Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I draw the House’s attention to my proud membership of the GMB trade union. We believe that businesses work best when they give workers a voice through a recognised trade union. I would be very interested to hear more about what has happened at the Amazon warehouse in Coventry. The Government will look closely at that as part of our plan to make work pay. We will simplify the process and laws around statutory recognition.

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

Last weekend, hundreds of thousands of Oasis fans were left angered by the notion of dynamic pricing—a concern that we are seeing across the wider economy. Does the Minister agree that we need an urgent review of such price gouging systems?

[Justin Madders]

That certainly took the nation’s interest in more than one way. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has already announced a review into it, and we will look at secondary pricing. The whole system needs urgent reconsideration, and we understand that the Competition and Markets Authority is looking into the matter, too.

Delivery of Public Services

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

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

There is an old saying that you cannot solve a problem if you do not know that it exists. While I hope that the contributions to this debate have spelled out in no uncertain terms where the problems are, there has been a failure right across Government to measure performance, which is part of the reason we are here now. To illustrate the point, I will highlight some of the written questions I have asked on these issues.

I will start with the most recent. Yesterday I got an answer to a question asking what the average waiting time is for an assessment for personal independence payment from the point of application. The answer I got was:

“the information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.”

I am sure that Members recognise that phrase very well. People claiming PIP usually need immediate help, but how can the Department judge whether it is doing enough on that score if it cannot even tell us how long it takes to get to an assessment? I know some of the practical consequences of that. I have a constituent with multiple long-term conditions who was disgracefully turned down for PIP back in October 2019 and still has not had her appeal heard. She had another go at it last week, but the appeal was cancelled for the umpteenth time because no one from the Department was available to register their objection to her appeal. How is that justice for that individual? How is it anything other than a damning indictment of the way that the Department works?

At least the response to that written question was rather more straightforward than the one I got from the same Department on the average online journal response time for universal credit claimants:

“Universal Credit is a 24/7 digital service.”

Well, that is really helpful for understanding how long it takes people to get a response.

Moving on to the Department of Health, I asked it what the average length of time was for a resolution to complaints to the Vaccination Data Resolution Service regarding incorrect vaccination records. I was told that the information was not held centrally—again, a phrase that I am sure that many Members are familiar with. The Government need to get a grip on this, because I know people who have been trying to correct their records since last year, which means that they are having trouble travelling abroad because their vaccination records are not up to date. That shows that it is not just GP appointments, specialist referrals, ambulance waiting times and A&E waits that the NHS is struggling with. However, at least there is some kind of measurement of those issues, although it has not gone unnoticed that for quite a lot of them, the goalposts have moved in recent times.

As many Members have said, the biggest issue in the inbox at the moment is passport delays. It has been for at least the past couple of months in my constituency. I asked a written question about processing times for passports way back in April. Despite having a couple of weeks’ notice of the question, the Department could not get an answer to me before Prorogation, rather conveniently. Last week I finally got an answer to the question; I was told that between March and May, more than 90% of applications were processed within six weeks, with approximately 98.5% completed within 10 weeks. Obviously the Prime Minister told us a few weeks ago that everyone was getting them in four to six weeks, which was clearly incorrect, but I think we have done enough on his exactitude recently, so I will not go any further into that.

The issue has been live for many months now, but it was only last week that the Department was able to provide me with information on its own performance, which takes me back to the original point: the Government have either wilfully or negligently decided not to mention their own performance. I think they are doing that because they just do not want anyone to know how badly they are doing.

On the issue of the Home Office backlog, my constituency office phone bill last month was far larger than normal. It was more than £260. When we dug a little deeper, we found that most of it was down to my excellent caseworkers being put on hold for hours at a time when ringing various Home Office hotlines. If we multiplied that by all the Members here, it would mean that more than £2 million had been spent in one year on calls to one Department’s hotlines. If that is what it is costing us here, imagine how much the British public are having to pay. It is not just backlog Britain; it is rip-off Britain.

I am reminded of a constituent who told me about his passport renewal. Having paid an extra £70 to get it checked by the Post Office, he had to make an emergency dash to Durham on Friday, which cost him £100 in fuel, and then had to pay another £90 to the Home Office to get the passport issued, despite the fact that the application had been sent in more than 10 weeks ago. Just for good measure, he could not work that day, so he lost another £200 in earnings. He could not do his job because the Ministers could not do theirs.

Let us make it clear that the blame lies at the feet of Ministers, not with the hard-pressed civil servants who are doing their best. As we have already heard, the Government think that we can cut civil servants by 20%. One can only imagine the backlog we would face if that went ahead. This backlog is across every facet of life. The child waiting for their education, health and care plan; the teenager waiting months for a driving test slot; the young family waiting for their passport renewals; and the pensioner waiting for the ambulance to arrive—everywhere we turn, there is another person unable to get on with their life because the Government have failed them. It is not just the failure of the Prime Minister; over the past 12 years, each of his predecessors has decided, time and again, that public services are not a priority, and that they can get away without investing in those services and the people who run them.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. One of the learnings of the past two years, and one of the concerns, has been about the cuts to local government and our local administrations. They performed very well in the disbursement of support to businesses and so on, and were doing well with test and trace. The Government seem to be doing the reverse of what is obvious and logical, which is delivering services well.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I declare for the record that my wife is a member of the local authority. When we first entered the covid crisis, there was already a system in place for contact tracing through local authorities. Unfortunately that was not deemed good enough by this Government, who decided to spend an awful lot of money on private providers. On the Homes for Ukraine scheme, I get a lot of compliments from residents on how the council is reacting, and a lot of complaints about how slow the Home Office is to respond. The power of local government cannot be overstated, and we should value more the great service that it provides.

In conclusion, we have seen over the past few months that a decade of austerity has consequences, and the folly of it has been well and truly exposed. This Government should hang their head in shame and step aside for a party that believes in public services, and has a record of delivery in government that this lot can only dream of.

Public Health

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Having had the dubious pleasure of spending an inordinate amount of time in various Committee Rooms over the past 18 months to scrutinise regulations introduced by the Government as part of their response to the pandemic, I must confess that I have had withdrawal symptoms following the reshuffle, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on these regulations today.

I am sorry to say that, on too many occasions, regulations were debated well after they came into force, so it is positive that at last we seem to be getting into the habit of having debates and votes before regulations become law. I would not want that to be seen as a ringing endorsement of the Government’s approach to parliamentary scrutiny, as two of these sets of regulations were published only at 3 pm yesterday, less than 24 hours before this debate began. I know things move quickly, but some of these regulations have been the subject of consultation for many months. There is no excuse for their being dropped in at the last minute.

The decision to reveal the precise detail of these regulations at the last minute has probably generated more opposition than is warranted. I have had many representations from constituents about the entry to venues regulations on the basis that they represent a compulsory vaccine passport. Let us be clear that they do not. A negative test taken in the 48 hours before entry can be used as an alternative, which addresses many of the legitimate concerns that have been raised with me about civil liberties and discrimination. I am pleased that my party’s persistence in pushing for a negative test as an alternative has been accepted, because it gives me enough confidence to support these regulations.

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

Across the House, many of us have been calling for greater transparency from the Government. The more we hear from the chief medical officer, the more concerning it is. If the Government had been more transparent up front, I am sure there would be greater support across the House.

[Justin Madders]

Indeed. If we look at what has happened in Wales, there has been a similar system for some time, which seems to be working reasonably well. People have been required to produce tests when travelling abroad and several venues in England have been doing that on a voluntary basis. It is not the slide into dystopia that some people fear, but the situation has not been aided by the Government not being as up front as they should about what the regulations mean. Many people already routinely take lateral flow tests before they go out.

However, there are some outstanding questions and concerns. There is no doubt that some constituents feel that the regulations are the start of a slippery slope and that we will soon have to show vaccination papers to get in anywhere. I will be clear: I do not support such a move. Given that the Government cannot even bring themselves to mandate wearing face coverings in pubs, I would be surprised if they moved in that direction, but I want confirmation when the Minister winds up that the Government are not planning any extensions to where the regulations will operate. We also need a clearer explanation of where the line is drawn and to which venues the regulations apply. Do places such as this, which fall into the definition of a public hall indoors with 500 or more people who stand up and move around, come within the ambit of the regulations? My reading suggests that they do. If we want to gain the public’s confidence, we should show that the rules apply to us equally.

Another concern that has rightly been raised is whether a charge will be introduced at some point to obtain lateral flow tests. That would obviously undermine tests as an alternative to showing vaccine status. Charging people to obtain tests would be an absolute disaster from a public health perspective. That goes way beyond the remit of the regulations, but I hope we can get confirmation from the Minister that there are no plans to charge for tests.

The Government need to do rather better at setting out what they consider the cost of the regulations to be to businesses. Again, I note there has been no impact assessment for the entry regulations. Who will pick up the cost of enforcing them? There is nothing I can see about supporting businesses to check people, let alone providing resources to local authorities, which are meant to enforce the regulations.

What will be the position if there is a national shortage of tests? We are told that there are tens of millions of them but, as we know, there are challenges in getting them out to the people who need them. In those circumstances, will the regulations be suspended, or will people be pushed down the vaccination route?

That said, the evidential burden for a negative test seems particularly broad. I think that will assist in reducing the burden on businesses, but it also increases the risk of fraudulent tests doing the rounds. That would undermine the whole point of the regulations. We do not want the worst of all worlds: an expensive bureaucratic system that does not actually help reduce transmission because it is not properly enforced.

Regarding the vaccination of NHS staff, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a small but significant proportion of covid admissions is the result of people acquiring the infection in hospital. I have seen figures to suggest that it has been as high as 15% to 20% of all covid admissions, although once staff started to receive the vaccination, the figure dropped dramatically. There is therefore evidence to show that the regulations will have an impact on covid admissions and the wider pressure on the NHS. I know it is difficult, but on balance, the regulations should be supported.

However, that should not be the end of the story. We have had a workforce crisis for years. Covid has accelerated cases of burnout and only a few weeks ago, the Government passed up the opportunity to grasp the nettle by refusing to implement a long-term workforce strategy. That is why we need an awful lot more work on the regulations.

The Government have an uphill struggle to earn people’s trust and explain why they consider the proposals necessary, to convince the public that what is before us will be the limit of restrictions and that we will not be talking about extensions or changes at some point in the future. Judging by the comments of many Conservative Members, the Government have failed to persuade a number of their Back Benchers, so it is little wonder that we are all being bombarded by emails from our constituents expressing concern. That exposes the wider truth that the Government have vacated the space where leadership should be. They are compromised by their own failure to follow the rules, riddled with internal disagreements about the route ahead and unable to provide the authority to persuade a sceptical public that the measures are needed.

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

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

Monday 19th October 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders]

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

[Matt Western]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“five days before the test”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The explanatory memorandum states that these regulations have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Western]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

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.

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

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

What recent assessment she has made of trends in the level of unemployment.

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

What recent assessment she has made of trends in the level of unemployment.

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

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

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

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

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.

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

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

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.

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

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

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?

NHS 10-Year Plan

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

With five and a half minutes of speaking time per year of the plan, I suspect that we have not quite done it justice tonight. However, we did manage to hear from nine Back Benchers during the debate. While I cannot refer to everyone in the time I have, I want to draw particular attention to certain contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) spoke about the importance of improving GP access—something we can all relate to—and the importance of mental health, a big driver of the 10-year plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) made important points about threats to services in his constituency, and we heard such points across the Chamber. I was particularly pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who, of course, speaks about cancer treatment from personal experience. He rightly pointed out the deficiencies in the 10-year plan in relation to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) was absolutely right to highlight the postcode lottery in palliative care. As with other areas such as neonatal care and IVF, it varies depending on where in the country someone lives. He also made a very important point about the cancer workforce.

I want to say a few words about the workforce. In recognising their invaluable work, which we thank them for, we also recognise—we on the Labour Benches do, at least—that without a fully staffed, respected and motivated workforce, the NHS would simply not be able to deliver the service that our constituents deserve. Last June, there was at last some Government recognition of the importance of the workforce, when the 10-year plan was announced. The then Health Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—said:

“Alongside the 10-year plan, we will also publish a long-term workforce plan recognising that there can be no transformation without the right number of staff, in the right settings and with the right skills.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 52.]

We now know, however, that the workforce plan will not be with us until some time later this year, so is it not the case that without a workforce plan, we simply do not know how much of the 10-year plan is achievable?

As we know, the House of Lords Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS said that the lack of a workforce strategy

“represents the biggest internal threat to the sustainability of the NHS”.

Amazingly, the 10-year plan makes no reference to the actual numbers of staff expected to be employed during this period, so I put in a written question to the Minister about how many staff the NHS expects to employ by the end of the period covered by the 10-year plan. I was told in response:

“The Department does not hold the data requested.”

So there we have it in black and white: the Government do not have a clue.

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

Does that not just underline the fact this evening’s debate has been so ridiculously short on such an important subject? We need more time; we need another debate.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Of course, we were not actually meant to be here at all this week, but it is absolutely right that this debate took place tonight. We need another one and we will very shortly need a debate on the social care Green Paper, when that is published. We also need a debate on what we are going to do about some of the legislative changes that the Government have promised, because all these things need to take place in the public eye.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

Q Mr Henderson, I think you described the existing arrangements as pretty well universal. Could you explain a little more what the gaps are?

Mr Henderson: I am not actually sure I have all the detail. My understanding is that the European health insurance card and such arrangements work for all emergency situations, certainly, and most normal circumstances. I think, and Raj may know better than I, that there are some areas that are not covered particularly, but as I understand it, it is fairly universal. I am not an absolute expert in that, I am afraid.

Raj Jethwa: We can write to the Committee. My opinion is that it is pretty universal. There are probably niche areas that may not be covered. We can look into that and get back to the Committee if that would be helpful.

[Justin Madders]

Q I have one more question to both of you—I am not sure if either of you will know the answer. Some of the reciprocal arrangements we have at the moment are based on the actual cost expended and some are based on an average—Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Malta and Norway. I am not clear why that is the case. Is there some sort of historical issue? If either of you can shed any light on that, that would be extremely helpful. One of you is shaking your head.

Raj Jethwa: I do not know that, but again we are happy to look into that and to come back to you if we find out that somebody back home does know the answer. I am not sure that I know.

Mr Henderson: It is probably lost in the mists of various previous agreements.

Vauxhall Factory, Ellesmere Port

Debate between Matt Western and Justin Madders

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the sector is too important to be left on its own. It directly or indirectly employs around 800,000 people and generates almost 10% of the country’s manufacturing output. Half of all the UK’s car production is exported to the EU, and that figure goes up to between 70% and 80% for the Vauxhall plant in my constituency.

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

I concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). Does my hon. Friend agree that the statement made by the CEO of the PSA Group, Carlos Tavares, is a canary in the mine? It is the first warning about Brexit and the serious impact it will have on our economy.

[Justin Madders]

That is certainly a huge concern locally. We do not want to get into a game of pointing fingers; we want action, certainty and investment in the plant, but it will be a challenge. A report by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee recently concluded that

“leaving the EU without a deal would undoubtedly be hugely damaging to the UK automotive sector, more so than to other European countries… Overall, no-one has argued there are advantages to be gained from Brexit for the automotive industry for the foreseeable future.”

Now that we are leaving the EU, it is important to recognise that there is no upside for one of our most vulnerable and important sectors. We must do everything possible to safeguard jobs and investment, because history shows us that once manufacturing jobs are lost, they very rarely come back.

So far, the Government’s response has been denial. We need them to work tirelessly to reassure major international companies that their future competitiveness will not be fatally undermined by tariffs or regulatory divergence, and that they can invest with confidence. I want us to get into a position in which Brexit cannot be used as an excuse not to invest in UK manufacturing. A clear and unequivocal commitment to a customs union would help, so that the many parts that travel back and forth across the continent can do so without impediment and without the final product becoming uncompetitive. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has estimated that failure to properly cater for such issues in the negotiations could result in an increase of more than £1,500 in the average cost of a vehicle. What business can absorb that without a massive impact?

There is a school of thought that says that some sort of customs union will prevent us from striking up trade deals on our own, but as the BEIS Committee said, the reality is that there are no advantages for the automotive sector from Brexit. If asked to choose between preserving trade with up to 80% of existing customers or knowingly jeopardising existing trade in exchange for the chance of some new business with unspecified countries at an unspecified future time, I believe most people would go for the former and protect existing jobs.

All I have seen from Cabinet Ministers who have been pressed on the issue is bluffing, complacency and dangerous fantasies about a green and pleasant land. The automotive industry will survive and flourish only if we protect it now. I do not expect the Minister’s reply to provide the laser-like clarity that has been missing so far, so I will focus instead on matters that are wholly within the Government’s gift, that are not down to negotiations, that can make a real difference now, and that would still be key to securing the plant’s future even if a new model were announced tomorrow.

The first such matter is business rates, which can have a deterrent effect on investment and can mean that efficiencies have to be sought in alternative areas. Some 60% of the total property tax bill of the former Opel group came from the UK, even though the UK accounted for only 8% of the group’s total footprint. In Germany, significant rate reductions are provided to large companies that are intensive energy users.