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

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department of Health and Social Care

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

Lord Loomba Excerpts
Monday 12th October 2020

(3 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Loomba Portrait Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I would like to make two points about today’s regulations. The first is regarding the wearing of face masks and the second concerns the amount of legislation being created to deal with the pandemic.

As a country, we were slow to adopt the wearing of face coverings, and there was a huge debate in the early days of the pandemic about the merits or demerits of their protective qualities. This was at a time when PPE was in short supply, and it was generally agreed that NHS and other front-line workers were left vulnerable without the correct PPE, which included wearing masks for complete protection. It is therefore a mystery as to why it did not make sense to endorse the wearing of face masks by the general public in the beginning, given that there was so much evidence of their protective benefits from their use by front-line workers. Perhaps the Minister would like to say why such an oversight took place.

My second point, which has also been noted by the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, concerns the number of statutory instruments dealing with issues relating to the pandemic. For example, we had two original face covering regulations, which were subsequently amended by three further instruments. Today’s instruments add a further three amendments to the original two, making six in total.

One of today’s instruments includes taxis and private hire vehicles in the definition of public transport in order to make it compulsory for passengers to wear a face mask when using them. That it was not considered necessary to include this form of transport in the beginning means we need a further instrument to deal with the issue. Not only does that add to the legislative burden; it links to my first point about adopting the wearing of masks earlier in the pandemic: not having that regulation may have contributed to many more people being infected, as they were without face masks in a confined space. A second example is the provision that addresses the inadvertent omission from the original instrument of making it compulsory for bar staff to wear face masks.

While we are making fines for non-compliance stiffer, as here with the second regulation, we must make sure the law is accessible and easily understood by the public, or we are in danger of undermining the rule of law. I thoroughly endorse the committee’s view that the Government must take a more structured and, indeed, streamlined approach to the legislation in order to facilitate understanding and compliance, as no doubt the need for more legislation is unlikely to go away in the current situation.

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.