and I believe every hon. Member—does, the valuable contribution to the NHS of staff from the EEA and Swiss areas.

[Edward Argar]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve opposite the shadow Minister, who always approaches these debates in a spirit of common sense and constructive challenge; so I am grateful to him, although I am not quite sure what I should read into his reference to me as the “current” Minister, and whether he knows something that I do not. Maybe it is a reflection on the number of my predecessors that he has seen standing in this place opposite him during his tenure.

[Justin Madders]

I meant that the Minister is a very talented individual, and no doubt will be elevated to higher service in the not too distant future.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind, but I am not sure whether his comments will help or hinder that cause—as the Whip takes note.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the statutory instrument is dry and technical but important. It represents our taking—in co-operation with the Opposition, for whose support we are grateful—a prudent series of steps to help address concerns about what will happen for those professionals from this country who work in Switzerland and EFTA and, likewise, the reciprocal rights.

The hon. Gentleman asked several questions; I will try to respond to them all. He mentioned the timing. Everyone would wish that we were able to bring measures such as this forward as soon as possible, to give those affected as much time as possible to prepare, but in the nature of things, with all the multiple strands being negotiated, these matters came to be negotiated after the 2019 SI and we have brought them forward as soon as we could following the conclusion of those treaties.

The hon. Gentleman reflected a great deal on workforce numbers, and the impact on the workforce more broadly of the decision in the referendum to leave the EU and what steps we were taking to ensure that the NHS and social care continued to have the numbers they needed to provide the extraordinary service that all those professionals perform for people. He was right to highlight a small drop in the number of registered nurses from EU and EFTA countries—although I would point out that the number of doctors from those countries has remained broadly constant since 2016. Actually, that small reduction has been more than offset by the significant increase in the number of nurses coming from outside EU and EFTA states—an increase of around 29,500. In reply to his perfectly reasonable question on what guarantees, what reassurances, I can offer about the continued supply of nurses, doctors and social care workers to our caring services, I remind him that the Government are well on target to meet their pledge of 50,000 more nurses in the NHS in the course of this Parliament. I think—I may be slightly out—we are well over 13,000 up. While I note his point, if we look at the overall nursing, social care and medical workforce in the round, any slight reduction from EU sources has been more than offset by increases from elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there were any other costs or barriers or assessments thereof for Swiss or EFTA nationals. None has been drawn to our attention. The regulations address one of the key things that was a risk and a barrier, but if he is aware of any specific issues, I am happy for him to raise them with me.

The hon. Gentleman’s final point was on EU enforceable rights. I will endeavour to give him clarity. This answer is slightly technical, so if he feels his question is not answered fully, I am happy for him to write to me following the Committee and I will try to provide more detail. The regulations apply to both Swiss nationals with qualifying professional qualifications and to a national of a third country who has an enforceable EU right through their relationship with a Swiss national. That means, in effect, that spouses and dependants of Swiss nationals must have their health and care qualifications assessed in the same way in which a Swiss national would. There is a single exception relating to EU nationals who are spouses or dependants of particular groups. I will write to him with some of the technical points around that if he wishes, because I think he seeks a greater degree of clarity.

The hon. Gentleman also raised more broadly the long-term arrangements for the EU workforce in our health and social care sector. I would have been surprised had he not done so. My answer, which will not surprise him—I suspect it is the same one he has received from many of my predecessors—is that these are matters outwith the treaty and outwith Switzerland and EFTA. They are matters for the ongoing negotiations with the EU that we are engaging in continuously and constructively. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, but I hope that both sides can find a way forward to an agreement in the coming weeks.

Question put and agreed to.

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.

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?

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, 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.