Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Justin Madders and Jo Churchill(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Churchill
I am working on the next tranche of funding to help tackle this scourge. My hon. Friend talks tirelessly about the challenge in Harrow. I would be really happy to come and see the issue for myself, and discuss with his constituents what more we can do, because Conservatives absolutely want to get rid of this blight.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Debate between Justin Madders and Jo Churchill(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for his contribution. I can begin by saying I agree that his focus needs to be on keeping people safe. However, we are here to discuss the regulations that were put through on the 17th, and once again we had quite a meander around the regulations that might underpin any future decisions. I will focus on the things that I believe I can inform him about, and I have noted and listened to the others, but I do not find them particularly relevant to what we are agreeing here today.
There is a need to take account of the latest data before we make the regulations. We said that the earliest date was going to be the 17th, but no earlier, and the same is true for the recommendations at each level of the road map. There was no promise that the date would be the 17th, and therefore the data that we look at and evaluate is very close to that point in time.
That leads me on to the question of why the statutory instrument is necessary. The Opposition cannot constantly ask for the data to be the most up-to-the-minute data, then not allow us to collect up-to-the-minute data, and refer back to the fact that it is problematic to make the timings fit. That is why we have ended up in this situation. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern that we are always discussing these things after the event, but we need to make sure that we are discussing what is relevant and what is there at the time, to make sure the decisions are as close to the data and as relevant to all of us as they can be.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I think she has misunderstood the point I was making. I am not suggesting for a minute that these decisions should be made earlier: I absolutely agree that the most up-to-date data should be used. What I was saying was that we know what measures were envisaged on that date, because they were set out back in February, so it would have been perfectly possible to put those in regulations at the right time.
Jo Churchill
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that was the indication of the road map, but there is always a need to look at whether we should flex all, some, or none of those things that were outlined in the road map. However, I put on record once again the fact that we appreciate and value the scrutiny role that Parliament plays, and we have tried to balance it with the dynamic nature of the pandemic. That is why we find ourselves on the Floor of the House, in Committee and so on going over these things, which are important.
I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that at all stages, I have tried very hard to be as open and transparent as I can. He has asked me to confirm points about the surge testing and things that are happening in parts of the country today, including his own, but I will gently say that we had a briefing on this earlier, and I do not feel it is relevant to these regulations that came into force on the 17th. As he knows, we had a full discussion with members of the medical profession, Public Health England and so on on that call. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that surge testing includes on-the-ground support from two local authorities; the use of the Army and mobile testing; surge testing and vaccination; supporting schools with their testing programme; and, as he said, PHE working with local schools and college leaders so that they can make the most appropriate decision for themselves and their environment, with reference to local data, rather than applying a blanket proposal.
On vaccination, as has always been the case, we are focusing on those in groups one to nine, making sure that we vaccinate the most vulnerable in a way that is based on age profiles. Our vaccination programme has followed the advice of the relevant committees and so on, and it has proven to be very successful: the way in which we have delivered it is now estimated to have saved some thousands of lives. We also, on any tests of positivity, have full genomic sequencing similar to that for water testing and so on, so I very much refute the idea that we are not making strong progress. Many other countries look towards us.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about travel, the Government’s priority is still protecting public health. At the time that he alluded to, around the beginning of the Delta variant, positive rates were three times higher from Bangladesh than from India, but if the pandemic effort has shown us anything, it is that we are in an incredibly dynamic situation and that things can change very quickly. We cannot just ask for everything to be open; it has to be a steady progression towards opening up—hence the road map.
Step 4 is a cautious plan to ease restrictions. It sets out a “no earlier than” approach, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to be aware that there will be further statements later today; I, too, will be listening attentively when that information comes forward. However, the progress to step 3 of the road map, which we are considering today, represented a considerable achievement. It started a cautious approach to easing lockdown, guided by the data, with the specific aim of avoiding a surge in cases that would have put unsustainable pressure on the NHS and claimed more lives. Data from the Joint Biosecurity Centre, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, and Public Health England informed the assessment that all steps at that point were met. We continued to monitor the situation closely, informed by all current data and scientific evidence, and we will continue to work alongside experts to make sure that at each stage of the pandemic we are taking decisions driven by the evidence.
I recognise the impact that the restrictions have had, and their easing is hugely welcome, but there is not one of us in the House who has not been affected, with constituents, local businesses and members of our own family who have struggled over the past 15 months. Making sure that we can progress in a methodical way that does not allow us to slip back is of huge importance. We must all continue to be cautious, follow the rules and take up offers of vaccination as soon as they are made. I thank the hon. Member and take on board his comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 585).
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Justin Madders and Jo Churchill(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
The Government have produced a four-step road map to ease restrictions across England. Before each step, an assessment is made against the four tests, including assessing the current risk posed by variants of concern. The move to step 3 on 17 May was based on the assessment that the risks were not fundamentally changed by those variants of concern. Step 4 is due no earlier than 21 June and the variants of concern will again be considered in advance.
Justin Madders
On Sky News, on Sunday, the Secretary of State was asked about figures that contradict his claim that India was not put on the red list at the same time as Bangladesh and Pakistan because positivity rates were three times higher in those countries. In response, he said that he did not recognise those figures, but he should have done, because they are his own figures from Test and Trace. Indeed, there are no published figures for the time the decision was made that support his claim. Given the allegation that the only reason there was a delay in putting India on the red list was to help secure a trade deal, and given that this delay is now having serious consequences, will the Minister agree to publish all the data and advice on which the decision was based, in the interests of transparency and accountability?
Jo Churchill
The positivity rates were three times higher from Pakistan than they were from India when we made that decision. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we keep these things under constant review and we would be equally lambasted if decisions were made before we had the correct information. Acting when we have the right information on variants of concern is an important thing; we will keep following the data.
Covid-19:International Travel
Debate between Justin Madders and Jo Churchill(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for raising this important issue on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank all Members of the House who have taken time for this wide-ranging debate: my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) Bracknell, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). The one thing it did absolutely perfectly was display the complexity of the area and how difficult it is to get to a perfect solution.
I will take from the debate that we all agree that people have made enormous sacrifices, both in the country and out of the country, and that the vaccine roll-out has been a tremendous success. However, I point out that we have not yet reached the under-30 age group. While everybody was lucid about allowing people who had had a vaccination to travel, nobody said anything about those who had not, or what the solution was for them. This debate has ranged from the travel industry to business travel and has covered the Department for Transport, jobs and a wide range of Departments, but at its heart is how we are dealing with family and friends.
The past 14 months have presented huge challenges for all of us, and it is only right that members of the public, like Ms Sinclair, should debate such issues of enormous interest to us. My heart goes out to everyone who, 14 months ago, did not want to spend the past year like this. However, many of the reasons why people make sacrifices, in this country and without, are well known to us all. Last Monday, we took an important move to step 3 of the Government’s road map, in that we removed the provision to stay in the UK. International and leisure travel is slowly—I repeat, slowly—starting again and there is a new traffic light system.
In essence, the petition asks whether family members and unmarried partners should be able to visit their families and partners abroad, specifically regarding the “stay at home” and “stay in the UK” measures, which were in effect until 29 March and 17 May respectively. Under “stay in the UK”, individuals had to have a reasonable excuse to leave the UK. As with all restrictions during the pandemic, no decision has been easy, and none has been taken lightly. Where international travel is concerned, we acted to control the spread of the virus and to reduce the risks of variants being imported and exported. It struck me as interesting that people assume that that is completely possible while exempting people in a whole range of different areas.
I have often argued against the party of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, which has said that we should have a more stringent managed quarantine system. Everyone cannot have everything; we have to have a balanced approach in what we are doing. At the heart of everything is protecting people. We are opening up, but we are going slowly. Where international travel is concerned, we do not want to export or import variants, as I said.
Infection rates have fallen back at points but, crucially, a large amount of the population are not yet vaccinated, so it is vital that we maintain additional restrictions while the programme continues through the cohorts and to counter the risk of import or export. I of course appreciate the desire to see loved ones. I sympathise with those who have not seen partners and family members for a long time. I, too, like everyone else in the Chamber, have constituents who have come to me with such challenges. I recognise how difficult it is for people with family and partners based abroad. The pandemic has presented unprecedented challenges. My thanks go to everyone for their contribution and to all those working in the health service. That is what has allowed us to arrive at where we are today.
Acknowledging instances of those with family members overseas, the “stay in the UK” regulations included a number of reasonable excuses—no one appeared to allude to them—to allow international travel in circumstances where visits could not be delayed. I have had constituents—[Interruption.] I will try to beat the bell. I have constituents who have used those exemptions, which include travel to support someone giving birth, to accompany someone to a medical appointment, to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person, including those of 70 years or older, a woman who is pregnant or those with underlying health conditions, or to say your last goodbyes at the end of life. So, there have been possibilities; to say that there has been none is just wrong. People could also travel out of the UK to attend their own wedding or civil partnership, or that of a close family member if at least one of the persons getting married or entering the partnership lives outside the UK.
As part of the road map, however, the Government took the prudent decision, informed by the latest data and analysis, not to allow international travel to see family members and partners more generally, however hard that feels. It was not an easy decision. Indeed, it is one of the many tough but necessary decisions taken as we continue to follow the road map out of lockdown. It is about finding a balance between priorities, including the need to save lives and to mitigate another surge in infections, as well as to avoid putting pressure on the NHS.
Those restrictions have bought us time: time to establish the vaccine roll-out and reduce the spread of disease, time to vaccinate front-line staff and care staff, and time to vaccinate care home residents and the most vulnerable. We continue to make good progress. As of 22 May, over 37.9 million people have received their first vaccine, another 22.6 million people have received their second dose and a staggering 60.5 million covid vaccine doses have been administered across the UK, through the enormous efforts of our general practice teams, pharmacists and mass vaccination centres.
Public Health England reports that the UK covid vaccination programme has prevented about 12,000 deaths in those aged 60 or above in England. Furthermore, it has saved 33,000 hospital admissions for those over 65. Restrictions on international travel have helped us achieve these things and have helped protect people so we can move to step 3. It is important that we remain vigilant and continue to manage the risks, so that we do not lose the benefits gained through the efforts thus far. Step 3 includes a cautious, managed return to international leisure travel, which I hope colleagues across the House will embrace.
I will address some specific points raised by hon. Members. When we talk about opening up, it is important to keep in mind that we had the indication only this weekend that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines were both effective against the Indian variant, so asking us to see into the future is incredibly difficult.
On 17 May, we moved to a traffic light system that categorises countries based on their level of risk to public health and the potential effect of variants of covid-19 to limit the efficacy of the roll-out. Decisions on designating countries to red, amber or green lists and the associated border measures are under constant review, to ensure that we manage the risks. These risks are challenging. They are about the impact on people’s jobs, livelihoods and all those things, but they are predominantly about people’s health and wellbeing, and about protecting people.
The decisions are taken by Ministers, who consider the Joint Biosecurity Centre analysis, as well as wider public health considerations. As I have explained, decisions are under constant review so that we manage the risks. I was glad that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) outlined how rigorous this process is and how we are now in better lockstep with our friends across the border.
We are making progress as we journey along the road map, but we have to remain vigilant. Variants continue to pose a significant risk that we are monitoring closely, and action will be taken as necessary to stop the spread. Border measures, including testing and quarantine, continue to help manage the risks. That includes the requirement for international arrivals, except those from green list countries, to take a pre-departure test and isolate for 10 days, either at home or in a managed quarantine hotel if they have come from a red list country, and to take a post-arrival test on day two and day eight.
Several hon. Members talked about testing. From May 15, NHS Test and Trace reduced the cost of tests from £210 to £170, and day two tests for green list countries went down to £88. These costs include genomic sequencing if someone has a positive test. Other private providers are stringently tested to ensure quality, and they are available. PCR tests continue to fall in cost, to around £100 to £120 for a day two test. We expect green arrival tests to be somewhere between £20 to £60. As the market develops, that cost will keep dropping as prices become more competitive, but I gently ask, is the British taxpayer meant to pay for the test for leisure purposes and travel?
Justin Madders
I understand the point that the British taxpayer should not be expected to pay for these tests for leisure purposes. However, a person who goes on to the Government website now does not need to give a reason to receive a lateral flow test, and we know that for a number of sporting events that have taken place, the condition for entry has been tests, which have also been free. There is not any consistency here, is there?
Jo Churchill
As I say, these things are kept under constant review. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is testing large-scale events involving large groups of in-country crowds. That is completely different from testing those people who are returning to the country. Measures for these international journeys are essential, and it is vital that we follow what restrictions remain in place.
It is also essential that offers of vaccination are taken up by everybody as soon as possible. We hope that the continued success of the vaccination roll-out, including increased testing capabilities, alongside falling infections and hospitalisations, will allow us to continue to lift restrictions. However, we have to protect our hard-fought gains made over the past few months, and we are taking a cautious approach to opening up international travel, given that the risk from those travelling back from countries with high prevalence or where there are variants of concern is not only to the individual, but to wider society.
Some Members brought up the difference between allowing us to enlarge business travel and travel to visit family, friends and so on. They are, in fact, completely different—I very rarely behave with family and friends as I might in a business meeting, so I would urge a little caution before drawing a comparison between the two. Like everybody else, I feel for travel agents and so on in this time of uncertainty. However, they are supported by Her Majesty’s Treasury and the different interventions that have been put in place. Those things will be ongoing after we open up on 21 June, so long as we keep on the road map, and there is some assistance for businesses going forward.
This is a first step, and more opportunities will come along. It is important to remember that, and to highlight that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation looks at the outcome of vaccine programmes on reduced levels of infection, high levels of vaccination, and the transmission risk and variants of concern. I reiterate my sympathy for those who have not been able to visit family and partners, and my thanks to those who have stepped up. Getting to this point has taken remarkable perseverance and resolve, and I am grateful to everyone who has got us here. The collective effort has meant that we can reopen our borders, allowing us where possible to reunite families, loved ones and friends. We must continue this careful approach. It is a risk-based approach, informed by the latest data and scientific evidence and by the abiding need to protect the population’s health and wellbeing, and thereby the economy.
With all this in mind, I believe we have good reason to feel optimistic, although there will be new and unexpected challenges, and there will be some setbacks as well. I have not hugged some of my children for 14 months, and they all live in this country—we have a large family. It is tough, and I get that, but we are doing what we are doing for the right reasons. We are better protected and better prepared to take on those challenges than we have ever been.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Justin Madders and Jo Churchill(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Government’s road map yesterday said:
“While self-isolation is critically important to halting the spread of the disease, it is never easy for those affected.”
We agree with that. We have been making that point for months, along with most of the expert advisers in the Government, which is why creating a scheme that only one in eight people qualify for was never going to work. Will the Minister tell us why, despite yesterday’s announcement, it is still the case that only one in eight people who test positive will actually qualify for a self-isolation payment?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is important that we have targeted support and that we support the people who need assistance, so that they can self-isolate. It is, exactly as I outlined in my first answer, what we have been doing, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will continue to look after people through the pandemic. Our undertaking is to make sure that we protect people, whether they are self-isolating or unable to work for other reasons, such as shielding, throughout the duration of the pandemic. The hon. Gentleman will be hearing much more about that from the Chancellor next week during the Budget.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Greencore) Regulations 2020
Debate between Justin Madders and Jo Churchill(4 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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, Restrictions) (England) (No.3) Regulations 2020
Debate between Justin Madders and Jo Churchill(4 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Churchill
I thank in particular the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, who have shown, in very different ways, exactly why the regulations are needed and how well they are working. Where people are talking together and using the information that is getting to the frontline, they are now able to respond and to act quickly.
In the initial stages, we were keen to have a national approach to protect the NHS, in order that we could then start to move the policy forward. That is what we have done by enabling the local authorities, Mayors and so on to talk together so that they—as both hon. Members alluded to—may deal with their local communities. They know their local communities best, and that has come across clearly.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will forgive me, but I will trot through as many of his points as I can remember that have a vague relevance to the regulations that we are discussing today. He will forgive me, perhaps, for not going off at a complete tangent and following him down the various paths on which he wished to take us. However, I thank him for his contribution.
The regulations are necessary, and they are important for three reasons. First, and most importantly, they empower local authorities to protect people in their area from this terrible virus. Giving directions is a difficult decision for local authorities to take, but they are in the best place to know the right interventions to impose in order to stop the virus spreading locally unchecked. They are often using the regulations as a warning shot and, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, they give the local authorities the power to be a little more attuned. We have seen that very much in Leicester: two particular roads appeared to be flouting the rules, and those two roads were targeted in a specific way, enabling the locality to respond to the challenge much more effectively.
Secondly, giving those powers to local authorities is important because they protect those of us who do not live in those areas. As a result of local interventions, outbreaks can be prevented or contained locally, stopping infection from spreading elsewhere, which is significant.
Thirdly, enabling local authorities to introduce these restrictions shows our absolute determination to respond to outbreaks of the virus in a focused way. As I have said, we will learn from the use of these powers as local authorities give directions for preventing transmission and respond to localised outbreaks.
These regulations are made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which sets out a framework for health protection that requires much of the detailed provision to be delivered through these regulations. The regulations enable local authorities to impose targeted local measures to prevent and control outbreaks in their area. However, occasionally there has still been the need for the Government to impose more serious restrictions, as we have seen in Leicester and parts of the north of England, in what are often referred to as local lockdowns. If the possibility of imposing more serious interventions is being considered, local leaders, chief executives and the directors of public health are consulted by the NHS test and trace team, Public Health England and the joint biosecurity centre, to inform that decision making and to be consulted on it.
Today’s debate has provided an opportunity for hon. Members to debate the range of activities that the Government have undertaken in response to coronavirus. Moving to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, we always said that there would be local outbreaks that would require local action, so I do not think that what we are doing in these regulations should come as any surprise. Will it cause confusion? Local authorities can already close premises for various reasons, such as environmental health reasons, so I do not think that it is unusual in our current environment for people to expect changes to come quite fluidly.
It is really important that we are able to act quickly and stop local outbreaks, and this is the right approach. To enable local authorities to have the power to do so, we have made another £300 million available to them to develop their plans. As we have heard, those plans are working, and as the hon. Gentleman himself said, they are very important in making sure that any action is attuned to the local area. That money is on top of the £3.7 billion provided to local authorities to support the response to the pandemic.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Secretary of State heard about things in good order; he hears as soon as is reasonably practicable about where these directions have been laid. As yet, however, we do not have any data on the fines or the fixed penalty notices; we will have it quite soon, when these regulations have been laid. That question made me smile wryly, because the summer recess was between the dates. Therefore, although six weeks have passed, there have been only a handful of parliamentary sitting days, so I think we have got on to things as speedily as possible.
An impact assessment is not required for regulations that last for less than a year, and these regulations are due to expire in less than a year, so there is no such requirement. In the other place, Baroness Thornton asked a similar question about how data was being used. Data is key to the scientific community, so that scientists can be availed of it to fight covid-19. At the start of this pandemic, only six short months ago, we had very little data. Now, as we have heard, we have the ability to drill down even to a postcode level, to know where somebody who may have had a positive test is. That data is now at our fingertips.
As of today, we have the capacity to do 357,873 tests. Although I would freely say that, yes, some of those tests are challenging, 84.3% of people taking tests have their results the next day, and over 42.2% of people taking home tests get their results within 48 hours. Some 16 million tests have been done in this country, and that has been built from a standing start. I pay tribute to Public Health England and others; it has been a broad coalition of the NHS, public health and private industry that has allowed us to do this amazing job.
Justin Madders
On the question of tests, the Minister gave the figure of some 375,000 capacity—
Justin Madders
The Minister will be aware that the number of tests processed each day is somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000. In the context of hearing about people’s problems with accessing tests, where does she think the issue is in getting that capacity to the right places?
Jo Churchill
I will briefly explain, in 30 seconds. We have always said that we would go to where the problem arose, so it is right and proper that where we have an issue of rising prevalence, we will take our mobile testing centres there. We have 73 regional centres, 21 satellite centres, 236 mobile centres and 72 walk-through centres. Ensuring that we can be fluid in our approach and that we get to those places where we see a rise in numbers is, in my opinion, the right approach. Do we have more to do? Yes, we do, but I think we can proudly say that we are hitting numbers that are now ahead of many other countries in Europe and across the world, and showing that we are building a world-class system that can help to protect people.
The argument is that we need more testing, we need to be able to trace and we need to build that capacity. That is why we have recruited another 18,000 into Public Health England, to back up that effort to test and trace. Supporting the local authorities, we have contact tracing, the daily situational report, the daily exceedance report and the daily surveillance reports, so that we can help people to get the granular information that helps them to target their local area.
As I said, an impact assessment is not required for regulations that last for less than a year, and these regulations will expire in six months. However, the Government are considering the economic impact of the regulations on businesses and individuals—that was another question the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked—and the personal impact on those with protected characteristics; on people’s mental health and wellbeing; on religious groups and many others. This is a highly complex situation that we are dealing with.
The dashboards for local authorities are updated daily with all the data received to midnight the previous day. We are ensuring that all local and public health bodies have the data they need for any plans they might be making for preparedness for potential outbreaks, and we produce detailed data in dashboards for local authorities to give them clarity regarding their local area.
We have started sharing that postcode-level testing and case data with local authorities, and it is available to them at any time. It is important that we send the positive message that, while this is work in progress, we are doing more and more each week to help them to get more information, because that is vital for unlocking the economy and opening our lives up as far as we can in this covid-tinged world that we are all having to get used to.
The Department for Education has published full guidance on the protective measures for schools, colleges and childcare settings, which should help to minimise risk. The guidance includes the PHE-endorsed system of controls that helps settings to implement those measures in order to prevent and control any infection. Those are outlined more explicitly in DFE guidance.
We have agreed to provide a monthly report to Parliament detailing the measures imposed by local authorities and Ministers under these powers, and will shortly be making a written ministerial statement setting out the record of the notifications received, which will be deposited in the House Library. The Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box to answer questions more than, I think, any other Secretary of State, and I am sure that when he next does so, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will have ample opportunity to ask his questions.
However, as of 2 September, the Secretary of State had been notified of the 61 directions that had been given by the 23 local authorities to which I alluded earlier. Examples of those directions given by local authorities include closing a funfair due to be held in an area where there was a high incidence of the virus; closing a large entertainment venue for failing to ensure social distancing measures were in place, or complied with by visitors; imposing restrictions on the organiser of a large social event to ensure guests complied with social distancing guidance; controlling people gathering in a street outside restaurants—trying to ensure people stay physically distanced while waiting to go inside areas is, of course, very important too—and prohibiting a planned food festival where in excess of 8,000 visitors were expected.
The extent of the powers means that local authorities can give directions, but they are not always necessary. For example, local authorities do not need any further powers to close nightclubs, as they can already be closed under the England-wide regulations. For raves, a local authority has the power to give a direction to impose prohibitions, requirements or restrictions to stop an event, in addition to pre-existing rave legislation. Indoor raves of more than 30 people are already illegal. There are further restrictions on holding gatherings of more than 30 people in public outdoor spaces, and stricter gathering restrictions in certain protected areas under regional lockdowns.
Only the Secretary of State can close a school using the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020, but he can delegate that power to a local authority if necessary. For essential infrastructure, the regulations prohibit local authorities from giving a direction in respect of businesses that are considered essential. Guidance has been published in relation to what is essential infrastructure; that guidance is readily available, but includes registered childcare providers, airports, doctors’ surgeries, train stations, and nuclear facilities. In addition to the powers given to local authorities under the regulations, Public Health England, the joint biosecurity centre and NHS test and trace are consistently and continuously monitoring the levels of infection and other data on the prevalence of the virus across the country.
We continue to work closely with councils, local MPs and scientific experts to support local responses. Indeed, there are several people in this room to whom I have spoken about particular issues in their locality, to ensure we feed that information in so that we can make the best decisions. However, we have always been clear that we will need, and will take, swift and decisive action where necessary to contain local outbreaks by imposing more serious restrictions, often referred to as a local lockdown—for example, stopping people from different households meeting up with each other, or closing specific business sectors. Those nationally imposed measures at local level are in addition to the powers given to local authorities by the regulations that we are debating today.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the points that have been raised and the contributions that have been made. I will conclude by recording on behalf of the Government my thanks to the people of England for their ongoing observance of covid-19 guidance and legislation, helping to reduce the burden on our vital services and save lives through this crisis. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, every life lost is a tragedy, so we still need to bear down and work hard to make sure that we do absolutely everything we can to ensure that is kept to a minimum. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 750).
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020
Debate between Justin Madders and Jo Churchill(4 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders
The Minister will be aware that some 3 million tests are unaccounted for. Is she able to advise what the understanding is on where those have gone?
Jo Churchill
As the shadow Minister well knows, some of the tests that are sent out are counted on the out and we do not have the ability to ensure that the test is used and sent back to us. As I said, I will write to him with full and comprehensive details on testing.
The hon. Gentleman may or may not be aware that in the Leicester local lockdown, we are going door-to-door in order to ensure that asymptomatic testing and testing throughout Leicester is ramped up. We are also using translation services, both on the doorstep and on some of the phone lines.
This has been an unprecedented situation. We are dealing with a new virus and we have ensured that each time we have taken the learning and tried to deliver an enhanced service. It is well recognised that the numbers we are testing have grown. It was a stretching target and we have matched it. We are now providing one of the most comprehensive testing systems—across mobile testing, satellite testing, the Lighthouse testing, home testing, testing in care homes and hospitals, which now stretches out into asymptomatic as well as symptomatic testing—ensuring that anyone is now able to ring and get a test.
On testing information, pillar 2 is being fed back into local areas so that they have a much clearer idea of what their locality looks like, as per the number of tests.
Justin Madders
It is indisputable that the number of tests has significantly increased, but what has happened to the false negative rate? We heard earlier on that it was about 30%. Is it still in that area?
Jo Churchill
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have said that I will write to him on testing. I fear that we are straying slightly from the point of today’s debate on the regulations. I thank everyone for their contribution—
Justin Madders
The Minister is about to finish, but it is really important that we hear from her about the statement in paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory notes, which says:
“There is recognition that these changes may lead to an increase in transmission rates”.
What is the scientific advice in relation to that risk? How is the Minister going to be able to report back and monitor that, particularly in terms of parliamentary scrutiny?
Jo Churchill
As far as the R rate is concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State meets regularly with the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer, plus SAGE, the new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory group—NERVTAG—and the Joint Biosecurity Council. All that information is fed back into the decisions that are then made in and around the R number. If he will forgive me, I am going to push on, because I feel we are straying off into areas away from the regulations.
We will continue to keep the restrictions placed on individuals, businesses and society under continual review over the coming weeks and months. The new regulations debated here today have been a major step in the gradual return to normality for individuals, businesses and society as a whole, and, as we have heard, that is something we welcome.
I am pleased that, as of 10 July, we have continued to take those steps and have made further amendments to reduce restrictions in a safe way. We appreciate that restrictions have placed a significant strain on individuals. The Government will only continue to impose restrictions that are necessary and proportionate, but we remain prepared to impose further restrictions should that become necessary.
Today’s debate has provided an opportunity for hon. Members to debate the range of activity that the Government have undertaken in response to coronavirus. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 684).
Public Health
Debate between Justin Madders and Jo Churchill(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Churchill
I would argue that this is a dynamic situation. For example, with zoos, scientific evidence indicates quite clearly that open spaces are much safer for people to be in, so a degree of logic applies. It is very difficult to argue that we do not want things opened, while at the same time requesting that businesses and so on are opened. There has to be a degree of walking slowly, and I hope to come on to that. Several Members raised the fact that there appear to be inconsistencies, but I would argue that the Government are maintaining only the restrictions that are necessary and appropriate at any given time.
Justin Madders
I want to come in on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). Paragraph 23C of schedule 2 deals with aquariums and zoos, including safari parks, and we just need to be clear about the Government’s position on that. Are they now saying that that paragraph is no longer going to be applicable, or are zoos part of this? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that, please.
Jo Churchill
Zoos have been closed as a consequence of the restrictions since they came into force on 26 March. Until 1 June, zoos were in effect closed as a consequence of regulation 6, which required people not to be outside their homes other than for a reasonable excuse. I think we would all agree that that does not include visiting a zoo. Aligned with the scientific advice on 12 June, the regulations were signed to permit outdoor areas of zoos to open, but obviously not the inside areas.
The debate today has provided an opportunity for the Government to hear the concerns of a wide range of society through the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members, and I now turn specifically to the debate. First, I would like to say that I have heard the frustrations. Regulations have to be made urgently, given the impact they have on individual rights and to respond to the latest possible evidence. Debates are organised and scheduled through the usual channels, which, I would just say, are not always as fleet of foot as others.
In response to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), the Secretary of State keeps the restrictions and requirements under constant consideration throughout the 28 days. It is a continuous cycle, rather than a fixed point in time for a review. If I understood the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean correctly and we took it to a logical conclusion, it would mean that as we lifted restrictions, it would actually take longer were we to be iterative over those 28 days, rather than processing easing as we currently are.
Jo Churchill
Yes, finally, although I am sure the House would appreciate it if we just pushed on.
Justin Madders
I appreciate the Minister’s tolerance in letting me intervene again. Can we be clear on the reviews? I appreciate why the Secretary of State will be doing that on an ongoing basis, but the Opposition would like to see those reviews in some documented form so that we can understand the basis on which restrictions are eased and implemented.
Jo Churchill
To that point, I will address the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about transparency. In recognition of these unprecedented times, SAGE has been publishing statements and the accompanying evidence it has reviewed to demonstrate how the scientific underpinning and understanding of covid has continued to evolve. As new data emerges, SAGE’s advice quickly adapts to new findings and reflects the situations.
I would like to turn to the impact assessments.