Covid-19 Update

Mark Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I do not say this lightly, but I agree with every single word that the right hon. Lady said. I want to pay tribute to her, because I have not had the chance in the House to thank all the black MPs who took part in the incredibly moving video to persuade people, who may have understandable concerns, that taking the jab is the right thing to do. She played a pivotal role in that short video, and it is just one small part of the huge effort we need to make, because the fewer people who do not have the protection, the safer we will all be. I am very grateful for her work and her support, and I hope that we can continue to work together to drive uptake among black communities right across this country.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Policies are often easy to announce and difficult to end. The chief scientific adviser says that covid is with us forever, and it will presumably continue to mutate into new variants forever. I listened carefully to the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), but I did not hear an answer to this: when is this policy going to end, if ever, because if the virus continues to mutate, surely the risk will be there forever?

[Matt Hancock]

The risk of mutations absolutely can and will be managed through the evolution of vaccines, in the way that the annual flu jab changes each year and allows us to protect ourselves. While necessary now, these are not measures that can be in place permanently. We need to replace them over time with a system of safe and free international travel; that is where we need to get to. The first task is to vaccinate the population. If we get good news on the impact of vaccination on hospitalisations and deaths for new mutations, we will be in a better place. If we do not get such good news, we will need to use the updated vaccines to protect against the variants of concern.

The scientists inform and advise me that there are, repeatedly and independently around the world, mutations of the same type in the E484K area of the virus, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). That gives the scientists a good start in where to target the new updated vaccine—if we have to wait until then—but it may be that we get from the existing vaccines enough efficacy against hospitalisation and death that they work perfectly well to hold this virus down. We just do not know that yet; hence, the precautionary principle applies.

HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (ALL TIERS) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021 HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (ALL TIERS AND SELF-ISOLATION) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 General Committees

[Ms Dorries]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I hope that the Committee will approve the regulations, which are in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I will briefly explain each statutory instrument.

SI No. 2021/53 amends the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 and came into force on 20 January 2021. The need for the changes in it was identified in the ongoing review of regulations. It provides for minor and technical clarifications, including of the fact that competitive sport can continue, that cafés and canteens in all post-16 education and training settings are able to remain open, and that marriages and conversions under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 are permitted. These changes provide legal certainty that these activities are permitted.

SI No. 2021/97 amends the all tiers regulations and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020, and came into force on 29 January 2021. It allows for additional data to be shared between NHS Test and Trace and the police for the purpose of effective enforcement of the self-isolation regulations. The statutory instrument also amends the all tiers regulations to introduce a new, higher fixed penalty notice to persons aged 18 or over participating in a gathering of more than 15 people in a private dwelling, in education accommodation, or at an indoor rave. The first penalty is £800, reduced to £400 with early repayment. Subsequent offences double the size of the fixed penalty, to a maximum of £6,400.

I will now outline in further detail the main changes made by SI No. 2021/97. As I noted, the main amendment it makes to the all tiers regulations is that it provides for FPNs that can be levied against individuals who participate in gatherings of more than 15 people in a range of settings. We have introduced a new fixed penalty notice, because although the majority of people follow covid regulations and guidance, it is important that the police have the right tools to take action against the small number of people who break the rules. We know that the virus is transmitted through close contact; as a result, larger gatherings of people who do not live together pose an increased risk of transmission. The existing regulations already penalise people who organise unlawful gatherings of 30 or more people, but there was no enhanced penalty for those attending, other than the £200 FPN for breaching social contact and gathering rules. This new, larger fixed penalty notice will support wider efforts to improve compliance with the regulations, thereby helping to bring transmission rates down.

I will now focus on changes to the self-isolation regulations, as I am aware that many Members are most interested in this. The self-isolation regulations came into force on 28 September 2020 and make self-isolation a legal requirement for individuals who have been notified by NHS Test and Trace that they have tested positive for covid-19 or are a close contact of such a person, subject to a number of exemptions. Non-adherence to the regulations can result in an FPN ranging from £1,000 to £10,000, and failure to pay the FPN can result in court action and conviction. The SIs being debated today do not change those levels of FPN.

In order for police to issue FPNs, they need sufficient information about the suspected breach, and evidence that the individual is supposed to be self-isolating and has received a notification from NHS Test and Trace to do so. This SI allows for the minimum necessary information to be shared with the police in order for them to enforce self-isolation. Four key changes have been made. The first is the addition of date of birth and email address, which will help strengthen the evidential base by enabling the police to verify the identity of someone who is suspected of a breach. Secondly, information on whether the individual is participating in coronavirus-related research will be used, where available, to determine whether the subject is permitted to leave their place of self-isolation under an exemption in the regulations. Thirdly, the SI permits the sharing of notification information, including the method of notification, the contact details—

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

On the point of notification information, I understand that now, to improve the contact rates, if Test and Trace notifies someone that they have to self-isolate, and there are other members of the household, that person is asked to notify those members and confirm that they have been notified. For the purposes of the regulations, if someone has notified members of their household, does that count as a notification that makes those members legally have to self-isolate? Is the information that someone has passed on to them communicated to the police in some way, so that they can take action under the regulations?

[Ms Dorries]

The only time the police would contact a person would be if a breach had taken place. On the point about the relatives, household members or close contacts of somebody who has been notified by NHS Test and Trace that they are positive, my right hon. Friend asks whether the data of those people who the person has taken on the responsibility to notify will be transferred to the police. I will ensure that I get a swift response to that question.

[Mr Harper]

The first part of my question was about an individual who has had a positive test result. If they notify members of their household, does that count as a notification that gives those household members a legal duty to self-isolate?

[Ms Dorries]

I would say yes to the second half of my right hon. Friend’s question. Again, I will seek legal clarification on this issue, but if someone has been notified that they have been in close contact with somebody who has tested positive, they have a responsibility to self-isolate. On whether that person’s details are put on the NHS Test and Trace database, and on whether the police can therefore be notified if they breach the social contract that we have with Test and Trace, I will need to find out for my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Harper]

This will be the last question. I am pressing her because it was very clear that the initial self-isolation regulations, which, for the avoidance of doubt, I strongly support, applied only to people whom the Test and Trace service had notified. There was no legal requirement for a person to self-isolate if, for example, the app told them to. That is why I want to be clear. I completely agree that people should self-isolate, but there is a real difference between whether someone should, and whether there is a legal duty on them to do so or face criminal action from the police.

[Ms Dorries]

I take my right hon. Friend’s point entirely. It is a legal point, and I will get legal clarification for him swiftly, if not before the end of the debate. I will certainly make sure that question is answered, because there is a legal nuance on where the legal responsibility lies. I welcome his intervention—in fact, interventions from Members on both sides of the House—because they challenge us on how we deal with this new virus, and the world of covid regulations and social distancing. They challenge us all the time to think about these points and to do things better.

Thirdly, the SI permits the sharing of notification information, including the method of notification, the contact details, and a copy of the notification issued to the person informing them of their duty to self-isolate. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, that happens when someone is informed by NHS Test and Trace that they have to self-isolate. That is so that the police can confirm that the individual received a notification to self-isolate and was aware of their legal duty to do so. If required, the police can use that copy to remind the individual, as I have said.

Finally, the SI allows information to be shared on whether the suspected breach is a positive case or a close contact. The police require a distinction to be made between the two types of cases—I think I am answering my right hon. Friend’s question; perhaps I am not—and the relative circumstances may need to be evidenced by the police in criminal proceedings. It is crucial that the police know the precise circumstances and the chain of events that may need to be investigated and evidenced in each individual case.

That data will primarily be shared with the police where there is a reported breach of self-isolation regulations. This is for the purpose of access. The police do not have direct access to the NHS Test and Trace database and its details on all individuals who need to self-isolate, and that will remain the case. Sharing this additional information is both necessary and proportionate, as it gives the police the information that they need to effectively enforce the law. The police have a role in upholding and enforcing the regulations, and we must ensure that they have the tools necessary to carry out their job efficiently and speedily, so that we can deter people from breaching self-isolation at a time when adherence to self-isolation requirements is crucial.

Above all else, the self-isolation regulations are a safety measure designed to drive up compliance among those most at risk of spreading the virus. Any improvement to the way the regulations are upheld will have a positive impact on the public health of the country as a whole by bringing down rates of transmission, protecting the most vulnerable, reducing pressures on healthcare and aiding a return to normality for us all.

Both statutory instruments were introduced using emergency powers, so that we could respond quickly to the threat to public health posed by covid-19. The urgency of SI No. 2021/97 stems from the critical national situation, the need for the police to be able to conduct their duties efficiently in this context, and the crucial impact that it should have on improving compliance with self-isolation and bringing down the R number.

The SIs demonstrate our willingness to take tougher action against the most serious breaches of the rules. They are designed to protect us all. We keep wider regulations under ongoing review and clarify them as appropriate. We also understand that it is crucial to take steps to allow people to return to a more normal way of life. The most effective way of doing that is by reducing transmission of the virus while we continue to deliver our vaccination programme. The SIs set out to achieve that, and should therefore remain in force. We are committed to ensuring that the measures are in place only for as long as is necessary. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I know that she is assiduous in her duties. I am pleased that she answered my earlier intervention in the right spirit, which is the spirit in which I am asking the questions. I genuinely believe that asking questions, which Ministers have to answer, means that you get better laws and regulations, and a good Minister should never be afraid of scrutiny. I am grateful to her for taking my intervention in that spirit.

By way of opening, I should say that I support the principle that people who test positive for coronavirus, or who are contacts of people who test positive, should self-isolate, to protect those around them and reduce the rate of infection. The real question that faces us and is at the heart of these enforcement powers is this: how do we more effectively get people to self-isolate? Is it with the stick or the carrot? That is why I have some concerns about the approach set out in this SI. I am particularly concerned that sharing information with law enforcement authorities does not lead to the best public health response.

I asked the Minister a question, and she kindly said that she would get back to me with a response. There is a second part to my question, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston touched on. I think I am right in saying—I am very happy to be corrected if I am not—that one of the qualification criteria for the isolation payment, which is very important for people on lower incomes, is that someone has been notified by Test and Trace that they have to self-isolate.

Part of the reason I was pressing the Minister on the legal position was not just from the point of view of enforcement and the police’s ability to enforce self-isolation. If someone is in a household where another person is notified that either they have tested positive or they have to self-isolate, they notify that person. If someone is on a low income and needs the isolation payment but has not been told to self-isolate by Test and Trace, I think I am right in saying that they do not qualify for the payment. One of things I am trying to test is whether the way that the test and trace system has changed the rules on how it notifies people has inadvertently led to more people not qualifying for the payment, which is therefore driving down the rates of self-isolation.

[Ms Dorries]

Just to save my right hon. Friend having to elongate that point, I have had information that I need to clarify the legal nuance—the point that he raised last time. Where a positive case undertakes to inform their household contacts of their duty to self-isolate, NHS Test and Trace takes details of those contacts and will separately SMS or email them, so that they are in the system and are notified. I do not know whether that makes it any clearer. I would imagine that applies to the points that my right hon. Friend raised about financial remuneration, but also in respect of the legalities about whom the SI applies to and what powers the police have to enforce the SI.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I think she is saying that Test and Trace takes people’s contact information. Did she say that Test and Trace then texts or contacts them directly to officially notify them?

[Ms Dorries]

Yes.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful. That should therefore deal with the payment issue.

My second point comes back to the point that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised about my question in October about the memorandum of understanding. One of the issues that concerns people is the scope of the information that is to be shared and the basis on which it is shared by the Department. If the Department were to publish the memorandum of understanding—the Minister will obviously tell me if it has been published—I cannot see what the problem would be. It seems to be that if there is nothing to hide, if the rules for sharing information are as set out in the explanatory note in the regulations and as the Minister set out, and if there are good, clear reasons for doing these things, that would help allay people’s genuine concerns.

People also have concerns about things for the sake of having concerns about them, and publishing the information and being transparent allays those concerns. It also stops people being able to whip up scare stories. We know there are people who deliberately set out to spread anti-vaxx nonsense, and to scare people about taking the vaccine or getting tested. The more the Government are transparent and open, the more we reduce the opportunity for people to do that.

Can the Minister confirm that the memorandum of understanding has been published? If it has not been published, and given that the House will be asked to approve the regulations—I presume that once the Committee has considered them, they will be on the Order Paper tomorrow—it would be outrageous if the memorandum of understanding was not available to the House at the point at which it was asked to take a decision on the regulations. It seems to me that that would be less than satisfactory.

Can I probe a point that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised about the necessity to use the emergency procedure to lay the regulations? I completely accept that both at the early stage of the pandemic and at certain stages throughout it, there have been times when it has been necessary for Ministers, even subsequent to their commitment to coming to the House in advance, to legislate using the emergency powers under section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and then get Parliament to sign them off afterwards.

An obvious example was when we saw the new variant spreading very quickly. It was, I think, after Parliament had risen for Christmas. I agree it was necessary for the Government to take steps and then get the House to sign them off. To be fair, the Government did so. They recalled Parliament and held a debate at the earliest opportunity, and that was absolutely right.

In the present case, I do not understand what the urgency was when the need for the regulations was identified. Why was it not possible, a few days later, simply to have them debated by the House? I ask that because paragraph 3.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that

“it has become clear that changes around data sharing are necessary to strengthen the effectiveness of the current system.”

However, no further details are given.

Later, under the heading of “Policy background”, paragraph 7.4 includes the words:

“Feedback from policing suggests additional data”.

I should welcome more clarity from the Minister about what exactly suggested to the Department that more data was needed. What information did the Department get from policing? The memorandum is a bit vague about what “policing” means. It does not say whether it means the National Police Chiefs’ Council, individual police forces, or what.

What information was received from the police to suggest that they needed more data? When did that take place? Why was it necessary for the regulations to be made by Ministers and to come into force a few hours after they were made, before Parliament was given the opportunity to debate them?

The issue is important because it is important that the regulations be proportionate. The Minister used that word several times, and the statutory instrument states that the Secretary of State considers them a “proportionate” response. We need to know what evidence there is of people not following their legal duty to self-isolate. How many people, for example, who were under a legal duty to self-isolate were not doing so, and what is the evidence from behavioural science—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston quoted a member of SPI-M, part of the SAGE committee, about that—that the changes in the regulations will improve compliance and lead to more people self-isolating than the opposite?

The Secretary of State is said to be satisfied on the legal test that the provisions are a proportionate response, and in order to be satisfied about that he must have data about it available to him. It would be helpful if the Minister would furnish the Committee with that information. That would also enable us to judge whether it was appropriate for the measures to be made in advance and put into law before the House had a chance to consider them.

Having discussed the background, I have some specific questions about what information can be shared, and in what circumstances. Some of those would be answered if the memorandum of understanding were available. The Minister set out clearly that it would include information on the individual’s date of birth, the means by which they were notified—whether their postal address, telephone number or email address was used—and whether they are participating in coronavirus-related research. I would be grateful if she would confirm that that means just the fact of participation in the research, with no further details about what the research is. The final aspect was about whether someone had to self-isolate because of receiving a positive test, or being a contact. The reason why that is important, and why the regulations have caused some concern, is that if someone tests positive, that is health information. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston highlighted, under data protection regulations, health information is a specific category that is very sensitive.

Members of Parliament know that there is a general assumption, set out in law, that when we contact organisations on behalf of our constituents, those organisations are entitled to presume that we have the constituents’ consent, and that a specific document is not required as evidence of that in each case; however, quite often with health data, the NHS will insist on a specific piece of information, showing a constituent’s explicit consent, before it will disclose health information. That is, rightly, because the health information is very sensitive. I want to know why Ministers feel that disclosing health information to the police is essential to carrying out this law enforcement, and whether it is proportionate to the problem that was being encountered when the information could not be disclosed. That is the implicit assumption.

I am also concerned about the uses to which the police can put the information, and how they get it, which would again be covered by the memorandum of understanding. First, it is not clear what the mechanism is for the police to get the information. Does the NHS choose information to send to the police—such as information about people who have tested positive or have positive contacts—for the police to do proactive enforcement work, or do the police have to approach the Department of Health and Social Care if they receive information about an individual that leads them to believe that the individual has a duty to self-isolate but is not doing so? I assume that it is the Department, as opposed to individual NHS bodies; it is presumably the Department and NHS Test and Trace, which is part of the Department of Health.

Do the police have to ask for the information on that individual, and what information does the Department ask for to evidence the fact that the police have a reasonable basis for wanting that health information? In other words, can the police choose anybody they feel like, contact NHS Test and Trace and say, “Can I have information about whether this individual has tested positive for coronavirus?” or do they have to have some information that gives them reasonable grounds for thinking that a criminal offence is taking place?

That is really important, because it would put people’s minds at rest. If a large-scale piece of data was being transferred, that might not put their minds at rest, but it is something that Parliament should know about. Is the information proactively sent from Test and Trace to the police for enforcement, or do the police have to ask for it, and are they able to do so—and will the Department release it—only if there are good grounds for suspecting that a criminal offence is being committed?

The final area concerns contacts, and the extent to which the police can use the information to go enforcing down the chain of contacts. In other words, if they get information that someone has tested positive for coronavirus, can they then make inquiries about whether that person’s contacts have a legal duty to self-isolate, or does responsibility for that sit with Test and Trace?

I ask those questions because there is anecdotal information that some people are worried about the impact of the legal duty on their contacts, in terms of their not being able to work and not having enough income. Let us be frank: there are people who engage with the police on, as it were, a professional basis for reasons not to do with coronavirus who may well feel that they do not want to go anywhere near the police, and therefore will not do what they should under a public health remit. If they thought that the police could go fishing around their contacts and get information about who they meet and when they meet them, they would not disclose it to Test and Trace. They would not engage with any of the public health information at all, and by introducing these measures we would have made ourselves not safer, but less safe.

A very good example, which I support, is what the Government have announced today. As a former Immigration Minister, I welcome the fact that the Government have said that even people who are in the United Kingdom unlawfully should contact the NHS and get a vaccine, and no steps will be taken, as a result of their doing so, to deal with the fact that they are in the country unlawfully. It is in all our interests that that essential public health measure, rather than the legal need to deal with the fact that they are in the country unlawfully, comes first, so Ministers have made the right choice. That is why I want to understand whether there is the right balance in the regulations, and I want to know that we are focusing on public health and reducing the effective transmission of the virus rather than inadvertently putting sticks in place—to use the words of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—and making things worse rather than better. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those few questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

As I said in my opening remarks, we know that the virus, in whatever mutation, transmits well indoors with groups of people who are not socially distancing and who are close to each other. That is true whether it is the South African variant or the current dominant variant in the UK. We know from experience, from weddings and other gatherings, that it transmits when people are together indoors in numbers. Our objective is to stop the virus transmitting and to keep the R number low.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised a number of points about the police. He asked what information we had about the police wanting the measures to be put in place. The National Police Chiefs’ Council fed back to us that police needed more information on someone to whom they may need to issue a fixed penalty notice. If they do not have the information to say, “Yes, this person has a legal responsibility to self-isolate,” it puts them in a very difficult position. This information is not used in the pursuit of any other crimes, or in any other way whatsoever. It is used for the purpose of a FPN, in order to deter others from breaking their legal responsibility to self-isolate when they have been identified as testing positive.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was additional funding for the police to carry out this work. We have given them over £30 million, again in consultation with the NPCC. We are responding to a request from the police. They do not want to issue fixed penalty notices to someone who is telling them, “No, this is a mistake; I don’t have a responsibility to self-isolate. No, I’m not covid positive. No, I haven’t been in contact.” They need the evidence. They need to be able to say, “We know that you are somebody who has been asked to self-isolate.”

[Mr Harper]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Dorries]

I will just finish my point to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. On his comments about stick and carrot, the police have had a great deal of extra responsibility put on their shoulders. There have been times when they have exercised what they call the four Es. It is not about enforcement and a heavy hand.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have discussed this before, it is about encouragement, explaining and helping people to understand their social responsibility, both towards the people that they are with and in terms of keeping the virus down. It is not a case of the police going in and handing out fixed penalty notices. It is about explaining to people what is expected of them once they have received a notification that they are a close contact or they have tested positive, and their responsibility is to self-isolate. This is about encouraging people to comply with the regulations more than it is about hitting people with a stick.

Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman spoke about the memorandum of understanding. I understand that it is between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office. I will make some further inquiries about how that stands. I am not fully aware of the details, and I will get back to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman about that.

I was asked if the police had to request information on an individual or if they had access to the database. My understanding is that the police do not have open access to the Test and Trace database. This is about information on a need to know basis, when the police have been given information or when they are aware, or they suspect, that people are breaking the law. The police do not just access the database and take the information from it. My right hon. Friend and I have been in this place for a long time together, so he should know that I would not be happy with such a situation, purely from the point of view of civil liberties; I know he would not be happy with it either. The police have access to data that they request. I will write to him with further information on that, because there are many legal points around it. I know how thorough he is, and he will want those questions answered.

[Mr Harper]

Can I press the Minister on that? I am not sure that her answer has helped, because she said that the memorandum of understanding was between the DHSC and the Home Office. I presume that individual police forces, not the Home Office, access the information, although I do not know that because we have not seen the memorandum. That is the whole point about publishing the MOU—it would reassure us.

I think the Minister has confirmed that the police would have to suspect an offence was being carried out in order to get information. We are still not clear about who asks for the information, who discloses it and who makes the decision about whether to disclose it, to whom and what other information is disclosed.

Those are the things that are worrying people; if we can all be reassured about them, I think a lot of people will then stop being worried about them. The Minister herself is an experienced medical practitioner—a trained and qualified nurse—so she will know how important it is that medical information is not disclosed beyond the needs for which it was ascertained in the first place, and also how sensitive such information is.

[Ms Dorries]

We are totally in tune on that. In terms of the present system of information, I misspoke: it is a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Health and Social Care and policing, not the Home Office—I should be quite clear on that. My apologies—I misspoke there.

The present system of information-sharing with the police is reactive; as I said, it is based on the police receiving information from Test and Trace following a report of a suspected breach of the regulations—I probably said that more clumsily in my previous answer. It is when somebody has contacted the police to say that they believe somebody is breaking the regulations, or when there is a gathering of people—I think we called it a “rave” in the regulations—and somebody has reported that a gathering is taking place, and some of those people should be isolating.

[Mr Harper]

Just to be clear—I hope this will be my last question for the Minister—if, say, somebody’s neighbour rings up the police and says, “I think Mrs Bloggins has tested positive for coronavirus and isn’t self-isolating,” is that sufficient grounds for the police then to be given confidential health information about Mrs Bloggins, or does there have to be a bit more to it than somebody just ringing up and telling them something? I ask that because I think this is the bit that people are worried about—the basis on which the police asked for this information and the basis on which the DHSC will then give it to them. Again, it may be that all these questions are answered in the memorandum of understanding, in which case I really do think that if the Minister published it everyone would probably let out a big sigh of relief and would not be very worried about this—I hope that that is what we would find.

[Ms Dorries]

Our police are very responsible individuals. If they receive a report that somebody is believed to be breaking regulations, or breaking isolation, they will not automatically ask Test and Trace for the individual’s information before they have carried out an assessment of the situation. They would need to clarify for themselves whether a breach was actually taking place, such as a breach of the numbers—for example, if it was not a single-household individual mixing within their bubble. They would have to assess the situation and see if the regulations were being broken. If they were being broken, the police would have the right to revert to Test and Trace to ask for clarification on the individual’s details.

Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman are pursuing a definition—as my right hon. Friend knows well—in legal terms within the legislation. I will need to seek legal clarification and write to both of them with the details on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

I completely agree. I have just been informed, in the form of our old notes, that the memorandum of understanding is currently being updated to reflect feedback from the Information Commissioner’s Office and the recent changes made by this SI.

[Mr Harper]

This is my final point, and it is probably less for the Minister and more for her colleagues in the Whips’ Office. There are a number of complex legal questions, which the Minister says she will write to the Committee about. That is perfectly understandable, but may I ask for an assurance, either from her or from those who are listening, that the House will not be asked to take a decision on this statutory instrument until the memorandum of understanding has been published and she has furnished the Committee, and indeed the House, with answers to the questions that have been asked? It would not be acceptable for us to ask questions and for her reasonably to go off and make inquiries, and then for the House to be asked to make a decision tomorrow before Members have been furnished with that information. That would not be an appropriate way to behave, especially as the regulations have come into force before being debated by the House. If she cannot give that assurance, I hope that others are listening and will feed that request back through the usual channels.

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his points. As a former Chief Whip, he knows that these conversations will be taking place through the usual channels. I am glad that his comment was not directed toward me, because, as he also knows, the decision does not rest with me.

My closing remarks will cover some of the points that have been raised, but if I do not have the answers to any of them now, I will, as always, respond in writing. I really do thank both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for the important contributions they have made today. The hon. Gentleman did not go too far outside the scope of the SI this time, as he often does. He usually goes miles off-piste, but today he was very well behaved, and I thank him for that. I absolutely take on board the point made by my right hon. Friend. When we are fighting a virus, with the Department of Health, public health bodies, SAGE and everyone else involved, the probing questions asked here help to create better laws and a better process. Hopefully, we are all trying to do the same thing—to get back to normal as soon as it is safely possible to do so. Anyone’s efforts as part of this process are as valuable as everyone else’s, so I thank my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for their probing questions and for pushing me on certain points, because that will create better answers.

The Government have always been clear that the highest priority is managing this national crisis, protecting the public and saving lives. As I stated in my opening remarks, the amendments in the SIs are necessary and proportionate for legal coherence and clarification. [Interruption.] Don’t worry, I haven’t got covid; I coughed because I have been talking so long. The ability to enforce more effectively and issue enhanced FPNs will ensure that we limit the spread of the virus and increase compliance, protect the NHS and safeguard public health.

Coronavirus remains a serious threat. The current level of confirmed cases and the identification of new, more transmissible variants of covid-19 have reinforced existing patterns. As during the first peak, we are witnessing a high number of infections, hospital and intensive care unit admissions and, sadly, high mortality rates. Even when mortality rates are not high—there are dips—that does not mean that our ICU beds are not full of people being treated for covid. If we are managing to keep people alive, that is a good thing, but it does not mean that beds are not full or that we are not trying to protect our NHS and prevent it from falling over. We continue to mitigate the threat to our NHS before it becomes overwhelmed, and strive to give it the best ability to provide a safe and effective service for all. Protecting our NHS is about keeping beds available and enough staff on the wards to treat people when they come in and need that treatment in order to save their lives.

It has been necessary to make a number of minor technical amendments to the all tiers regulations to provide coherency and ensure that there is no confusion about these measures, all of which have been implemented to limit transmission and reduce the spread of the virus.

As set out previously, the intentions of the amendments to the all tiers and self-isolation regulations are threefold: to reduce contact between people who do not live together, to drive down transmission; to increase fixed penalty notices for those caught attending illegal gatherings, to increase compliance; and to enhance data-sharing with the police to improve the evidentiary chain, to support effective enforcement against those who breach their duty to self-isolate. To issue a fixed penalty notice, the police need to be satisfied that they are engaging with the right person—this comes back to the substantive point that was raised a number of times during this debate: they need to be sure that they are engaging with, and issuing the FPN to, the right person—that the person is aware of their duty to self-isolate, and that the person has indeed breached that legal requirement. These changes to the self-isolation regulations will support the police in taking effective enforcement action when that is appropriate.

Fixed penalty notices for those caught attending illegal gatherings, such as house parties, of more than 15 people will double for each successive offence, up to a maximum of £6,400. There is one point on which I will not have to write to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. He asked, “Why 15? Why is that the number?” This will just take the number of questions to be answered down by one. This is the new fine for attending larger gatherings, where there is a higher risk of spreading the virus, which goes back to my point that we know how and where the virus travels and where it is most transmissible. It was the scientists who decided this: it was seen as the right level, balancing public health risk versus social impact—for example, the impact on larger households. There continues to be a fine for breaching covid regulations, including by attending a gathering of 15 or fewer.[Official Report, 22 February 2021, Vol. 689, c. 4MC.]

HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (ALL TIERS) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021 HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (ALL TIERS AND SELF-ISOLATION) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 General Committees

[Ms Dorries]

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

[Ms Dorries]

[Mr Harper]

[Ms Dorries]

[Mr Harper]

[Ms Dorries]

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

[Mr Harper]

[Ms Dorries]

[Mr Harper]

[Ms Dorries]

[Mr Harper]

[Ms Dorries]

[Ms Dorries]

[Mr Harper]

[Ms Dorries]

[Mr Harper]

[Ms Dorries]

[Mr Harper]

[Ms Dorries]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

[Mr Harper]

[Ms Dorries]

Covid-19 Vaccine Update

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The primary care networks have done a fantastic job in delivering the vaccine roll-out and will continue do so as we go beyond the first four cohorts into cohorts 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and then the next phase. Of course we want to make sure that people have choice. He will know by 2 pm, I think—when the next set of data is published—that his STP has reached 89% of the over-80s, which is an incredible achievement, the bulk of which has been done by the primary care networks. We will continue to support those networks. Through him, I send my thanks and appreciation to them and say that we will redouble our efforts to make sure that they get the vaccine doses that they need to get through not just the first four cohorts, but beyond that to the deployment programme for groups 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) [V]]

I am very pleased that the Government have agreed that, once the vaccines have become effective for the first four cohorts from 8 March, we can start unlocking the economy. Does the Minister agree that, once the first nine groups have been vaccinated, accounting for 99% of deaths and about 80% of hospitalisations, that would be the right time for all restrictions to be relaxed so that we can get back to living as normal, with our children back at school and the economy fully open?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

There is no one who wants to see the economy open and functioning as soon as possible more than my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) rightly points out, the deadline for the top four cohorts is the middle of February. If we go forward three weeks from there, that is when the protection of the two vaccines really kicks in. The plan is to reopen schools on 8 March, after which we will gradually reopen the economy. It is important also to wait for the evidence. As I said earlier, the Vivaldi study and the SIREN study will enable us to see the impact of the vaccines on infection rates and on transmission. We are getting some really positive data from Israel and, of course, from the Oxford team. That will be our own robust evidence and, as the Prime Minister said, we will then share with the House on 22 February the roadmap of how we intend very gradually to reopen the economy.

Covid-19 Update

Mark Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We have put a significant amount of extra funding into supporting children’s mental health alongside adult mental health. We know that one of the consequences of the lockdown, which is absolutely necessary, is that it puts significant pressure on mental health services. We have seen the increased burden on those services, and it is very important that people get the support they need.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

May I add my congratulations to those who have been rolling out the vaccine? I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, and I want to put on record my thanks to those in Gloucestershire, which, as of last Thursday, was the top performing part of the country. Hereford and Worcestershire next door was the second highest performing part, which kind of makes them the highest-performing roll-outs in the whole of the western world. I thank the Secretary of State for his help and that fantastic performance.

I want to take the Secretary of State back to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). The whole point of the vaccine roll-out is to ensure that we protect the vulnerable, reduce the death toll and reduce hospitalisations and the pressure on the health service. Given that the vaccine roll-out is going so well and is, I suspect, ahead of where the Secretary of State thought it would be, will he confirm that when schools start going back on 8 March, it will be those two metrics falling—deaths and hospitalisations—that will guide the reopening of not just schools but the rest of the economy?

[Matt Hancock]

The Prime Minister has set out four metrics that we will follow. Deaths and hospitalisations are two of them, and they are both incredibly important. We expect deaths to fall faster than hospitalisations, because older people who are higher up in the JCVI cohorts are more likely to die by a greater degree than they are more likely to use hospital beds. The other two considerations are that we do not see further new variants that put all this at risk and, of course, that the vaccination programme rolls out well. I would not say that the vaccination programme is ahead of plans. I would say that it is on track; I make no further claim than that.

Public Health

Mark Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, it is very much part of the plan; it is happening right now. On mutations and the link to the vaccine, as with flu, where mutations mean we have to change the vaccine each year, any vaccine might have to be updated in the future, but that is not our understanding of the situation now. Of course that is being double-checked and tested, both with the scientists at Porton Down and, as we roll out the vaccine in areas where there is a high degree of the new variant, and by the pharmacological surveillance of those who have been vaccinated, which will allow us to see for real the impact of the vaccine on the new variant. The goal, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, is that by the middle of next month we plan to have offered the first dose to everyone in the top four priority groups, and they currently account for four out of five covid fatalities. I am not sure that this point has fully been addressed, but the strong correlation between age and fatality from covid means we will be able to vaccinate those who account for four out of every five fatalities within the top four cohorts. It does then take two to three weeks from the first dose to reach immunity, but the vaccine is therefore the way out of this pandemic and the way to a better year ahead.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, but then I want to make some progress on the detail of the regulations.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful; it is on the specific point that my right hon. Friend has raised. He knows I understand it, because it is exactly the one I raised with him in this House last week when we were recalled, and I welcomed the Prime Minister’s commitment to it. To go back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), my right hon. Friend is clear that once we have vaccinated those four groups and they have got immunity, we have therefore taken care of 80% of the risk of death. So what possible reason is there at that point for not rapidly relaxing the restrictions in place on the rest of our country?

[Matt Hancock]

We have to see the impact of that vaccination on the reduction in the number of deaths, which I very much hope we will see at that point. That is why we will take an evidence-led move down through the tiers when—I hope—we have broken the link between cases and hospitalisations and deaths. We will need to see the protection in lived reality on the ground, but we will watch this like a hawk. My aim is to keep these restrictions in place for not a moment longer than they are necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the agreed schedule of delivery will enable us to offer vaccinations to everyone in the top four priority groups by the middle of February. That is why the Prime Minister was able to commit us to that schedule.

I want to talk about the support that has been outlined. We are providing an additional £4.6 billion of support to businesses, including those in retail, hospitality and leisure that have been forced to close their doors once again, on top of the £280 billion plan for jobs, which includes the extension of the furlough scheme until April.

[Mr Harper]

I will be brief—I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) raised his point because earlier this week we had a fantastic call with our hon. Friend the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, who is responsible for vaccine delivery, in which we asked a number of times about the agreed schedule but did not get a clear answer. If it has been agreed with the companies, why can my right hon. Friend not just publish it, so that we know when the vaccine will arrive? That will give people confidence that we will deliver on the Prime Minister’s commitment to the country.

[Matt Hancock]

I will happily take that point away, but I can tell my right hon. Friend that that supply allows for delivery on the schedule and the target the Prime Minister set, to which my whole team is working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House staff for ensuring that we were able to be recalled today for the second time in a week to debate these important matters. It is important that this House is at the centre of this debate.

I recognise that the new variant, the significant growth in cases and the resulting pressure on the NHS means that we are in a different position than the one that we faced in November. For that reason, I will not be opposing these regulations, as I did when the Government brought them forward in November. None the less, I do agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) said, which is that running the regulations all the way to the end of March is too far a distance in the future. It seems that the obvious checkpoint for the Government to come back to this House to seek the authority to proceed is the middle of February, when the Prime Minister set a very clear goal to have vaccinated the four first groups that the JCVI set out and when the Government will have to make a decision about whether schools return after the February half-term. It seems to me that that would be the point when the Government should bring that information to the House, set out their proposals hopefully to relax restrictions and to get children back to school, and seek the House’s authority to do so. I suggest that Ministers go away and reflect on that and come back to us next week when the House returns after the recess. I think that that would be welcomed by colleagues.

[Steve Brine]

On the point about schools, I just wonder what my right hon. Friend’s view is on the vaccination of teachers. If keeping schools open is such a priority for the Government, as it is and as it should be, then surely however difficult it is to move that group up the vaccination list, it has to be something that we consider. To open up schools after half-term, it has to be something that we do pretty much pronto.

[Mr Harper]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, and it has been made by others, but I have to say that, for me—obviously, I am not a clinical expert—the JCVI has got it right. No matter how important schools are, the priority must be focused on reducing the number of people who are going to die and the pressure on the health service. Those are the right choices to make. The risk to many teachers—those who are much younger and those who do not have underlying health conditions—is very low. If they are in the high-risk groups with, for example, a serious underlying health condition, they will already be on the list to be vaccinated earlier according to what has been set out. That is the right approach. As soon as we move away from that, every group of frontline workers potentially exposed to the virus will make an argument that they should be higher up the list, and that would not be a sensible way for the Government to proceed, so they should stick to the process set out by the JCVI.

I have two final points. On the vaccination schedule, maximum transparency, as the Prime Minister said, is welcome. In reporting daily vaccination numbers—by daily I assume that we mean seven days a week, not just five—I urge the Government to publish as much information as possible, including by region and by cohort, so that we can see how this is going and which regions of the country are going well. Potentially, we could have some positive competition where people are trying to do better. My own region in Gloucestershire is making good progress, and I would be pleased to see that information in the public domain. The agreed delivery schedule for suppliers ought to be published, as that would give people confidence and we could all focus, putting it in terms that the Prime Minister would use, on getting vaccination done. That should be the nation’s No. 1 goal in the next few weeks.

Finally—and I know that this has been discussed outside the House—vaccinating priority groups does not just reduce the risk of death by a huge amount, by about 80%, but reduces hospitalisations by almost 60%, which reduces the pressure on the national health service. Both those factors mean that once we have vaccinated the first four groups we can be bold about looking forward to relaxing restrictions, and I hope that the Government can come forward at the earliest possible opportunity.

Public Health

Mark Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

May I put on the record some remarks about our former colleague the Member for Northampton South, Brian Binley? He was first elected in 2005, in the same election as me, and was a valued colleague and a very kind man; many new Members have said that he was very kind to them, and I know that he will be much missed by his family and friends. I thought it appropriate to say those remarks in this Chamber, where he loved serving his constituents.

I also mention Parliament because I am very disappointed that the House will not sit next week. I listened carefully to Mr Speaker’s remarks at the start of today’s business and I recognise the pressures on the staff of the House; I add my thanks to all those who have worked and are working incredibly hard, not just today but on preceding and subsequent days, to ensure that the House can sit. However, at a time when the country faces incredible challenges and many workers in the public service are working incredibly hard, the House’s role in scrutinising the important decisions of Government is essential.

I made representations earlier today and was pleased to listen to the Leader of the House’s response to the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), in which he made it clear that if the House votes this evening to adjourn until 11 January and if events over the next week or so demand it, the Government would seek to recall the House so that it could hold them to account. I assure the Government that if events necessitate a recall but it does not happen, hon. Members—certainly on the Conservative Benches, but I suspect on both sides of the House—will make appropriate representations very loudly indeed.

I have a couple of questions about the new variant of coronavirus. I have read some of the science behind it, and I recognise that there is a significant body of evidence about the increased transmissibility, but I am not clear what other steps individuals should take to deal with the fact that it is more transmissible. I have not heard any guidance about whether we need to maintain larger distances, wear masks in more scenarios or take other steps ourselves. The Government’s only response seems to have been to shut more sectors of the economy. I think that the Prime Minister admitted at the press conference today that it is an open question whether the tier 4 measures are likely to be effective.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

As usual, my right hon. Friend is making a very thoughtful speech. As the Health Secretary said this evening, the vast majority of the big rise in infections yesterday were of the new variant, which logically suggests that the old variant is almost disappearing from the community. We could do with understanding that distinction each day when new data on infections is published.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, because that will help us to understand the extent to which the new variant is spreading across the country; I know that the Government are concerned about that. I suspect, although I do not know—perhaps the Minister could confirm this at the end of the debate—that that was behind the move of significant portions of the country into tier 4.

Given that most of the country is in tier 4 and most of England is now effectively in lockdown, it seems to me that the only measure in terms of closure that remains to the Government is to close schools and colleges—we saw a hint of that this afternoon in what the Secretary of State for Education said. There are not many other measures left to the Government, so if that does not work, they will need to think again.

Finally, let me elaborate on what I said to the Secretary of State earlier about the vaccine roll-out. As the Government have made clear and as I think the Secretary of State said in an interview with Andrew Marr, the areas that have been moved into tier 4, which includes 78% of the country and I suspect by next week will probably include the rest, will basically stay there until we have rolled out the vaccine; the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), referred to that as well. It therefore has to be job No. 1, not just for the Department of Health and Social Care but for the whole Government, to get the vaccine rolled out as fast as possible.

In my question to the Secretary of State, I said that that meant that the Government need to get to 2 million doses a week. If they do that, we can vaccinate everybody over 65 by the third week of February, which will take nearly 90% of the risks of death and hospitalisation out of the equation. At that point, we should be able to remove restrictions, at least in law, and allow the country to open up again. The Secretary of State appeared to agree—he said that he agreed.

The Government need to put their shoulder to that objective. This has got to be the central task, and the reason for that is the significant cost to businesses. I know that there will be many businesses in my constituency—non-essential retail, personal care services—that will be devastated by the fact that, as of midnight tonight, they are going to have to close. I have had drawn to my attention the devastation in hospitality businesses in tier 2 areas that were preparing for a really busy evening tomorrow, but that, with just 24 hours’ notice, are now going to have to close. They are going to have a huge amount of stock and product that they have bought, which in effect will have to be thrown away. They are not going to get compensated for that, and that economic loss is going to be devastating for many businesses.

Those are the things that I think the Government need to weigh in the balance, and I look forward to listening to the Minister when she winds up the debate in a couple of hours’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I thank hon. Members from across the House and those who have contributed virtually for the many truly thoughtful contributions in what has been a really wide-ranging debate this evening. In a moment, I will respond, as far as I can in the time that I have, to many of the points and questions that have been raised.

As I stated at the outset, although we have the truly welcome news of the MHRA approval of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine for use, right now we face a very serious situation. We face rapid rates of covid transmission and new cases of the new variant of the virus. We began to see that before Christmas, when we brought in the measures and the introduction of tier 4, which we are debating today. No Government would want to do what we are having to do, which is to put such restrictions on people’s lives, but, as many hon. Members have recognised in their speeches, we see the pressures on the NHS and know that rises in infections and rises in hospital admissions very sadly lead to loss of life. We also know the implications of those pressures on the NHS not only for those with covid, but for those needing treatment for other illnesses. The alternative to taking measures to suppress the virus is unthinkable. These decisions are not easy to make, but the data is clear, including on the additional infectiousness of the new variant.

Some hon. Friends asked why their constituencies had been moved up tiers either in the past couple of weeks or today and sometimes moving at some pace from a low tier to as far up as tier 4. The reason is that a combination of the epidemiological evidence and hospital pressures, looking at the five criteria that we have set out, makes it clear that that is what needs to happen. I remind my hon. Friends of the five criteria. We look at the case rates for all ages, the case rates for over-60s—which particularly translate into hospital admissions—the change in the case rate, the positivity rate and pressures on hospitals such as occupancy rates and the trajectory of those. Looking at that dataset, it is clear when action is needed.

[Mr Harper]

Can I look into that point a bit? I thank the Opposition spokesman for giving us so much time to deal with the things we did not have time to deal with in our limited remarks. On the point about looking at the data—I listened carefully to a number of colleagues, and I had this in my constituency—I genuinely do not understand how my constituency was put into tier 3 starting at midnight on Boxing day, and after only three days had elapsed a decision was taken to move it to tier 4. What data had changed? Nothing significant happened between those two dates. Other colleagues went through three tiers in a matter of days. The problem is that that does not engender confidence among our constituents that the decisions are being taken for understandable reasons. Will the Minister say a little bit more about the decision-making process so that we can take that back to our constituents to try to give them a little more confidence?

[Helen Whately]

Something that I can say to give my right hon. Friend some extra insight is that, for instance in introducing the latest measures, one of the things that we saw was a rapidly changing situation. During the national lockdown and the weeks following that, there was some puzzling about what was going on. We were seeing a large increase in the case rate in the south-east, especially in Kent and part of my constituency. What we came to investigate and understand was the new variant playing its part in that. It is the data that tells us that we need to make an urgent change, for instance in the tier that an area is in.

I have one very specific example that I want to give, not in relation to my right hon. Friend’s constituency but in response to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) asked about why his constituency had changed tier and what had happened in the period that we are talking about. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—he is not in his place, but I hope that he is listening remotely—that we saw a 68% increase in the case rate in his area of the country between 17 and 23 December, as well as a rapidly rising rate in the over-60s and a rising positivity rate. That is the kind of story that tells us that we need to take rapid action.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) also questioned the timing of the introduction of the new measures, and I can tell him that we saw the number of cases increasing fast—both cases and hospital admissions. There was quite simply no time to waste. The analysis was clear that that was driven by the new variant.

Some hon. Members have questioned the effectiveness of the measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) spoke about her area now having the highest case rate in the country—something I can relate to because part of my constituency previously had the highest case rate in the country—and it is not a reason why you want your area to be famous.

In the parts of Kent that were hit hardest with the new variant a few weeks ago, we are now seeing some stabilisation in rates. I should warn that that is at a relatively high level. It is also very soon after the introduction of tier 4—just 10 days ago—for us to see its full effect. We and everyone living in those areas can play their part in making sure that the restrictions work. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said to us on the screen that he had one simple message, which was to follow the rules. The virus thrives on social contact and the restrictions reduce that, and the Government will of course continue to keep these measures and their effectiveness under review.

Many hon. Members spoke up for businesses in their constituencies, and I absolutely recognise the huge challenges that the pandemic has placed on many businesses in some sectors such as hospitality and tourism and travel in particular. We have, of course, sought to protect livelihoods as well as lives. We have spent over £280 billion this year to support businesses and individuals. That includes extra support for higher tiers, recognising the extra costs incurred in those areas. I have no doubt that my honourable colleagues in the Treasury will be taking note of many of the arguments made by colleagues today.

[Mr Harper]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Whately]

May I make a little progress? I did take an intervention from my right hon. Friend a moment ago, and I am trying to respond to the many points made in the debate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) rightly referred to the unpredictability of this virus, and to how it does not follow due process, as we have seen with the new variant. Unlike many mutations, which are normal things that occur with a virus, this variant has changed the behaviour of the virus. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, thanks to the UK’s world-leading virus surveillance capability, we were able to detect and analyse the spread of this new strain. We know that it is most evident in the areas with exponential rises in cases at the moment, and those are the areas that have been placed in tier 4, either before Christmas or with the announcements today.

Many hon. Members spoke about the vaccination programme, and they welcomed the good news about the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Some hon. Friends even sought to change the way we describe the vaccine, by claiming it for their own constituencies. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that the vaccine has put a spring or a skip in his step, which I know that Members around the House will welcome.

The NHS has done a brilliant job of already vaccinating more than 600,000 people with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and with the opportunity to now bring into play the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, we are driven and committed to its rapid roll-out. We have secured 100 million doses, and the NHS stands ready to deploy them from next week. We have an infrastructure of hospital hubs, GPs, vaccination centres and pharmacies ready to play their part and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire said, they will be drawing on a workforce that includes volunteers from among our fabulous NHS returners, who stepped forward to offer their help to the NHS during the pandemic.

[Mr Harper]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. I wish to ask about one issue that cropped up today at the Prime Minister’s press conference, and something that Professor Van-Tam said about what we do and do not know about the vaccine’s ability to reduce the transmission of the virus. My understanding is that once we have vaccinated those who are at most risk, and reduced the risk of people dying or being hospitalised, we will then be in a much better place. He seemed to imply that if the vaccine does not reduce the transmission of the virus, that will somehow prolong the restrictions we have to keep in place, but I do not follow why that would be. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s position on that? I think that once we have vaccinated the at-risk groups, we can remove the restrictions. Am I wrong?

[Helen Whately]

I do not think that now is the moment for me to hold a remote debate on that with the deputy chief medical officer, and my right hon. Friend also asks me to see into the future regarding the roll-out of the vaccine. I can say, however, that we are following the prioritisation as set out by Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. That is first and foremost to vaccinate those who are at greatest risk of losing their lives to covid, and that is why we are starting with residents in care homes, which have been so hard hit by the pandemic, as well as care home workers. The next priority category is those who are over 80 and broader health and social care workers, and it then moves down the ages. Our approach follows the JCVI prioritisation to put the vaccine to that crucial and important effect of saving people’s lives from this cruel disease.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) asked about the publication of JCVI advice on the use of the vaccine. I can tell him that it has already been published and is available on gov.uk.

Covid-19 Update

Mark Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, there is of course support for the testing of schoolchildren, and I am sure that my right hon Friend the Education Secretary will be happy to set out more details in his statement shortly. The support of the armed forces, especially from those who have experience of the mass testing roll-out so far, will be incredibly helpful, but it is not the only thing that will help the roll-out of mass testing in schools. I am really grateful to the schools that have been involved so far for the enthusiasm that they have shown and for the extra effort they have put into making this work. I look forward to seeing that happen across much more of the country.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

The Secretary of State, with his announcement, has effectively locked down most of England. In a previous interview with Andrew Marr, he said we will effectively be staying in that place until the vaccines are rolled out.

On this morning’s excellent news about the AstraZeneca vaccine, the chief executive of that company said that it could produce up to 2 million doses a week if the Government’s ambitious schedule for rolling it out could match that. Will the Secretary of State match it so we can get everyone over 65, which is nearly 90% of those at risk of death and hospitalisation, done in seven weeks, by the third week of February, and we can then remove these restrictions? Every focus of the Government now has to be on that task. It is the central, overriding task of government. Are the Government up to doing it?

[Matt Hancock]

I am absolutely delighted to be able to agree with every single word that my right hon. Friend says. He and I have not always agreed on every dot and cross of the policy on how to handle this pandemic but, regarding how we get out of it from here, it sounds like we are aligned on needing to roll out this vaccine as fast as possible.

The NHS can deliver at the pace my right hon. Friend mentions if we can get the manufacturing up to that speed. Of course, we are working with AstraZeneca to make that happen. I was on the radio at the same time as the chief executive this morning, and I was delighted to hear his commitments. AstraZeneca has worked so hard to make this happen and, crucially, we have to protect the most vulnerable. The fact that only one dose is needed to give protection is incredibly helpful, and that way we can get rid of these blasted restrictions as soon as possible.

Covid-19 Update

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. It does not matter whether or not somebody is registered with anybody, they can still spread the disease. The reason for the answer that she was given is that we have to try to get the vaccination programme out to everybody, no matter their status. There are people who do not have any status in paperwork at all, and we need to make sure that we support the roll-out to them as well. We are working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is best placed, along with local authorities, to make sure that the vaccination programme reaches anybody who fulfils the criteria set out by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that Gloucestershire is remaining in tier 2 and thank the Secretary of State for his engagement with me and my Gloucestershire colleagues this week—it was very much appreciated and it was very much a team effort to get to where we are. May I press him a little on what he said about vaccines? Will he confirm that the data that is going to be published from next week will have enough detail in it that we will be able to see clearly the vaccination roll-out by age and by area? Will he set out, early on when we return in January, the Government’s thinking about how far the vaccination programme needs to have gone and the level of risk that we will have reduced for the country such that we can start to release the restrictions that are so burdensome on our population?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. We are committed to setting out weekly updates on the vaccination programme—we released the first data yesterday, on the 137,000 number—and increasingly with the sorts of breakdowns that my right hon. Friend asks for, as more and more groups are reached. He asked for the calculus in terms of the proportion of the population that needs to be protected in order that we are able to bring down restrictions, and that is exactly how we are thinking about the next phase. We do not yet know the impact of the vaccine on transmission, so we cannot yet have a concrete answer to his question, but it is precisely the question that we are asking. We should know much more within the next few weeks.

Covid-19 Vaccine Roll-out

Mark Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Of course I will defend to the end the work that we did to get the PPE roll-out to which the hon. Lady refers. Of course we had priority contracts, because we wanted, when somebody had a good lead, to be able to see if we could make an arrangement as fast as possible, but that was all done through the proper processes, as the NAO report sets out. She asks—I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but really—whether private companies will be involved in the vaccine roll-out. Try Pfizer or BioNTech, the people who came up with and are manufacturing this vaccine. Without them, we would not have a vaccine at all, and a bit of a thank you would do well from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I join the Secretary of State in thanking the NHS staff in my Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust who are in the first 50 hospitals to be rolling out the vaccine. That is very welcome, including to my constituents. Given that he was right to be a little cautious about the speed at which we will be able to get this vaccine rolled out, it seems to me not right that we should keep every single restriction in place until we have rolled out the vaccine to the entire population. The onus still remains on the Government to justify every restriction and the balance between the benefits of reducing covid, the economic impact and the non-covid health harm. May I ask the Government to set out that detail before the House is asked to take another decision on these restrictions in January?

[Matt Hancock]

The House might be relieved to know that my right hon. Friend and I agree with each other on the need to ensure that, as the vaccine is rolled out to vulnerable groups, we monitor the impact of the vaccine on reducing cases, reducing hospitalisations and reducing the number of people who sadly die from this disease, and take that basis for the judgment of how soon we can lift the restrictions. He and I want to lift the restrictions as soon as is safely possible, and the question of the judgment on how safely is one that we will have to monitor and debate in this House over the coming weeks and months.