Public Health

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Should I infer from the hon. Gentleman’s points that the Labour party would like children to be excluded from the rule of six? I think that is what he is saying. Obviously, this motion today is unamendable. Is he joining some of us on the Conservative side of the House in saying to the Government that we would like them to come back with a further statutory instrument to amend the regulations, so that children are excluded if they are of primary school age?

[Justin Madders]

What I am saying is that I would like to see the evidence. I would like to know what the difference is between this country and Wales and Scotland. The Children’s Commissioner, for one, would also like an answer. If we get the answer, we can take a position on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that the Government’s thought processes are rather more complex than that, but, again, we need to see what has actually been said in that respect.

When we debated the first lockdown regulations, I stated that as regulations changed, it was vital that the rules remain clear and consistent. That consistency not only carries across advice but carries across laws and all forms of official communication. It is very clear that that has not happened in this case. As we know, the Prime Minister and Ministers have made contradictory statements and have been unable to answer simple questions regarding the new regulations in the media. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if the people responsible for making the rules do not understand them, how can we expect the rest of the country to understand and follow the rules?

[Mr Steve Baker]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Justin Madders]

I am conscious that more people want to speak, so I will make this my last one.

[Mr Baker]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me out. I am looking at the provision on linked households, which is introduced on page 6. I have looked at the explanatory memorandum and I cannot find the explanation of what linked households means. Is he able to clearly explain, for the benefit of the nation, what this linked households provision is all about?

[Justin Madders]

If we are going into pub quiz territory, then perhaps we can have a pint later on. I am afraid that we probably do not have time to go into that, because I know that a number of other Members wish to speak.

Compliance is a very important matter. The vast majority of people do comply with the rule of six, but where they have not, they will obviously get a fixed penalty notice, and we need to understand how realistic it is that that will be enforced. John Apter, the chair of the Police Federation, has called for the Government to start an effective information campaign. He said:

“For policing, these constant changes to legislation are becoming the norm. The pressures on policing have increased significantly over recent months, and this latest change will add to this pressure.”

Brian Booth, who I quoted earlier, said that officers

“simply can’t enforce”

the new restrictions, adding:

“We just don’t have the resources, the world has woken up again and it’s busy… Resources are outstripped with that demand, never mind adding on Mrs Miggins reporting that seven people are having a barbecue next door.”

I am not aware of any official figures for the total number of fines that have been issued for breaching the rule of six, or indeed whether Mrs Miggins has had a fine, but it is notable that three weeks down the line, it is reported that many police forces, including North Yorkshire police, who handed out the greatest number of fines in the original lockdown, had not issued any fines for breaches of these regulations.

Will the Minister update us on the number of fines that have actually been issued? The police have had an incredibly difficult job in this crisis, and we know the very real pressures on them due to the reductions in their numbers over the past decade. They simply cannot continue to be handed responsibilities if those responsibilities are not accompanied by sufficient resources to enable them to do their job. With the number of enforceable restrictions increasing, will the Minister set out what additional resources will be handed to the police to ensure compliance? On that point, we know that Halloween is coming up very soon. It is always a busy night for the police, but this year they will have the added burden of breaking up groups of children if they become too big. Given that those children have probably spent all day with the very same kids at school in groups far larger than six, I say good luck to the officer who tries to explain to them why their parents will get a fine for it. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is what is going to happen.

There will need to be a very clear public messaging campaign, or will there be an exception? After all, the Prime Minister hinted that the rule of six could be dropped for Christmas day. Of course everyone would like to see that, but how on earth is saying that on a particular day the rule of six will not apply at all consistent with the clear public health message that the rule of six is meant to be?

Will the Minister also clarify what the rule is in relation to mingling? Apparently, a person can be fined for mingling with an existing group of six, but there is no definition within the regulations of what constitutes a mingle. The debate would be absurd if the consequences were not so serious.

In respect of police powers, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) asked the Minister whether the police can go into people’s properties to enforce the law. My understanding is that they cannot. I do not know whether the Minister expects the police to stand outside people’s properties until six people come out and then take appropriate action.

On fines, will the Minister clarify whether there was an oversight in the regulations around who has committed an offence under them? I ask that because the regulations require event organisers to carry out a risk assessment in order to comply with the regulations, but there does not appear to be any penalty for them if they fail to do so. It seems that the fine in that situation would apply to the people attending the event. How can it be right that a person attending an event in good faith is liable only because the organiser has not done their job? I appreciate that subsequent regulations came into place a few days later, on 18 September, requiring hospitality venues to enforce the rule of six or face a fine of up to £4,000, but again, I do not believe that applies to outdoor events. Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case? Are there any plans to introduce a penalty for the organisers of outdoor events who fail to comply with the regulations?

I am conscious that a number of people wish to speak, so I will conclude by confirming, as we have done on many occasions, that we want the Government to succeed in fighting the virus. However, let me be clear that the rise in infections we are seeing was not inevitable and the restrictions we are debating today were not inevitable. The Government cannot continue lurching from crisis to crisis. To take people with us, we need to see more transparency, the evidence behind the restrictions that are being introduced and better communication. We need new laws introduced after the democratic process has been completed.

How can we find ourselves, eight months into this pandemic, with confidence in the Government’s response draining away, rather than growing? How can we have one of the worst death rates in the world? How can we have a test and trace system so obviously failing to deliver the basics? The regulations might not have been necessary if the Government had fixed test and trace when the sun was shining. They wasted the summer. Let us hope that the price for that is not a very bitter winter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister, the other Ministers in the Department and officials? They are obviously working extremely hard, and I completely accept their good faith in extremely difficult circumstances. I particularly want to pay tribute to the drafters of these very complex regulations. I know from my time as a Brexit Minister that when there are a lot of statutory instruments to do it is extremely hard work for them, and they do not get anything like enough thanks, so I want to put all of that on the record.

It remains the case that this is a dangerous disease for people with risk factors, and I certainly see why the Government wish to introduce measures. My friend and constituent, the epidemiologist Dr Raghib Ali, has written in The Telegraph that both the REACT—real-time assessment of community transmission—and Office for National Statistics studies

“showed that the levels of infection have increased in all age groups, including the most vulnerable older age groups, and also in all regions, but with much larger increases in the North, Midlands and London.”

However, he goes on later in the article to state:

“They all show this is not a repeat of the first wave as infections are rising much more slowly, doubling roughly every 11 days now vs. three days then. And crucially, they also show that the rate of increase is slowing down significantly.”

He goes on, it has to be said, to say that the Government are getting it broadly right.

I have real concerns about the very high cost of the measures. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) gave some examples, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) talked about the need for two families to meet, making eight, but what about two parents and three children? They can meet only one grandparent under the rules.

Elsewhere, we have other stories that are out of the scope of the statutory instrument. If I can get away with one anecdote, there was a story on the BBC website of a wife talking about springing her husband in his 80s out of the care home so that they can spend some time together at that late stage. People are bearing an absolutely appalling set of costs, and anecdotes of poor compliance are rising. Indeed, there seems to be a gap between people’s intentions to comply and what they actually do, as was revealed in the King’s College London research that the Government commissioned.

It is not clear now that the benefit of lockdown outweighs the costs. Although the report fell rather flat, The Telegraph covered some Department of Health and Social Care analysis that seemed to show that in quality-adjusted life years, adjusting for co-morbidities, the cost of the first lockdown was greater than the cost of the disease. In a spirit of good will, where we all mean to minimise harm and maximise human flourishing in the fullest sense, we have to ask whether this set of circumstances is really what we want.

Time and again in our own constituencies, and talking to colleagues in the Tea Room, we hear about people who are being destroyed by this lockdown. Strong, confident, outgoing, gregarious people are being destroyed and reduced to repeated episodes of tears on the phone—all around the House, people are agreeing with me about that. The situation is having a devastating social impact on our society. I believe people would make different choices were they able to take responsibility for themselves, so I have really quite deep concerns about this statutory instrument.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making the powerful point that there are other health issues and other effects of such draconian rules. Does he agree that the Government should now be publishing what those other effects are? Rather than just the bald figures on infection rates, hospital rates and deaths attributed to covid alone, there should be broader figures on mental health, cancer and all the other treatments, and the deaths that we are not seeing yet but are simply stocking up for the future.

[Mr Baker]

I do agree. I call on Ministers to publish robust data about the balance of costs and benefits. I understand that there is no impact assessment to go with this statutory instrument—I was certainly told that when I picked it up. We really should now be looking extremely carefully at the balance of cost and benefit to overall human flourishing. I am certainly not currently persuaded that the benefit is net positive.

I pay tribute to 66 GPs, led by Dr Ellie Cannon, who have written to the Secretary of State to say that it is now time for him

“to consider non-covid harms and deaths with equal standing as the reported deaths from covid”.

They have suggested that there be a GP on SAGE; I suggest that we also have some economists on SAGE and have made some other proposals about competitive scientific advice, devil’s advocates and other measures that could improve things. The letter from GPs is extremely important. It is time to listen to GPs.

As I reflect on this statutory instrument, I have to say that it is also time to start to think about another way. The Government’s strategy is clearly to suppress the virus, through instruments such as the one we are discussing, pending a vaccine. But what if a vaccine does not come? What if a vaccine, when it comes, does not achieve the ends aimed at? What if we still need some kind of measures alongside a vaccine? I have talked to specialists in this area, and it seems to me—with great sadness—to be pretty clear that we might be in those circumstances, in which case the Government will need a plan B.

For that reason, I was very glad to sign the Great Barrington declaration and to encourage parliamentarians of all parties and both Houses to sign it to show that there is political consensus in both Houses and across all parties for another way. This is plan B, authored by Dr Martin Kulldorff, Dr Sunetra Gupta and Dr Jay Bhattacharya and signed by 1,120 medical and public health scientists, 1,241 medical practitioners and more than 19,000 members of the public, including me. I commend it to the Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Mark Harper, I would like to say that if business does end early, I hope that David Linden and Richard Drax, who are presenting petitions, will not be far from the Chamber, and that Richard Holden, who has the Adjournment debate, and Ed Argar, the Minister who will respond to it, are not far away either. I should hate for them to miss their opportunities.

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

The good thing about this debate and your having put in place a firm time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the Minister will have a great deal of time at the end to answer the many questions. Having served as a Minister myself, I know that that will be a helpful opportunity to put to rest—hopefully—colleagues’ concerns.

At the beginning of the debate I raised a couple of other sets of regulations that we are not considering today, but I hope the Minister will confirm that they will be debated in the Chamber—on the Floor of the House—and that we will have the opportunity to vote on them. The first set is the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020, to which she has referred. They bring into force the restrictions on the trading hours of licensed premises, which I know are of concern to many colleagues. It is very important that those regulations are debated on the Floor of the House: they affect the whole country and, in the spirit of the pledge given by the Secretary of State last week, we should have the opportunity to do so.

A number of colleagues are concerned about the police enforcement powers. From my reading of the regulations that these regulations we are debating amend, I could not find any reference to powers of entry, but there are powers of arrest and powers to use reasonable force. Those powers are not in the regulations that we are debating, but I give the Minister notice of this. There are measures in the self-isolation regulations—which I also hope will be debated on the Floor of the House—that give powers of reasonable force to police community support officers, to any person given those powers by the Secretary of State and to local government employees. As a former Home Office Minister, I am not comfortable with the powers to use reasonable force being given to people who do not have the training to use them. I have seen occasions where that has led to the loss of life, and I have to say to the Minister—as a former Chief Whip, I do not say this lightly—that if those regulations are not amended, I will vote against them. I am not voting to give powers to use reasonable force to people who are not trained to use those powers. If they use them incorrectly, it will lead to the deaths of adults and, potentially, children. The Minister should reflect on that and bring a revised set of regulations to the House, when I would be delighted to vote for the self-isolation part, which is very valuable.

Secondly, on the regulations before us today, I think limiting the mixing of households is warranted in principle. Looking at the evidence from the test and trace system, household transmission, household visitors and visiting friends and relatives are very significant vectors of transmission—far more, cumulatively, than a whole range of leisure activities, which is where I think the 10 pm curfew is not very well evidenced. There is some merit behind these measures in general, but I pick up on the points made by a number of colleagues.

The four nations of the United Kingdom have implemented this rule in different ways. The Minister should look at the evidence from different parts of the United Kingdom, and at some of the questions we have raised about whether children are included and the age of those children. A lady stopped me in the street last week. She had just had a new addition to her family, a small baby, which now means the family cannot meet both the grandparents. Given that the baby is not going to be an independent actor for some time, and so is not going anywhere independently of their parents, I fail to see how the inclusion of that baby, meaning the family are no longer able to see both the grandparents, is at all sensible. That constituent sees no merit in it at all.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I notice that my right hon. Friend is back on a time limit, so I take this opportunity to note that we are voting on these regulations retrospectively. For that reason, I am going to abstain tonight. If we were voting on them prospectively then, for the kinds of reasons he is giving, and indeed for the reasons I gave, I would have voted against them. I shall abstain tonight, because I realise they are in force. I would like to see them changed in the ways he is setting out.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) pressed the Minister on this: if the evidence is not available as to whether these regulations have been effective so far, perhaps she could give an indication of what sort of time period the Government are looking at. I think everyone in the House wants the Government to be successful in driving down the rate of infection, but I pick up the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). If the Government bring in a measure because they think it is going to work and it simply does not—we are learning things about this virus all the time—it is not only not harmful but positively sensible for the Government to say, “This one didn’t work. We tried it. We are going to stop doing this, and we will take a different course that we think will be more successful.” That sort of attitude would secure a great deal of support from the House and, I think, from the public.

Perhaps the Minister could say a little about when we should see this kicking in. I raise this because tomorrow we will debate the specific local lockdown regulations for the north-west and the north-east. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have a particular interest in this matter, given the location of your constituency. Some of these regulations in some parts of the country have been in force for quite considerable periods of time, and, apart from in one place, there is no evidence that they are having an effect on bearing down on the virus. In that case, all they are doing is causing economic damage without actually delivering a health benefit. At that point, the Government should reflect on whether the regulations are working and think again.

I draw my remarks to a close. I hope for those reassurances about the other two sets of regulations I talked about. We will expect them to be debated on the Floor of the House if the Government remain true to the Secretary of State’s commitment last week, which I welcome. I welcome the fact that it is being brought into force tomorrow, as we debate the north-west and north-east regulations. I look forward to the Minister saying a little more about evidence. I am grateful that she is going to have around 12 minutes to do so, which gives us an opportunity to probe her a little further.

[Helen Whately]

I thank all colleagues who have spoken in this debate, because I have been grateful for the thoughtful approach that many of them have taken. Just as I do in my role, Members have drawn on experiences from their own lives and of course from what they hear from constituents. The backdrop to this debate is the fact that the country is in the grip of a global pandemic. We are battling a highly infections and deadly disease, facing a challenge that this country has not faced since the second world war. As we have seen, this virus can spread through the population at an exponential rate, killing people as it goes. Only because of that have the Government brought in such restrictions to people’s lives, ones that clearly no Government would wish to bring in. The alternative—just allowing the virus to let rip—simply cannot be the right thing to do.

[Mr Steve Baker]

Nobody is suggesting that we let the virus rip; radical as I may be, I cited some supportive passages in my remarks. The Minister says that the virus is deadly. We all accept it is deadly for people who have prior risk factors, which raise the infection fatality rate, but is it not the truth that for a great many people who are younger and without prior conditions this is not an especially deadly disease? We knew that at the beginning; we know it today. It is deadly for a certain section of our society, and it is them we are looking after. Can we please be honest about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I absolutely hear my right hon. Friend’s point. I reiterate the response that I just gave, which is that I very much appreciate the support of colleagues in general for taking action to suppress the virus, and I think it is extremely valuable for us to be debating some of the measures, as we are this evening.

[Mr Steve Baker]

Will the Minister give way?

[Helen Whately]

If my hon. Friend would allow me, I would like to make a little bit of progress, otherwise I will have remarkably little time left.

We have a clear strategy, which is to control and suppress the virus while doing all we can to protect the economy, people’s work, schools and the NHS, so that it, in turn, can care for us.

Let me turn to some of the points made by hon. Members. Various reasons have been suggested for the rapid introduction of the regulations. In fact, the shadow Minister made some suggestions. The Government have had to act fast. When we see the rates of increase—particularly when we take away the average across the country, and look at specific areas and parts of the population where the doubling rate can be going up really quickly—it is clear that we need to act fast. The alternative is to act slowly—and if we did that for several days, it would be inaction. That just means that the virus would be left to spread further and faster.

Colleagues have asked for further information about the impact and effectiveness of measures. I get the sense that some Members would like to hear, “If you do x, you get y,” in a very mathematical way. We are dealing with a new disease that simply is not known to the level of “A leads to B exactly.” We look at a huge amount of evidence, including at what is happening overseas, the difference made by local lockdowns and evidence from the test and trace system. All that evidence informs the decisions that are made. We know that social contact is a particular cause of the spread, so we must reduce social contact.