Public Health

Peter Kyle Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Today marks 12 weeks since the country went into lockdown and we saw the biggest peacetime restrictions ever. Over the past 12 weeks, the public have made huge sacrifices. The vast majority of them supported and adhered to the lockdown, and it is right that we take a moment to acknowledge the sacrifices they have made in the interests of public health—the business that faces an uncertain future, the child who has missed out on crucial social and educational opportunities, and the grandparents who just want to give their grandchildren a hug. We know it has been hard, and we thank them for doing their bit.

We also thank those in the NHS and other parts of the public sector, in social care and of course the millions of other people who have made their own contributions in the collective fight against the virus. When we have seen over the weekend images that represent the worst of this country, let us not forget that many, many more have in recent months shown us what the very best of this country can look like.

It is also right to take a moment to remember the more than 41,000 lives that have been lost to the virus, each one a tragic loss. We mourn them all.

We are here today to consider the third iteration of the regulations, just as further relaxations come into force to allow non-essential shops to open for the first time. Those measures are probably the single largest relaxation since lockdown was introduced—but we are not here to debate those changes. In our view, we ought to be, but instead we are here to debate the changes that came into force two weeks ago, on 1 June, and the interventions on the Minister that we have heard demonstrate why there is some anxiety.

Changes should be debated and have democratic consent before they are introduced. I thank the Minister for acknowledging Opposition concern in respect of that, and I understand why urgent action is needed, but it should be perfectly possible for us to debate regulations at short notice. We in the Opposition stand ready to co-operate with whatever is necessary to make that happen.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

Considering that Government have one job, and one job alone right now, which is keeping us safe and preparing for the days ahead, is it not inexcusable that they are not able to keep Parliament up to date at the same speed as they announce things to the media?

[Justin Madders]

I will come on to the discourteous way in which the Prime Minister has been announcing these things to press conferences instead of this Chamber.

It is important that this Chamber has a role because these are not minor or consequential changes that can be nodded through without debate. They affect millions of people’s lives, and we know that if we get it wrong, the consequences will be devastating. Debating them weeks after the event, and in some cases when they have been superseded by the next set of regulations, demeans parliamentary democracy. Changes such as these should always be accompanied by a statement to Parliament, not just showcased at Downing Street press conferences. We are not merely a rubber-stamping exercise to create the veneer of a democratic process. We should not be debating these measures late, and we should not be debating them without seeing the full extent of the information on which the Government based their decisions. We know that the next review of the regulations must take place on or before 25 June. If that review leads to further relaxations, will the Minister commit today that any regulations introduced off the back of that will be debated here before they are implemented and not retrospectively?

The reviews, which are legally required to happen under the regulations, took place on 16 April, 7 May and 28 May. I ask the Minister: where are they? In a written question, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would publish those reviews. I received a reply last week stating that the Department of Health and Social Care had indicated that it would not be possible to answer the question within the usual time period. Why on earth not? If the Government have conducted these reviews, why are they not in a position to disclose them? I find this absolutely incredible. Here we have the most far-reaching impositions into everyday life in this country, yet we have no idea what the Government’s own reviews of them say. These are reviews that are required under legislation.

[Justin Madders]

If these regulations were actually going to be changed as a result of what we said here, we might see a better attendance, but the Government have shown the contempt in which they hold this place by introducing them way after the event. The question is: where are the reviews? What is it that we cannot see in them? This betrays a cavalier attitude to transparency, and it does absolutely nothing to engender confidence that the decisions that are being taken are the right ones.

[Peter Kyle]

We have to get this on to the record. My right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) want to be here engaging in the debate, but they are unable to be here because the virtual Parliament has been closed down for debates such as these, and they have to shield. The Government are telling them not to be here. That is the reason they are not here. Is that not correct?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure there are many Members who cannot be here for good reasons but who would like to take part in the debate. They are following the Government’s advice, which is to work from home wherever possible. This just shows how confused the approach is sometimes, and it really is an affront to democracy that those Members cannot take part in important debates such as these.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Tonight we are debating the continued removal of civil liberties and we are not having a vote at the end of this debate. We need to start voting on these matters. I find it absolutely extraordinary that 10, 11, 12 weeks into this crisis we are yet to have a vote. This is important stuff—important to my constituents, this country and Members, and we need to get back to business as usual, as much as we can.

[Peter Kyle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Charles Walker]

Very briefly.

[Peter Kyle]

I will be brief. The House of Lords—the other place—voted tonight. It did so electronically. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that would be a more sensible way forward here, because we could have been doing it already?

[Sir Charles Walker]

I will come on to that point.

We have got to get people back to work. I am going to lose hundreds of small businesses in my constituency and thousands of jobs—and that is just if we all go back to work tomorrow. If we delay week after week after week, more and more jobs will go and more and more businesses will close, not just in my constituency but in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in everyone else’s in this Chamber—all colleagues. It will be catastrophic. It is going to be really, really bad for a lot of people. Not having a job, losing your business and not having a home have bad outcomes—bad health outcomes, bad mental health outcomes, and just bad outcomes all round for your family and community.

We talk about when we do not have coronavirus any more—when we have banished this virus from our shores. Well, we may have to learn to live with this virus. I did a bit of research and found a book by the virologist F. M. Burnet, written in 1953—a very good read it is too. He was an expert on Spanish flu, and he wrote this:

“Influenza remained unduly active and unduly fatal through 1919 and 1920, but gradually reverted to normal character. The change from the young adult incidence of fatality to the standard type involving virtually only the old was not complete until 1929.”

That was a decade.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as most viruses mutate they become less fatal, and hopefully that it is what is going to happen to coronavirus; I suspect that it will be the case. There is this idea that we can stand here and say, “We’re not going to go back to work—we’re not going to go back to normal—until we banish coronavirus.” But we could see this hybrid Parliament lasting a lot longer than any of us thought it would last. We could see a lot more of our constituents out of work and a lot more businesses failing; in fact our whole country could fail.

We talk about leadership; we talk about the Government leading. That is a realistic expectation—that the Government lead—but what about our obligation to lead? Parliament came back two weeks ago after the Whitsun recess and we had a number of votes. We were asked to queue for half an hour, in the sunshine, and we started whingeing and tweeting out. Why were we whingeing that we were being asked to stand in a queue? My God, for crying out loud, our constituents had been doing it for the past 10 weeks, and yet when it is our turn we do not like it at all. Where is the leadership there, I ask you? And it did not go unnoticed by our constituents.

I will return to the issue about democratic accountability and the democratic deficit, and why this place needs to meet vibrantly to debate matters of great concern. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that during the EU debates there was heat, passion and emotion, but it never spilled over into the streets because we were the safety valve. We were allowed to let off steam in this Chamber on behalf of our constituents, and they felt they had a voice. But now in London we are seeing people who feel passionately about an issue—who feel it viscerally in their hearts—not having voices in Parliament organically, through a debate, sharing, debating and discussing their concerns.

That is why it is so important that we start voting on matters of civil liberty—that we take it upon ourselves to return to this place to lead the country back to work. It is not good enough to think we have done our bit by clapping fantastic NHS health workers and people in supermarkets, and yet when it comes to our turn we say, “No, that is for other people.” We have got to get back to work—ourselves and the nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. The debate has exemplified quite how challenging and complex this situation is. Throughout it, we have discussed both opening up and not opening up at the same point. The regulations state that the Secretary of State should ensure that restrictions are lifted at the earliest opportunity if no longer necessary for public health. These measures are incredibly restrictive, and we should not leave them in place a moment longer than we need to, but we have to go with caution. Parliamentary scrutiny is essential, but we could not justify to the public keeping the restrictions in place longer while we await a debate.

The changes are broadly consistent with the road map that the Prime Minister laid out to this House on 11 May. Over the coming weeks and months, we will continue slowly to ease the restrictions put on individuals, society and businesses by the regulations, if and when it becomes safe to do so. The amendments debated today play a significant role in that gradual return to normal life. This requires a constant and careful review of the evidence and of the impact both of measures remaining in place and of the amendments we have made to them. We are being guided by the science, and the Government are making changes only where we are confident that it is safe to do so.

[Peter Kyle]

Let me quickly put on the record my thanks to the Minister. At the very beginning of the outbreak back in February, when the first outbreak was in my constituency, she briefed me daily and was constantly available as a source of information at that point, so I thank her.

Can the Minister explain to the House why, on issues such as zoos, in the few days it has taken to get this statutory instrument to the Floor of the House, there has already been a U-turn? Why is there so much confusion about this announcement?

[Jo Churchill]

I would argue that this is a dynamic situation. For example, with zoos, scientific evidence indicates quite clearly that open spaces are much safer for people to be in, so a degree of logic applies. It is very difficult to argue that we do not want things opened, while at the same time requesting that businesses and so on are opened. There has to be a degree of walking slowly, and I hope to come on to that. Several Members raised the fact that there appear to be inconsistencies, but I would argue that the Government are maintaining only the restrictions that are necessary and appropriate at any given time.