Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 General Committees

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for her remarks and explanations of what the Government are seeking to do, as well as for her efforts over the past six months. It has been an awful lot of work for Ministers, and we are grateful; when we disagree, I hope that we disagree firmly but well.

It is a funny time to be in opposition. The clue is in the name: we oppose very many, if not most, of the things in the Government’s legislative agenda. We have significant concerns about some or all of them, so we seek to amend, we scrutinise, and in that way we hope to improve our parliamentary democracy. On any issue, it is very easy to engage in the narcissism of small differences, but in a pandemic that will not do. If the Government say, “There is a rule of six,” we could very easily say, “It should be a rule of five, or a rule of seven.” We could play that game all day—indeed, I was on the radio on Thursday, and people were saying just that. “You are too co-operative. The Opposition are too supportive of the restrictions being put on our freedoms.”

Similarly—obviously, this gained much more coverage—on Sunday morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition reiterated that we support the Government on the restrictions being put in place. We think it is obvious that if the infection rate increases, restrictions have to increase as well, but there were some extraordinary comments on Twitter—this was just from our own side—about how easily we were rolling over. I should probably never look at the comments, but sometimes I cannot help it.

The point I am building up to, however, is that the well of good will is not unlimited, because there is a real problem. Hon. Members will have read their papers, and will know that what we are discussing now is long after the fact. I do not think we would be popping anybody’s bubble or revealing what is behind the curtain, if I can mix my metaphors, to say that today is a bit of a fool’s errand. We are meeting weeks and weeks after these regulations were not only put in place, but changed. The first one we are discussing has since been amended on essentially four different occasions. There has to be a sense of reality about what we are doing, but hopefully also a recognition that, fundamentally, as an operation, this will not do. Are these very significant changes to happen on a very regular basis, only to be scrutinised in Parliament seven weeks later? I do not think so. It is not good for us as an Opposition, and it is also not good for the Government or for Government Back Benchers.

Of course, these regulations came into effect on 5 August. At that point, people living in the 15 local authority areas specified, as well as Blackburn—which was already under alternative restrictions—could no longer meet in groups of two or more households in a private dwelling, or in groups of more than 30 people outdoors. A variety of other conditions and exceptions was also in place. I recall this well: I was up in Manchester myself when it was announced, visiting my sister and her newborn baby, and I needed to beat a hasty retreat lest I had to stay there. I do not think my constituents would have been too impressed by that.

Again, we broadly support these measures and the intention behind them, because we all want to halt the spread of the virus, and we know that keeping people safe must be the No. 1 priority. However, we as an Opposition have to put on the record our concerns that it has taken seven weeks for us to get here. I talked to the Minister before we started, and I am sure that her colleagues have had a series of different versions of these delegated legislation Committees over the past few weeks.

Normally, we would put up my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), but we are giving him a bit of a rest. I think that is why they have sent me out to bat: some fresh legs with half an hour to go, to run around and put a few tackles in, which has never been something I have worried about doing.

This point needs to be reiterated. We are rightly talking about having control of this virus, but there is concern across the House and definitely among the population that we do not now have control of the virus, and are certainly losing it. A big part of that control has to be our understanding and scrutiny of the regulations, their quality, and their effectiveness.

Of course, we need to act efficiently. We would never support a situation where important and effective regulation that was needed could not be introduced in a timely manner, because we had not yet got to Committee Room 10 to deal with it. We know the pattern on which the regulations will be popping up—a statement from the Health Secretary has just finished and there will be one from the Prime Minister tomorrow—and I do not think it is beyond the realms of possibility that new regulations are coming. However, while we are talking about regulations from seven weeks ago, when will we reach the new ones? Will it take seven weeks? I do not think that that will be in our interest or anyone else’s. I hope that the Minister will address that point.

I know that the subject has been raised many times by Members on both sides of the House, and in the other place. We cannot be here just to rubber stamp what the Government propose. That stretches things too far. I believe that we are taking responsible paths, although I say that with the caveat that I state whenever I do any media work. When I open my emails, half of them say that I have been too hard on the Government and am not supporting the national effort; the other half say that the Opposition are too acquiescent. Who knows? Nevertheless, I do not think that anyone would think arriving late and rubber stamping a measure is in our interest or is what our constituents need from us.

Mr Speaker gets upset, as do we, that often we hear of important policy changes on a Friday or Sunday night, long before Parliament has the opportunity to hear them. Sometimes I talk about that to my friends who are non-political and they say, “Well, you know, you can’t be that person who’s worried about being told first.” I remember Gareth from “The Office”, who would always insist on having the news whispered in his ear just before the big team meeting so that he knew it first. That is not the point or what we are saying. We are saying that we have a parliamentary democracy for a reason. It is a very effective one and has been this way for a long time. We all treasure and love it. We must be among its greatest enthusiasts because we choose to come here every day. We cannot lose that, even in the most important circumstances. That is when it becomes all the more important.

However, we have had regulations coming into force only a quarter of an hour after they are available to read. Including the five before the Committee, there are 17 measures being debated this week, all of which are already in force. Other regulations have come into force before being revoked and never seen. There seems to be no opportunity during this period of time to debate them, and that will not work. We are hoping for some clarity and commitment from the Minister, and an assurance that the Government are actively seeking to get upstream of this blizzard of regulations.

I would hate to take the job of Whip, held by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington—I really would not want it—but I am sure the Opposition would be constructive about shifting the backlog if it meant that we could deal with regulations in something closer to real time. That would be better for everyone. However, this is not just about Parliament; it is a question of the cue we send out to the public. If they feel that the process is rushed or bypassed, there is a danger of undermining Parliament’s credibility.

People in the north are reasonable and intelligent—I am one of them. They are not daft and they know when things are being cooked up on the fly. I have heard that from friends and family. If they feel that measures are arbitrary, and that they have been made on the hoof, that undermines their confidence in whether they should stick to them or whether to say, “Just pop round, and no one will ever really know.” We know that in fighting the virus that will not do.

It is hard, as I mentioned a couple of minutes ago, not to reflect that we have just had a statement from the Health Secretary and there will be one from the Prime Minister tomorrow, and there was a chief advisers’ press conference this morning. We would never say no to hearing more information and certainly not to having more opportunities to talk about it, but it is hard to explain to a lay person what process of swift, clear and effective decision-making those things reflect.

Compliance is key to our success in getting out from under the virus and making the measures work. That is why we need to scrutinise them and have our say on them. As I have said, we do not propose to divide the Committee, but that does not mean we do not want greater understanding of some of the Government’s ideas. Certainly, as we get into discussion of curfews or hospitality closing times, we want to understand precisely the science behind such things.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. My colleague is making an important point. I hope Members will forgive me for repeating something that has come up at many similar Committee sittings. We represent communities to whom we are answerable, who want to know what is going on—why such measures are being passed, and why the policies are being imposed on communities. It is very difficult to explain what is happening when we have not had scrutiny or access to Ministers. Explanations should be upstream of any regulations being made, as my hon. Friend said. Back Benchers across the House are crying out for that. There should be a strategy that explains why the measures might be required in future. Strategic thinking needs to take place in advance, in anticipation of the circumstances. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Alex Norris]

Yes, I do. Again, that is necessary for public confidence. We have supported the Government throughout. As infection rates decrease, we can open up more things and do more things. As infection rates rise, there will be greater restrictions. It would be better to understand what greater restrictions mean earlier in the process. Instead, it feels as though we are always running to catch up.

I am in danger of being much more negative than I usually am, but I have the chance to extol some virtues and talk about the benefits that we have today. We at least have hindsight at our disposal. We do not often get reviews of legislation this quickly after it has come into force, but today we have that. On 5 August, the seven-day case average in the north-west region, which is a good cipher for the area we are talking about, was just under 250. On 2 September, with the most recent of the four amendments, the seven-day case average was 486, and last week the rolling day average peaked at 1,200 on Wednesday.

It is therefore clear that although the regulations might have been effective, they are not entirely sufficient. That makes the case for greater restrictions. People need to understand that, even though it is frustrating. Certainly in the communities where freedoms have been curtailed, no doubt willingly, to beat the virus and protect each other, they need to understand the picture, what has happened subsequently and why we need to go further. We have a duty as an Opposition to point out that that was undermined by slowness in the early stages regarding personal protective equipment; lockdown itself; social care and more; the lack of scrutiny, as I mentioned; and particularly now, as we reflect on this here in Parliament, the shambles that is test and trace.

Short of a wonder vaccine, which will be gladly received when it comes, test and trace is our most critical weapon to get out from underneath this, but at the moment it is not happening. It is not working in a timely manner to properly find those who have coronavirus and to isolate them. That is why we are seeing the virus spread. Will the Minister update us on the progress towards getting a system that meets what the Prime Minister said in June about a 24-hour turnaround in response, because that is what it will take?

Can we hear a little more about what was briefed over the weekend? I am a man of the world—I understand that things get briefed to the Sunday newspapers. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have been calling for a recognition that if those who are being asking to self-isolate are offered only statutory sick pay that pushes them into poverty, that will be an incentive not to comply with the regulations. That is not a good thing, but it is entirely human. The £500 figure was briefed over the weekend. Will the Minister tell us more about that?

I have three final points. We have not had much of a debate on the merits of these specific restrictions because the horse is three fields down by now, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on where we are currently and where she feels we will be next week, in a month’s time and in three months’ time. We want a sense of what the journey is, even if that journey means things are getting more challenging. Okay, that will mean greater restrictions, but what sorts of restrictions and when? It would be good for Parliament and for everybody to know that.

I am sure this is close to your heart, Mr Hollobone, as someone with a long history in local government, but will the Minister tell us a little more about local authority engagement? She said in her contribution that that has always been good. That is not always the picture that we get from local councils in respect of whether conversations have happened and whether the announcement reflects them. Can we hear what process is being used to engage with council leaders?

Finally, regulation 4 of the first set of regulations requires a review at least once every 14 days, so there must have been three since they came into effect. I wonder why the results of the reviews have not been made public, and whether they could be more routinely in future. That would give us something better to debate when evaluating their effectiveness.

I will draw to a conclusion there; I have made my point on timeliness and I hope the Minister can address it.

[Jo Churchill]

I place on the record my thanks for the hon. Gentleman’s tone; I am grateful for the support. As we know from this morning’s announcement by Professor Whitty and Patrick Vallance, this is a difficult, fluid situation that is changing. It is important, as I answer some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me, that we keep that level of dynamism in mind, because that is the problem: we cannot see into the future. One of the challenges is that if we pre-empt where we are going, we are much more likely to be over-restrictive than under-restrictive.

The one thing we have not heard in the offer of support is how that support would work within the parliamentary framework. Do we sit for seven days, because these things are arguably coming at us hourly? Do we do it on a smaller basis? Do we go through usual channels? This is considerably more complex. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes, because often members of the public are not sure how this place works, and there is a challenge in helping them to understand why we do things in certain ways.

[Matt Western]

The Minister makes a valid point. As a constructive suggestion, we have Westminster Hall and we have spare capacity in this place. How about using Westminster Hall solely for the purpose of having these debates about everything related to the covid-19 pandemic and how we work our way through it, and we could do stuff in advance?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion; I am sure my Whip will take that away and feed it up through the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that there are other places on the estate but, as he will know, there are also restrictions on movement around the estate and what parts of if we can move to.

The restrictions we have debated today are necessary and important for three reasons. First, and most importantly, they are necessary to protect the people in the north of England and surrounding areas from this terrible virus. The restrictions imposed have been difficult, but I think the people of the north of England recognise that the measures have been paramount to try to stop the spread of the virus.

Secondly, the restrictions protect those of us outside the north of England. Containing was very much the strategy laid out on 10 May. These restrictions greatly reduce the risk of transmission within the protected area, which in turn reduces the risk of infection rates increasing elsewhere. We recognise and appreciate that in abiding by these restrictions, those in the north of England benefit the whole country, and I place on the record my thanks to them.

Thirdly, the restrictions show the absolute determination to respond to the outbreaks of the virus in a focused and effective way. We are learning from what happened in the north of England as we work with local authorities and others to respond to future localised outbreaks, such as those that one of my colleagues will be debating in the House in due course. Indeed, we were able to work down to a granular, ward-by-ward level, but we have found that it is probably not the best strategy to open up on that basis.

The next review of the regulations will take place on or before 25 September. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the date today. I would like to address the point that the hon. Member for Nottingham North made first about timeliness and speed. The Government are confident that the regulations were made lawfully under the emergency procedure of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. They are receiving parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the emergency procedure, and are being debated within 28 days.

The challenge with these regulations is that we caught the tail end of recess, which obviously pushed them out a little further. The procedure allows us to respond quickly to the serious and imminent threat to public health posed by coronavirus, first by imposing restrictions to break the transmission chain and to protect people, and secondly by removing those restrictions when it is safe to do so. The regulations we are debating show how fluidly and quickly we can make those adjustments and changes.

The Secretary of State considers that the requirements imposed by the regulations are a proportionate public health response to the threat of incidence and spread in England of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2— SARS-CoV-2—or covid-19. The regulations set out that a review of those requirements must take place every 14 days to ensure that they continue to be necessary to

“prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection”.

It is also important that timely reviews are made so that restrictions are not overly imposed on any part of the population.

We have subsequently amended the regulations to ensure that we continue to take necessary steps to protect public health as national restrictions were lifted over the summer—amendments were accordingly made on 8, 15 and 26 August. The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked how decisions are made locally and what the system is. Public Health England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and NHS Test and Trace are constantly monitoring the levels of infection across the country, and work with local authorities to implement additional control measures as appropriate. Those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, which is why that local knowledge is so important, and advice may differ according to the specific circumstances of any given outbreak. Indeed, tomorrow we will be talking about an outbreak in and around a place of work, which is obviously quite different.

The watchlist is already publicly available in Public Health England’s weekly surveillance report, and the decision to place restrictions on local authorities in the north of England was based on a number of factors, including not just the positivity rate, but the incidence rate of the virus, the extent of high-risk behaviours and the rise in the increased risk of transmission between the population. The next review will take place on Friday 25th—this Friday—and we are debating the regulations before that review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider all those factors when making his decision.

As I have just mentioned, we have increased the capacity of the test and trace system by more than 10% in the last few weeks, with the aim of reaching 500,000 tests per day by the end of October. I pay tribute to all those involved in the test and trace system because, initially, we could process some 2,000 per day. We are now well over 240,000 per day, and some capacity, including antibody tests, is well over 370,000 tests per day. We are on track to hit 500,000 tests per day by the end of October. There are four new Lighthouse labs coming on stream, including Newport, Newcastle, Charnwood and Brants Bridge. There are hundreds of additional staff and capacity is being bought up abroad. Test and trace has led to more than 420,000 people isolating who may otherwise have spread the virus. As we heard this morning, breaking that transmission chain is so important.

[Matt Western]

I thank the Minister for giving way—she is being very generous. I have an observation: I visited our testing centre at the Ricoh Arena in north Coventry, which serves the whole region of Warwickshire and Coventry. In the hour I spent there yesterday, only 16 cars went in. There was clearly a lot of capacity—a big facility has been established there—and very professional people on site, but there must be a disconnect between the capacity she describes, which I saw, and what is being fed through to those centres. The numbers that she describes are huge, but I am not seeing that on the ground.

[Jo Churchill]

I think what we are all seeing on the ground is that demand has become exponential in the past few weeks. It is therefore a question of the system catching up, but it is important that the Government assess the risk factors and continue to protect healthcare workers and members of the social care workforce first to ensure that we are protecting the most vulnerable in society with the capacity that we have, and then begin to move through to other key workers. We need to have a risk stratification approach as the numbers increase.

This country’s population is in the region of 67 million. Even with a testing rate at 500,000 per day, it would take some weeks to get through that. There has to be a marrying of the testing capacity within the testing facilities and the ability of the labs to have the throughput that backs up behind it. We are doing an enormous number of tests, and it has been noted that we actually have a larger throughput than Germany, Italy, Spain and France.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 General Committees

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, is encouraging me to nail my colours to the mast, and I will.  Yes, I believe we are. The Prime Minister has been very clear that there will be 500,000 tests across the pillars by the end of October. That is a very clear target, and it is one that he intends to meet, just as we met the 100,000-tests target. It was very difficult to do that, but we did it, and I am confident that we will meet this target. In this place, it is sometimes easier to set very low targets, because we know we will hit them. That is not the way of the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who wants to set ambitious targets because he knows that if we meet them, we will be delivering what we need.

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

The Minister is making thorough points, but we are all keen to understand the capacity. Certain numbers are claimed, and perhaps, as he just said, there will be 500,000 at the end of October—we will see—but there is a difference between claimed capacity and real, delivered capacity. As I said in a previous Delegated Legislation Committee, yesterday I went to the testing centre in Coventry, which supplies Coventry and Warwickshire. It is a large facility; I do not know how many facilities there are of an equal size across the UK—perhaps the Minister would confirm that in writing to me in the next couple of days. Given that only 16 tests are done in one hour, over a 10-hour period that is 160 tests. If we factor that up, even if there were 100 testing centres of that size, that is not a huge quantity, compared with the 500,000 the Minister is claiming. Perhaps the Minister can respond in writing; it is unfair to ask him to give an answer now.

[Edward Argar]

I will respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to get back to him in writing, and I will try to get that number for him.

[Matt Western]

Related to that, on the capacity in the labs, would the Minister provide the figures that are available for real capacity on the ground, and the lab capacity, which I think probably is the bottleneck?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Regardless of the capacity in car parks or testing centres, there is a limited value to doing multiple tests if they are not processed in the lab in a timely fashion because of the bottleneck of lab capacity. That is possibly why his test centre is seeing fewer people than it would have the physical capacity to process if the lab capacity were not a challenge.

My recollection, which is a couple of weeks out of date, is that the capacity to process the tests was about 165,000 for community testing across all pillars and all types of test—the swab test as well as the antibody test. In that 500,000, there are multiple pillars. The capacity to process tests and the tests done were the same, and were, I think, about 165,000 a few weeks ago. We are using the capacity that we have, but it is constrained in the labs. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that. I will check the exact question that he posed when I see the transcript of this debate, and I will try to give him as direct and detailed answer as I can to exactly what he said.

[Matt Western]

So 165,000?

[Edward Argar]

Yes.

The final thing that I was going to touch on before concluding was something raised by the shadow Minister. Again, I do not have the stats on a localised level to hand, but if I can get them I will write to her. She raised the fixed-penalty notices and offences within that area. I do not have up-to-date, detailed stats for that exact area, but if I can obtain them, I am of course happy to write to her. I reiterate my gratitude to all Committee members, local councillors, local authorities and the people in the affected areas for their forbearance with the challenging restrictions to protect people.

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

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“any other person providing services”

is intended to cover?

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

Will the Minister say a little more on that point?

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sums up our concerns very neatly.

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Matt Western]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

I have already asked for that.

[Matt Western]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. In response to her honest offer, I am sure everyone would welcome urgent clarification about the role of covid marshals and the powers that they will have. Clearly, they are referred to under regulation 7(11)(d). Quite how they will be funded and what the powers are is a separate issue. The emphasis that the Prime Minister and the Government are giving to the new covid marshals seems disproportionate to the reality of what will happen on the street. I do not believe that the authorities will actually be able to deliver that, and they will rely on the police.

[Ms Dorries]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

In this new world of coronavirus and covid-19, we as a Government have to have the right to respond, both urgently and in the case of an emergency, when we need to keep the public safe and to save lives. We have to retain the ability to do that.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised one other point that I would like to address. He talked about universities and further education and face coverings. Actually, this has been really interesting, because many universities are very enthusiastic about developing their own policies. They are keen to get their students back in. They are keen to get up and running in a way that is as “back to normal” as it can be in the context of social distancing, and the wearing of a face mask is something that many universities have themselves required. They have done their own messaging to students. I have seen some of this. “Don’t kill your nan” was quite extreme; that was at one university in my own home city. Universities have very much taken on board the fact that they want to keep their campuses safe, and they are launching their own campaigns.

[Matt Western]

I echo those points. For example, the University of Warwick has done a terrific job in terms of its preparation on campus and is doing its very best to ensure safety among the community off campus. However, this then comes back to what is beyond their remit and what actually happens in communities such as Durham, probably, or Warwick and Leamington—my community—where students quite rightly will be back for the new term; some will be starting and will be there for the first time, and they will be out, in among the population. That is why these sorts of enforcement measures are so important.

[Ms Dorries]

The measures that we are taking to ensure the wearing of face masks in public places are to ensure that we try to contain the virus as much as we can, in the light of the fact that of course students do move from their university. They travel back home at the weekend. They move back into the community. They will be in student houses. Their community mixes. They have house parties, as they do. These are the kinds of thing that we are trying to prevent with the regulations that we are bringing in, so that those students can keep attending university and keep learning. The universities have taken responsibility for what happens on campus; we have taken responsibility for what happens off campus via the rule of six, the new legislation that we have introduced as of today, and via the measures such as the one that we are debating today on the wearing of face coverings. Keeping everybody safe is the only objective of anything that the Government are doing in terms of the legislation that they are introducing. None of this is political. It is about keeping people safe. That is the bottom line with everything we introduce in terms of regulations and any measures to do with coronavirus and covid-19.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. They have been many and interesting, and we will respond to those that I have not been able to answer. The Government have always been clear that their highest priority in managing this national crisis is protecting our public and saving lives. I am satisfied that the requirements imposed by the regulations and the enforcement powers given to police and Transport for London are reasonable and proportionate, with regulations specifying appropriate exemptions and reasonable excuses.

Our guidance has consistently set out to the public that to protect themselves, they must continue to follow the social distancing measures, wash their hands regularly and adhere to the isolation guidance. The current guidance from Government states that people should also wear a face covering in enclosed public spaces where social distancing is more difficult to maintain and where people may come into contact with others that they do not normally meet.

The debate today has provided an opportunity for the Government to hear hon. Members’ concerns through the contributions made during the debate. Parliamentary scrutiny is obviously vital as part of the regulation-making process.

I would just like to correct the point that I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell earlier. It is not necessary for this regulation to be debated in six months; it will be reviewed in six months, but will fall anyway 12 months after 24 July, when the regulations were made. I hope that the Committee has found this debate informative and that it will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No 791).

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

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2020 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and that that

“will continue to be kept under review.”

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

“The decision to enable the re-opening of”

outdoor settings where multiple households gather, such as

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

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

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

That has been considered alongside

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

The explanatory memorandum also tells us:

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Western]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Whately]

It is a pleasure to debate the regulations with colleagues, including the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I appreciate the tone that he brings to these conversations. I shall respond to some of his points, before bringing my remarks to a conclusion.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the process, and particularly its sequencing. However, I will say that I know he also appreciates the importance of our moving cautiously but also quickly to reduce the restrictions on people’s lives—restrictions that limit economic activity and people’s freedoms..

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman talked about the impact of local lockdowns through the demands they may place on local authorities and the impact on local businesses. The Government are mindful of both those things and are working closely with local authorities in places such as Leicester, where a local lockdown has been imposed. Both the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury are also mindful of, and keep under review, what support may be required for local authorities and businesses in those areas that may be affected.

Thirdly, coming to the hon. Gentleman’s point about clarity of messaging and the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington that things might be moving too fast for businesses, I will say that certainly businesses in my constituency that have lobbied me as a constituency MP have wanted things to move forward. For instance, I had conversations with the pub sector, which very much wanted to be able to reopen and welcomed when things moved as swiftly as possible on that.

Clearly, there is some balance to be struck between not wanting to issue too much guidance too quickly or change things too quickly and, when it is safe for businesses and activities to restart, moving quickly to enable that to happen, which is in the interests of those businesses and the general public.

[Matt Western]

It was not so much the speed, but the sequencing of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, and the consistency of some of the policies announced. That is why he has been trying to make those points over recent weeks. It is through a more open, collaborative approach, with scrutiny from all sides, that things such as the inconsistencies of barbers versus beauty salons would be addressed, and that would be in the best interests of businesses.

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

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders]

I will be expanding at length on the unsatisfactory nature of the way these regulations have been dealt with from the start. I think it is fair to say that at the start of the pandemic we understood why it was not possible to debate the regulations straightaway, but there is no longer any reason why regulations cannot now be debated in an orderly fashion, before they are formally made law.

Nearly a fortnight ago we saw the reopening of pubs, restaurants and hairdressers, among other businesses. I am sure that many of us were very pleased to be able to support those businesses in our constituencies, but I am sure that we are all equally concerned at the scenes we now regularly see where social distancing appears to have gone out the window. The chairman of the Police Federation, John Apter, commented that it was “crystal clear” that

“drunk people can’t/won’t socially distance.”

That rather begs the question of what consultation was going on before the regulations came into force. On the face of it, they are creating additional risks.

To be clear, none of the regulations has ever stopped people from being closer than 2 metres. That has never been a law that could be enforced, but it is an important element of the guidance designed to help stop the spread of the virus, so changes to the regulations should always consider whether they make social distancing easier or harder to adhere to.

Unfortunately, the Government do not seem to have learned from their experience, because we know that the police were not consulted on the face mask announcement that was made on Tuesday either. That is just one reason why it is frankly ridiculous that we are not debating the regulations before they are introduced.

The Minister was gracious enough to acknowledge the concerns that we have raised on every occasion about the timing of these debates; when we debate the regulations is getting a little bit closer to the due date—next week we will get even closer—but the fact is that we are debating changes that came into effect nearly two weeks ago, and a new set of regulations have already been introduced. That makes a mockery of the parliamentary process for approving legislation.

That brings me to the previous amendment to the regulations, which we were due to debate last Monday—well after they were first introduced, of course. In the end, we did not actually get to debate them at all, because a few hours before the Committee was due to meet, we were told that the sitting had been cancelled—the reason being, apparently, that the regulations had already been superseded and there was no need to debate them. Well, I respectfully disagree with that analysis.

Parliamentary scrutiny is not something that can be ditched because it is inconvenient or the dates do not match. It is why we are here and why we have parliamentary debates, especially for regulations that have huge ramifications. It is not only right but essential that we debate them in Committee. I believe that we should find the time and make it a priority. These issues are too important not to be debated; they demand timely and full parliamentary scrutiny. I make the plea to the Minister, as I have done on previous occasions, that whoever timetables parliamentary business should be made absolutely aware that the Opposition believe that contempt is being shown towards parliamentary scrutiny.

The fact that we were not able to debate the last set of regulations matters because they included what can only be described as a most remarkable and disorderly U-turn, as they enabled outdoor areas, aquariums, visitor farms, zoos and safari parks, as well as drive-in cinemas, to reopen. Members may well wonder why that is a particularly memorable U-turn, given that we have seen quite a few of them in recent weeks. It is because the last set of these regulations that we debated included laws to close those places down. The debate on those regulations took place on the same day that the next set of regulations came into force to open those places up again. We ended up debating one set of laws that had been expunged by another set of laws that Parliament was not debating. If that is democracy, it is a farce. It was all the more remarkable that at no point during the debate did anyone on the Government Benches point out that that was happening.

Even if the Government are not making it up as they go along, they are doing a very good job of creating the impression that they are. As I have said previously, of course we accept that the initial regulations had to be hurriedly introduced in response to the rising number of infections, but since that time the House has been up and running for more than two months and Members on both sides and in the other place have expressed concern about time not being provided to ensure that future changes are debated before they are made. I see no good reason for the Government to continue in this way.

Paragraph 3.1 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“It is the opinion of the Secretary of State that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft being so laid and approved so that public health measures can be taken in response to the serious and imminent threat to public health which is posed by the incidence and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2”.

I think that was a perfectly reasonable thing to say at the start of the crisis, but we are now four months on and it really ought to be possible for there to be a little more formality and order to these things.

The regulations require there to be a review at regular intervals—it was every three weeks, but it is now every four weeks. That is because the Secretary of State has a duty to terminate any regulations that are not necessary or proportionate to control the transmission of the virus. That also means that, from the introduction of the first set of regulations, we have had a clear timetable for when new regulations might be created, and therefore a clear opportunity to factor in parliamentary time for their scrutiny. There is therefore no excuse for us to debate the measures late once again, and neither is it acceptable for us to debate them without the full extent of the information upon which the Government have based their decisions.

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

My hon. Friend, as always, is making some extremely important points. To go back to his point about the frustration with the enforcement of the regulations as laws, the difficulty for businesses and members of the public is not just in keeping up to date with the laws, but in trying to understand if they will be enforced and how seriously. As he said, the police are totally frustrated by these pieces of legislation because they do not really know what their powers are. Likewise, local authorities do not know what they should be doing. If they do not know, there is no chance of anyone taking this seriously.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the blurring of the lines between what is guidance, and therefore advisory, and what is the law. It is important that people do not act unlawfully or, indeed, against the guidance. The police do not enforce issues in which there is only guidance, rather than law.

For example, we know that it was advised that face masks should be worn on public transport back on 11 May, but that only became a legal requirement approximately one month later. The police have been clear that they do not see it as their role to enforce that, which poses the question of who exactly will enforce such rules. We will see the same issues with face masks in shops. It is important not only to have clear sight of what is lawful or not, but that the bodies charged with enforcing the rules and laws have the necessary resources and power to ensure that they are adhered to.

In a previous debate, I asked the Minister to commit to the review of 25 June and the introduction of more relaxations being debated before implementation. Obviously, as we can see from the fact that we are in Committee today, that was not possible. I am grateful that the Minister acknowledges the concern, but it really should not be happening. In previous debates, I asked the Minister why the legally required reviews of 16 April, 7 May and 28 May have not been published. I ask the same question again in respect of the review of 25 June, which again we have not seen.

It is not only me who thinks that that is a problem. On 25 June, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee specifically expressed concerns about the Government’s refusal to publish reviews, stating that

“it would assist the House and the Committee if the Explanatory Memorandum in such cases included specific information about how and where the outcome of any review is to be promulgated and… We expect Government departments to ensure that in future this information is always provided.”

We have no review and all we have published alongside the regulations is an explanatory note telling us that no consultation has been carried out, no regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken and, worryingly, this time, no declaration that scientific advisers agree that the changes are likely to have an acceptably small impact on transmission rates. That is important, because there are no SAGE minutes to state that such matters have been considered.

In fact, not only do the regulations not state that they will have an acceptably small impact on transmission rates; they actually state that there is recognition that the changes may lead to an increase in transmission rates and will continue to be kept under review. As we have not seen the scientific evidence, will the Minister please give us more detail on that important statement? Is she able to provide clarity about which measures, individually or collectively, are considered likely to lead to an increase in transmission rates? That, above anything else that she says today, has to be the most important thing for us to hear from the Government Benches on this piece of legislation.

It would be better if the review of the regulations were published in full, alongside the full scientific evidence and a full impact assessment, but unfortunately we have none of that. I hope that the Minister will be able to come back to us on some of those concerns before the end of the Committee.

As we heard yesterday, the Imperial College research data commissioned by the Government showed that lockdown significantly reduced the rate of coronavirus infection in the community. The study did not cover care homes or hospital places, which is where we know there has been a significant issue with transmission throughout. Will the Minister confirm when the findings for June—when we saw the easing of lockdown restrictions—will be available? Have those findings been taken into account as part of the consideration in the review of the regulations today?

That is particularly important for public confidence, given that a whole raft of new measures are included in the regulations, as outlined by the Minister. As we have heard, they allow for the reopening of indoor and outdoor public houses, restaurants, cafés and bars, hairdressers, barbers, holiday accommodation, and several leisure and recreational attractions.

The regulations also impose restrictions that require certain businesses to remain closed, including night clubs, dance halls, discothèques, sexual entertainment venues, hostess bars, casinos, nail bars, tanning booths, spas, beauty salons, massage and tattoo parlours, and piercing services. Certain leisure and recreational facilities must also remain closed, including indoor skating rinks, indoor and outdoor swimming pools, water parks, indoor play areas and soft play areas, indoor fitness and dance studios, indoor gyms and sports courts and facilities, and bowling alleys. Conference centres and exhibition halls must also remain closed to external bookings.

As we have already touched on, Members will notice that that list is now out of date, following the amendments to the restrictions that came into effect on 11 and 13 July: those now allow swimming pools and water parks, nail bars, tanning booths, spas, beauty salons, massage and tattoo parlours, and skin piercing services to reopen. That re-emphasises the point about the confusion and lack of clarity about what is and is not permissible. We will be back here on Monday to debate those changes, so I will not go into more detail now, except to reinforce the point that it is wrong for us to be debating regulations to be brought into law to close these places down after they have already reopened.

The regulations significantly change the rules around gatherings. They prohibit gatherings of more than 30 people in private dwellings or on a ship or boat, other than for public transport, or in unmanaged outdoor spaces, save for a small number of exceptions. There is prohibition on indoor raves involving more than 30 individuals. Gatherings of more than 30 people are permitted where reasonably necessary for work, for voluntary or charitable services to provide emergency assistance, to avoid injury or illness, to escape from harm, for education or childcare, or to fulfil a person’s legal obligations.

These are now the only restrictions on people gathering together. Gone completely are the regulations about who people can meet, where and when. Those rules have now become guidance. The guidance on seeing friends and family is still that people should only be socialising in groups of up to two households indoors or up to six people from different households outdoors, but it is only against the law for gatherings of more than 30 people to take place in private homes. I am not sure everyone could fit that many people in their homes anyway, but there is clearly a difference between what the law says and what the guidance says.

It is particularly unfortunate that the Government website that lists what people can and cannot do has not been updated since 9 July, despite the new regulations coming into force on 11 and 13 July. We need clear and consistent messaging from Government on the rules, the laws and the changes that lie ahead. The confusion we have seen this week around face masks proves that there is still some way to go on consistent and clear public messaging.

With regards to compliance, following the scenes of overcrowding and poor social distancing on Bournemouth beach and at other locations, I note that these regulations also provide the Secretary of State with the power to restrict or prohibit access to a specified public outdoor place or public outdoor places of a specified description, in order to prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of covid-19. I am sure local authorities will welcome that support as we enter the summer holiday period, but they may also be wondering why on earth this was not put in place prior to the easing of lockdown restrictions last month. Can the Minister set out what procedure and consultation will take place with local councils and police forces before such decisions are taken? Presumably, they will be the ones tasked with enforcing the measures.

Finally, as with previous regulations, these regulations provide that fixed-penalty notices may be issued by authorised persons to persons over 18 whom they reasonably believe have committed an offence under the regulations. I have some questions about that, too, as there is a lack of transparency in those situations where fines are issued for a breach of the regulations.

I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service is doing a monthly review of every charge, sentence and conviction under emergency powers in England and Wales, during which it has found that eight wrongful charges were brought under the regulations in May. That figure is proportionately worse than the previous month, with a 10% rate of unlawful charges, increasing from 6% in April. Those failures included the charging of four homeless people and two people in England who were charged under the Welsh regulations. The lack of any appeals process means that the risk of miscarriages of justice is greater.

It is a concern that the regulations appear to be disproportionately impacting the BAME community. Some 12% of fixed-penalty notices were issued to those identifying as Asian, who represent 7.8% of the population in England, and 35% of the fixed-penalty notices were issued to those identifying as black, despite the fact that they represent 3.5% of the population in England. Analysis by Liberty Investigates and the Guardian found that BAME people were 54% more likely to be fined than white people. What are the Government doing to deal with regulations that appear to be being applied in a discriminatory manner?

We will not oppose the regulations today, because we want people to be able to get back to work and to see their families and loved ones; we also want children back at school and the economy to reopen. However, that does not mean that we do not have concerns. Relaxation must be carefully planned and clearly communicated. The country cannot afford for the Government to get this process wrong, but what we have seen through these regulations from the start is an alarming lack of clarity and a disorderly approach to changing the rules.

We also know that an essential component of the successful relaxation of the lockdown will be a fully functioning test, track and trace system. However, instead of the “world-beating” system that the Prime Minister promised on 1 June, we have a system that still has a long way to go because the Government have got the planning wrong and have been too slow in putting matters right.

We have serious questions about these measures that the Minister needs to answer. Why, for example, are a quarter of people still not being contacted by the test and trace system? Why is the current system not reaching about two thirds of those who are suspected of having covid-19? Why are more than a quarter of people who are being tested at regional testing stations waiting more than 24 hours to get their results back? Home tests are even worse, with virtually everyone who takes one waiting longer than 24 hours for their results.

We have also heard today about the problems with the Randox tests. Can the Minister please set out, if possible, what the issue is? The risks around this process are too great to be underestimated. The risks associated with a failure to develop an app in time can be highlighted by the fact that about half of those who have had close contact with someone who has tested positive are not being reached. That is an awful lot of people who will potentially go on to infect others.

These are not minor points; they are integral to developing an effective system to combat the spread of the virus. We need greater candour about the problems in meeting the targets and a little more detail about what is being done to put matters right.

Finally, I hope that the Government will implement as a matter of urgency all the recommendations in the Academy of Medical Sciences report, which was discussed at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. The report stressed the importance of an effective test and trace system. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will be able to confirm that that report and all its recommendations will be implemented in full as a matter of priority.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for once again asking for proper scrutiny. However, as he articulated the challenges, he also very readily showed how dynamic the situation is and why the challenge of using parliamentary procedure and the normal channels, which are scheduled through House authorities in conjunction with the Whips, leads to a disconnect.

The hon. Gentleman will also be very much aware that Parliament expressly gave the Government the power in section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984: it is under that provision that we are now having this debate. It gave the Government the power to respond quickly in an emergency, such as the one we now face, before they have to come to Parliament for the right and proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Given that just along the corridor in another Committee room Members are debating the lockdown regulations for Leicester, I gently push back against earlier comments: we are making great progress, and the assertion that this crisis is still not the complete focus of the Government is wrong. That is why we are coming forward in this way. The Government will keep the restrictions under review; as the hon. Gentleman said, the Secretary of State has a duty to keep them under review in a timely fashion and a duty laid upon him to make sure that he releases these restrictions as rapidly as possible. That is what we are involved in.

I do, however, hear the point that this is, once again, a timing issue for the Opposition in respect of being allowed to scrutinise measures in an effective way. I hope that my comments have set out, in part, where we are.

[Matt Western]

The point is that all the Opposition and Members from across the Committee are trying to do is help come up with the best legislation. It is a surprise that a lot of this is not being done in anticipation of what is likely to happen, so that we can help collectively to ensure that any inconsistencies are avoided. To use an example from my constituency, someone who provides beauty treatments asked me a very simple question: “Why is it that a barber can work on a man’s face, but I cannot work on a woman’s face?”

[Jo Churchill]

I agree that there are challenges to making guidance seem consistent, but we are led by advice from PHE and the risk assessments done in each individual business.

To answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, there is a duty on each and every business to ensure that it has done suitable and sufficient risk assessments to allow itself to restart. Yoga, for example, is an activity that can take place outdoors. However, there are restrictions on covered areas for indoor sports, so at the moment it cannot take place in an indoor sports venue.

We have made progress in the past few weeks. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who was previously a business Minister, welcomes the fact that we are reopening the economy for, among other things, people’s wellbeing—one of the biggest determinants of inequality is people’s ability to work, which has a long-term effect on their mental and physical health. It is important that we push forward and open businesses, with proper scrutiny from Public Health England, and ensure that they are safe places for work, for staff and for people visiting them.

My right hon. Friend spoke about having more oversight of the reviews and so on. We recognise that transparency is important in these times. SAGE has been publishing its statements, and the accompanying evidence as it is reviewed, to demonstrate how the scientific understanding of covid-19 has continued to evolve as new data emerges. SAGE’s advice has quickly adapted to new findings that reflect the changing situation.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the Imperial College study, which gratifyingly noted that the R number was lower than had been thought. That shows the benefits of the lockdown restrictions. I am sure all MPs agree that the vast majority of our constituents have behaved extremely responsibly. I trust them to continue to do so, notwithstanding the fact that over the past 17 weeks we have all had in our inboxes challenging stories of people who wanted to meet a grandchild or say their last goodbyes to someone.

This has been a national effort. The releasing of these regulations and guidance is the next step to ensuring that we get to where we want to be and start to resume life with our new normal, ensuring that social distancing still applies where possible—the advice is incredibly clear that social distancing is the primary measure for stopping the transmission. In places where that is not possible, we have the 1 metre-plus rule, with interventions such as Perspex screens in shops—or even in Parliament, as we now see in some of the Committee Rooms—to keep people safe, and the wearing of face masks.

I gently say that the face covering regulations come in on the 24th. We have been having conversations about enforcement with the National Police Chiefs Council and the College of Policing, and they have released guidance on each set of regulations. We are in daily contact with them to ensure that there is consistency around enforcement. People with inside businesses will not be expected to enforce.

The equalities impact has been considered throughout the restrictions across a range of protected characteristics, but the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will have to raise the more specific instances for different protected groups with the relevant Department.

The hon. Gentleman asked two very specific questions on testing: on the Randox test and comments from yesterday. If he will forgive me, I will write with a more comprehensive answer on testing. He will be well aware that we now have the capacity in this country to test some 300,000 across the suite of tests per day. On the turnaround time, we get 91% of the tests done at either the satellite or mobile testing back within a shorter than 24-hour period, and 97.5% within the day.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill (Third sitting)

Matt Western Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris]

I will not labour the point, but the Government must act not just transparently, but transparently, publicly and proactively. That is something we would be really keen on.

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

On a point of clarification, at what point does the MHRA intervene? At what point is the threshold—that is perhaps a better way of putting it—at which a recall is demanded? Depending on the product, at what point is that necessary and who bears the cost? I am not sure whether that should be covered by the clause, or whether it is simply within the remit of the MHRA.

[Alex Norris]

That is interesting, and if the Minister wants to intervene to address that point, I will take an intervention. Otherwise, my best guess is that it would be covered by the regs and, presumably, subject to consultation. However, I hope the Government have a clear trigger point, so that we are all clear and transparent about what will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am also enthused and excited about the register, because it offers us a space to do something good. I am very grateful to him and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, to whom I spoke at the weekend, as I said on Monday, and I noted that she would not be with us for Committee proceedings.

A registry of long-term implantable medical devices as suggested in new clause 6 is of significant interest to many Members. On Second Reading, many Members put forward good ideas on how we could make a register work for the benefit of patients. We should consider this in the context of the forthcoming report from the independent medicines and medical devices safety review and the matters it looked into, particularly the use of pelvic mesh, and how we oversee medical devices, including post-market surveillance. It is not only the point when the device is implanted that is vital, but also the potential impacts some years later. I know we all recognise the critical importance of ensuring that patients are heard and that concerns about medical devices are identified and dealt with quickly and effectively. That must be at the forefront of our minds. As the hon. Gentleman said, the impact on an individual’s life can be significant.

New clause 6 is similar to new clause 1, which was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris). I know that she and many other Members in the House and the other place are interested in what more we could do to improve the tracking of implantable medical devices. The issue has also been a subject of interest to the Health Quality Improvement Partnership and the Royal College of Surgeons. It is very topical.

Clause 13(1)(h) provides for the creation of a register of medical devices to capture which devices are available on the UK market and to ensure that the MHRA can identify which device has been produced by which manufacturer. There has been some confusion in some of the written evidence as to whether that is intended to constitute a registry. A registry as in new clause 6 suggests bringing together patient and clinical information with device information. We have device registries, such as the national joint registry in the UK, which is seen as a global exemplar, so it is important to make sure that we do what we need to in order to enhance what is already in the system.

I understand the intent behind the new clause and, as ever, I am keen to understand what more we can do to protect patients in a fast-moving and constantly innovating environment, but I am not sure that new clause 6 is practical. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and I discussed the fact that it was heading in the right direction, but we need to work on it.

Patient safety absolutely underpins everything in our approach to regulation of medical devices in the Bill. It is the key consideration for all of us, as set out in clause 12(2)—the Government have put it there as the key priority. That is why we have introduced the ability for the Secretary of State to disclose information in the event of a safety concern, as we discussed.

I am not sure that the new clause achieves what the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire and for Nottingham North want it to. The intent is to establish a UK registry linking together all existing device registries, so that duplication of the entry of information is reduced, and to require the information entered to include the specifics of a device, such as the clinician who implanted it—information that, in the event of something going wrong, would give a clear picture of what happened. Although that is a commendable aim, the existing registries have been established over time and have expanded into different regions, evolving as they go. We have not had conversations on linkages to the registers in various parts of the country and in devolved Administrations. It is right and proper that we pull back and ensure that we have taken in the views of all stakeholders, and done the proper engagement to ensure that we collect the information from registers appropriately. That needs some work, partly due to the differing operating approaches in each registry. I gently suggest that the proposal in subsection (6) that all implanted devices without a specialist registry be logged on a national registry is a little broad at this stage. We perhaps need to talk about that with stakeholders and others.

The new clause also seeks to establish a governance structure, after consultation with a range of stakeholders, on the management of and access to the proposed registry. I suggest that the consultation requirement is out of step with the consultation duty in clause 40, which provides that consultation with those considered appropriate must take place before we make the regulations. It is a little cart before the horse but, that notwithstanding, this is very much the direction of travel. I remain of the view—no doubt we will come to this point—that we must ensure that we do not inadvertently rule out consulting those who ought to be consulted.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North and I have had discussions in this space, and we are united in wanting this idea to get to the right place. I appreciate the careful consideration that was given to the new clause, and I am grateful for it. I would welcome further discussions in the near future.

[Matt Western]

I am keen to clarify, not having been party to previous debate, what happens with non-medical cosmetic devices implanted by a medical procedure. Should registry for them be part of this consideration? There is a subsequent impact on our NHS when things go wrong.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We are not talking about cosmetic devices here, but I very much take his point. If it involves implantation, it is worth talking about, in the round, during consultation; however, many of the cosmetic issues he refers to may be temporary—if, for example, a device is inserted and then taken away. The legislation is about implanted devices. Again, it is something that we would talk about and ensure that we had consulted on, but for the purposes of the Bill, we are specifically looking at medical devices, and the definition of them.

As I said, I welcome discussion with those interested in these matters, particularly as we look forward to Baroness Cumberlege’s review, which is coming very shortly. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire and for Nottingham North to withdraw the motion, but I will commit to following up with arrangements to have those discussions in a timely fashion.

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

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell.

We are here today to consider these regulations during yet another critical phase in the fight against coronavirus, and of course we all wish that they were not necessary, but sadly we know that these restrictions are required due to the ongoing and serious threat to public health that we face. The virus has not gone away and it is right that we take all necessary steps to protect our citizens.

Of course we want the Government to succeed in defeating this virus and in minimising the impact that it has on our lives and on the country, so we will continue to be supportive where that is appropriate. Equally, however, in wanting the Government to get this right, where we have concerns we will continue to raise them, and it is right to say that we have concerns.

First of all, we are having the right debate, but we are having it at the wrong time. I want to place on the record our concerns about the procedure for considering these regulations. As the Minister said, these regulations were created and signed into law on 14 May. It is now 10 June. It is far too late for anything that we say to make any difference to these regulations.

The Minister has said that it is right that the rule of law be maintained, and of course we agree with that, but I fear that by debating these regulations retrospectively, we are treading on the wrong side of that. Of course we accept that the initial regulations had to be hurriedly introduced, in response to the rising number of infections. However, as I stated when we debated those initial regulations back on 4 May—some six weeks after they had been introduced—given that Parliament was up and running again by that time, there should have been sufficient time to ensure that future changes were debated and had democratic consent before they were introduced. Debating them weeks after the event, and when in fact they have already been superseded, as we have heard today, is frankly an insult.

There is no excuse for this situation now. As we have heard, the regulations require there to be a review every three weeks, as the Secretary of State has a duty to terminate any regulations that are not necessary or proportionate to control the transmission of the virus. That means that all along we have had a clear timetable and sight for when new regulations might be created, which should have allowed plenty of opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of those regulations.

Yet here we are again today, debating regulations that came into effect weeks ago. That is not good enough. I want to ask the Minister this: what would happen if the Committee voted against these regulations today? Would all the fines issued under them have to be repaid? I imagine that would be a minimum step, but the Minister will be pleased to hear that, at this stage, that is a hypothetical question, because we are not going to vote against these regulations. However, this is the issue—it is the way that these regulations continually come to us late. Moving forwards, we cannot carry on in this way and the Government accept our indolence at their peril.

That is because we are not only debating these regulations too late but, as we have heard, we are debating them when they have been superseded, as the next set of regulations has been introduced. As we heard, the review that took place on 28 May, with regulations being laid on 31 May, came into law on 1 June, and a debate on those regulations is set to take place on Monday—again, long after the event. Does the Minister agree that debating regulations when they are already out of date makes a mockery of the process?

As we know, and as the Minister told us, the regulations have changed the requirement for a review to take place from every 21 days to every 28 days. Given that the next review must take place before 25 June, if that review does envisage an introduction of more relaxations, can the Minister commit today that those new regulations—any introduced off the back of that review—will be debated before they are implemented, and not retrospectively, as has been the case today?

The Minister went on to say that the regulations are, in fact, constantly reviewed; I should be grateful if she would clarify exactly what she means by that. Is there a formal process by which that is taking place, or are there, in fact, just the three-weekly reviews that have been set out in the regulations?

As for those reviews, where are they? In a written question that I put to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I asked if he would publish the reviews carried out on 16 April, 7 May and 28 May pursuant to these regulations. I received a reply to that question at half-past 9 last night, which said:

“The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated that it will not be possible to answer the question within the usual time period.”

I find that absolutely incredible, and, regrettably, the failure of the Department to provide me with an answer to what I would have thought was a pretty important and obvious question leads me to one inevitable and damning conclusion: there has been no proper review.

Here we have the most far-reaching impositions on the life of this country in peacetime—necessary actions, but ones that have had unparalleled and far-reaching economic and social impacts—and the Government have not, as required by law, conducted any review of those regulations that we can actually see; or if they have, they have decided that we do not deserve to see them, which is equally reprehensible.

I understand, from what the Minister said in her introduction, that there were several more reviews on 22 April and 7 May. Again, if the Minister had not been good enough to tell us today about those reviews, we would never have known that they had taken place. We need far more transparency than we are seeing at the moment. We cannot go on like this. If we are to defeat the virus and carry with us public confidence and trust that the tough decisions being made are the right ones, the Government must be transparent and open and let us see the outcome of the reviews as a matter of urgency.

It is because of their wide-ranging effect that these measures demand full parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that many hon. Members agree that a 90-minute debate by a small parliamentary Committee, weeks after the fact, cannot possibly be sufficient to provide the level of examination and scrutiny that such important laws require. As we have seen, great efforts have been made by staff to get Parliament up and running again. We should not demean those efforts by turning these debates into a procedural formality, a rubber-stamping exercise to create the veneer of a democratic process. We should be better than that. We should not be debating the measures late and without the full extent of the information on which the Government have made their decisions.

When it comes to the regulations themselves, not only has the legally required review of them not been disclosed to date; they have not had any kind of impact assessment carried out. Again, to be fair to the Government, we understand why, in the first instance, that was not possible. However, we did make it very clear, the last time the regulations were debated, that we did not want that to become the norm, especially for regulations such as these, where we know that the impact will have been huge. The second and third set of regulations have apparently had no impact assessment, either.

How can the Government continue to issue new laws with such sweeping powers as these when they cannot tell us what their impact is? As the time between reviews and updated regulations extends, will the Minister commit to undertaking impact assessments for future regulations and publishing them alongside the regular reviews of the regulations that they undertake?

The public have made huge sacrifices. Like us, they have supported the lockdown. It is right that we take a moment to acknowledge the sacrifices that they have made in the interests of public health and to thank them for that. However, it is simply unacceptable for the Government to continue to issue regulations but then to make no attempt to measure their impact.

We have always argued that restrictions need to be eased gradually and in a safe way. Of course we want to see society reopen, but that has to happen safely. We need a structured approach to easing and tightening restrictions, which needs to be done in an open way, backed by the science and alongside a published impact assessment. That is the way to take people with you.

The Government have confirmed that all the proposed easings of restrictions have been modelled and that that showed that the R value remained below 1, but we of course have not seen that modelling. We still see thousands of new infections each week. Indeed, I understand that we still have the second highest infection rate in Europe. We need to see all the scientific evidence for the decisions that have been taken. Any easing of restrictions should be accompanied by publication of the Government’s full scientific evidence and should involve advance warning, to allow adequate time for planning. It should be done in conjunction with all nations, regions, local authorities and elected Mayors. The decision at 5 pm last Friday night suddenly to announce that everyone in hospitals should wear face masks was a classic example of a headline-driven agenda that fails to acknowledge that decisions need to be taken in consultation with those who will have to deliver on them.

The Government should be clear that they would rapidly reintroduce targeted restrictions where necessary should infections increase and the R rate increase above 1 in the whole or in parts of the country. They should also spell out how they would do that. That is essential to ensure that we maintain public confidence and safety. We have heard talk of localised lockdowns, but the Government have not spelt out how that will work in practice. Who will make those decisions? Who will monitor and enforce the lockdown? And who will be responsible for dealing with the economic fallout from such decisions?

Will the Minister commit to publishing written guidance on defining what a “local lockdown” is, how it will be enforced and what resources and powers local authorities and other agencies will be able to draw on in enforcing it? We know from what Ministers have said that they are looking at the scientific advice across the board, but we do not know what that science is, because we have not seen it. What we have seen in recent weeks is various members of the SAGE committee popping up on TV to raise their concerns, while at the same time those experts have mysteriously disappeared from the nightly Downing Street briefings. Is it any wonder, in those circumstances, that we might want to have some more detail about the basis on which decisions are being made? I hope the Minister will take the opportunity today to reiterate the Government’s commitment to following the science. Of course, the simplest way to show that commitment would be to publish it all.

We also consistently hear concerns about the Government’s strategy in communication from the royal colleges, membership bodies and NHS bodies. Only last weekend, the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners called for a strategy for test and trace, for PPE, for the use of technology, for maintaining covid services and opening up non-covid services, saying that

“there’s no sense of direction as to where we’re heading.”

Those are not small concerns. Senior clinicians, frontline NHS staff and public health experts are not convinced that there is a plan to deal with a potential second wave of covid-19 infections, more than 80 days since lockdown began. That is about as serious as it gets. The Government say they have met their own five tests for the easing of lockdown rules, but as I have set out, there are considerable concerns from people on the frontline that we are woefully underprepared to deal with a spike in cases. Can the Minister point to a document that sets out the Government’s assessment of the five tests? Can she explain why the relaxations have already happened when the joint biosecurity centre has not reduced the threat level?

I come to the substance of the regulations. As we have heard from the Minister, the regulations further amend the original lockdown regulations and give further reasons why a person can leave their home. The explanatory memorandum describes them as

“a number of small relaxations”.

I would not dissent from that description, nor will I recite them all here, but I will draw attention to the new permission that has been granted by amending regulation 6(2) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 to include sub-paragraph (n)—namely, the ability to visit a waste or recycling centre. I mention that because when we debated the first set of regulations, I contrasted the permitted reasons to leave home at that stage with the statements made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who had said in April that people were permitted to leave their homes to visit waste or recycling centres. Clearly, he should have said at the time that he meant that people could do that after 13 May.

On fines, the regulations significantly increase—from £60 to £100—the amount that can be charged as a fixed penalty notice for people over 18 who breach the lockdown restrictions. What is the reason for that increase? What evidence has the Minister had to suggest that there needs to be a higher level of punishment? Is a greater deterrent needed? Will she also provide an update on the representations that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made to the Treasury on the fines issued to people whose childcare issues may have been why they breached the rules?

In the context of public compliance with the rules, it would be remiss of me not to raise concerns that the actions of Government in recent weeks have negatively impacted on public confidence in such measures. The Government have allowed the public health message to be undermined because the Prime Minister, for reasons best known to himself, would not take firm action against his senior adviser for breaking the lockdown. No one wants to feel as though there is one rule for them and another for those is power. That should not be the case. We want to keep the public on board and adhering to social distancing, to keep everyone safe. It is vital that Ministers rebuild trust in their strategy and that ministerial statements in the media are without bias and reflect the rules and official guidance.

There are concerns about the issuing of fixed penalty notices. We have seen some worrying data showing that black, Asian and minority ethnic people in England are 54% more likely to be fined under the regulations than white people. According to 2016 population figures, BAME people account for 15.5% of the population in England. However, according to National Police Chiefs Council data from 15 May, they have received at least 22% of the coronavirus lockdown fines. Will the Minister confirm that she is aware of this issue? What steps are the Government taking to address the disproportionality?

We also know that racial and health inequalities amplify the risks of covid-19 and that people in the poorest households and those of colour are disproportionately affected, with black, Asian and minority ethnic people more likely to die from covid and more likely to be admitted to intensive care. However, the Public Health England review published last week made no recommendations on how to reduce the impact of covid-19 on BAME communities. As the lockdown is eased, will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to mitigate the risks faced by such communities and to protect them, in order to ensure that no further lives are lost?

One message that has been coming through clearly from the experts is that the key to easing lockdown safely is a properly functioning testing and tracing strategy. The Opposition have concerns about that: we have been too slow on testing, and now it seems we are too slow on tracing. The Prime Minster promised a “world-beating” system by 1 June, but that date has come and gone, and we are now told that it may not be fully operational until September. We do not know the numbers of people tested each day or the numbers of contacts traced. We do not know whether mailed tests are completed and we do not know how many care home residents, care staff or NHS staff have been routinely tested, or whether they are symptomatic or not.

We take no pleasure from the fact that the system is in chaos and that the UK Statistics Authority has been forced to intervene over concerns about testing data, or that the Association of Directors of Public Health has called on the Government to delay easing lockdown until the tracing system has been proved to be more robust and there can be confidence about what the impact will be on continuing trends in infection rates. I raise those issues because we want to get things right. If we do not, we will risk another spike in the number of infections, with a second lockdown, costing many more lives and causing untold damage. We must do everything we can to ensure that that is not allowed to happen.

I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm when we will have a fully functioning, effective test, trace and tracking system, with a fully functioning app. I hope that she will commit to introducing a covid test guarantee, so that no one will have to wait more than 24 hours to receive a test, and then no more than 24 hours to receive the results—for all tests, without exception and with immediate effect. I hope that she will also commit to delivering a working app that will enable councils to contact everyone at risk, with a cast-iron guarantee to the public that they can feel secure that their information will not be disclosed to third parties.

None of us wants a sharp rise in infections or the R rate. We are at a critical moment. The Government must demonstrate that they have got a grip of the testing and tracing strategy, to restore public confidence in their handling of the pandemic. The Government have taken the decision to lift the restrictions. It is for them to demonstrate that they are listening to experts and publish the full scientific evidence and the rationale behind the decisions that they have taken. We want society to reopen, but that must happen safely and in a way that follows the science. We remain committed to working constructively with the Government. That requires them to work constructively and openly with us and others. We hope that the Government will confirm that that is their intention on those important issues, because only with constructive working, where the Government listen and respond to concerns, can we all beat the virus together.

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

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I should be interested to know the reason for certain sittings being broadcast and others, like this, not being broadcast. Is there a reason?

[The Chair]

I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s query, but I shall undertake to find out.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill (Second sitting)

Matt Western Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Monday 8th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 12, page 7, line 27, at end insert—

“(d) the environmental sustainability of medical devices.”

This amendment obliges the Secretary of State to pay regard to the environmental impact of medical devices.

This is the “climate in all policies” amendment. We are in the middle of a global pandemic—an extraordinary time that we will all remember for the rest of our lives —but we are also in the middle of a climate emergency. Obviously, that was uppermost in all our thoughts a few months ago, and it must not fall down the order of priorities, because a similar existential threat exists as existed six months ago and it behoves us to act on it.

Amendment 15 is the first one relating to medical devices. To the principle that applies throughout the Bill of safety, availability and attractiveness, I think it would be suitable to add environmental sustainability, given that the types of materials used to create these devices could be finite resources. There could be opportunities for things to be reusable where they might at the moment be single use. I thought it important to probe this to see what the Government are doing, and could be doing, to ensure a medical devices market that promotes sustainability where that is responsible.

After tabling the amendment, I had a couple of emails from people making very fair points about things that could not be reusable. Of course, that applies to very many things in medicine; it is a very basic principle. I am very mindful of that. It is why the explanatory statement says “pay regard”. However, I think that the two things are compatible. There will be contexts where things that are currently single use do not have to be single use. I think that we should be seeking to promote that. There will be contexts where the market and the industry should be under pressure not to use finite resources, but to use all the considerable innovation to find other solutions. I feel that if Governments do not drive that in shaping the market, nobody else will. There should be pressure for, or at least interest in, buying British, for a variety of reasons. As well as being good for jobs and our local economies, that would be very good for reducing travel miles and therefore for sustainability. We have to decarbonise every industry we possibly can, so that applies to this industry also.

This is a basic principle that I seek in every policy—even though it might be a bit boring to hear me go on about it. We have to say, “But what about the climate? What about climate change?”. I think that this is the point in the Bill at which to do that. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on it, but also to hear what the vision is for shaping this market so that it is as sustainable as it can be.

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

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about sustainability, and of course linked to that is durability—the durability of the materials used in devices, particularly if a device is actually put into the human body. Of course, the durability is down to not just the effectiveness of the device or implant, but the cost to the health service of any subsequent revisions that may be needed, and so on. That is a significant cost, and therefore my hon. Friend is making an important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

Clause 12 provides the power to make changes to the Medical Device Regulations 2002, which regulate medical devices in the UK. Those regulations provide for the assessment of requirements and standards that must be met to place medical devices on the UK market, including in relation to packaging, labelling and user instructions, and for the requirements on manufacturers to conduct post-market surveillance of devices.

The first subsection of the clause is a delegated power allowing the Secretary of State to make amending or supplementing provisions to the Medical Devices Regulations. The exercise of that power is limited to making provisions about matters specified in clauses 13 to 15. Those clauses provide an explicit and exhaustive list of topics and give more detail on how the regulation-making power may be exercised. The Committee will, I am sure, hear in-depth explanations of those clauses during our consideration of them.

Subsection (2) explains that the Secretary of State must have regard to three factors when making provisions under subsection (1): the safety of medical devices; the availability of medical devices; and the attractiveness of the UK as a place in which to develop or supply medical devices. Those three factors must be taken into account, and they have been included to provide reassurance that future provisions are made with the best intentions for the safety of people and patients in the UK, as well as the continued development of our life sciences sector.

[Matt Western]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous. I want to press her on that point. She talks about reassurance, safety and how important this sector is to our economy and our scientific status. When we talk about safety, we think about gauze and metal implants and so on, and the Minister mentioned how important it is for consumer protection and assurance. However, in the way that we have a building regs centre, or whatever it is called, at Watford—it came to light after the Grenfell disaster—where building materials are tested, is there such a body that does testing of these medical materials and products in the UK? If not, is one envisaged?

[Jo Churchill]

I will not bluff but, off the top of my head, I think that the MHRA would look at medical devices, as it does medicines—I was looking to where my box of officials would normally be. I am fairly sure that the MHRA pays regard to devices, as with the centre at Watford to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. That centre used to do its practices at the Cardington air hangars many years ago, I think, on fire in buildings, for example. Yes, I believe that there is sufficient regulatory oversight to ensure the safety of medical devices.

Medical devices are a reserved matter in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As a result, unlike the enabling powers at clauses 1(1) and 8(1), regulations made under clause 12(1) can only be made by the Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Manufacture, marketing and supply