Covid-19: Vaccination

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank the 589 Wycombe constituents who signed the petition.

I want to make three points. First, vaccines are a good thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made a passionate case for a vaccine. I only wish to add to it something said by the deputy chief medical officer, Professor Van-Tam:

“If we can get through phase one”—

of the priority list—

“and it is a highly effective vaccine and there is very, very high up take, then we could in theory take out 99% of hospitalisations and deaths related to Covid 19.”

That is his estimate. That is a tremendous thing, which reinforces the case that my hon. Friend made. I am 49 years of age, so I do not think I will be offered the vaccine any time soon, but I will certainly have a safe and effective vaccine when it is my turn, and I encourage others to do so. However, I will not gainsay those people who wish to refuse a medicine.

That brings me to my second point. Whatever we may think of other people’s opinions, we cross an ethical boundary if we compel people to take a medicine. It is clear from what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that there is no question of the Government compelling people to take a vaccine for this disease, and quite right, too. It is worth remembering that although the infection fatality rate for this disease is considerably worse than flu—I understand it is between 0.5% and 1%, and considerably worse for those vulnerable to it—it is not comparable to, for example, the haemorrhagic fevers. We are not talking about a 10% infection fatality rate. I dare say, if we were up at an 80% infection fatality rate, we would all support authoritarian measures without too much of a second thought, because such a serious disease would threaten our civilisation. This disease, dreadful as it is, has an infection fatality rate of about 1% overall, so there can be no question of coercing people directly to take the vaccine.

That brings me to the text of the petition, which states:

“I want the Government to prevent any restrictions being placed on those who refuse to have any potential Covid-19 vaccine.”

That goes a little further. That is not about stopping the Government from compelling people to take it; it is about ensuring that those people who, for whatever reason, do not wish to take the vaccine, do not lose their liberties as a consequence. I understand from people better versed in medical ethics that this is known as implicit coercion.

One can imagine a circumstance in which, for example, an airline chose to say to people, “You may not fly until you have had a vaccine.” A restaurant might say, “You cannot come in until you have had the vaccine.” On and on it would go, until reaching a point where unless people have had the vaccine, they cannot live what most of us would consider a normal life, going to restaurants, shops or whatever it may be. To me, that would be totally unacceptable.

Before moving on to why that would be unacceptable, I have to say that it would also be ineffective. There is a difference between a vaccine stopping someone from getting a disease and being killed by it and a vaccine that stops someone shedding the disease on to others. The harm principle in the philosophy of freedom is about constraining people’s liberties so that they do not harm others. That means there is a profound practical difference between the purpose of a vaccine being to stop people getting sick and the purpose of a vaccine being to stop people shedding the virus. At the moment, a number of businesses that are looking at restricting their customers to those who have been vaccinated have not understood that, actually, we do not yet know whether the vaccine will stop people shedding the disease.

I turn to something that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said in relation to the Pfizer vaccine. When asked how many people will need to be vaccinated before life can return to normal, he said:

“The answer to that is we just do not know. So the trials can tell you if a vaccine is clinically safe and if it’s effective at protecting an individual from the disease. What we can’ know, until we’ve vaccinated a significant proportion of the population, is how much it stops the transmission of the disease.”

That is my first point. I would say to businesses large and small, “Please don’t start seeking to restrict your customers’ ability to come and do business with you because they haven’t had the vaccine.” That is not an effective strategy, and the Secretary of State has explained why.

I want to come to what I think is the moral case. Some people argue that property rights should be so strong that property owners should be allowed to serve whoever they wish, but that is not the approach we take in an enlightened and modern civilised society. I am afraid the argument touches on some very difficult issues. For example, we do not allow people to say that they will not have same-sex couples in their bed and breakfast. We will not allow discrimination against the range of protected characteristics.

I can see that Ministers might face a temptation to say, “Let’s allow the acceleration of the roll-out of the vaccine by turning a blind eye to property owners insisting on people being vaccinated before staying in their bed and breakfast, or whatever it might be.” I can see that some Ministers might argue, on the basis of property rights, that shop owners, hotel owners and so on ought to have the choice—I understand the argument, because I am a classical liberal and I think about property rights—but I have to say to the Minister, who I am sure understands the argument, that we cross a Rubicon if we say that it is possible to discriminate against people on the basis of their health status. That would be a very sad and wrong basis on which to go forward as a country, even though I can understand that in the face of this disease, with all that that implies, there is pressure on Ministers, officials, members of the public and businesses—we all know what the costs are. It would be very easy to make an ethical mistake, which we could regret for a very long time.

For those two reasons—because it is not an effective thing to do, and because it is morally wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their choice not to take a vaccine—I will stand with the petitioners in asking the Government to prevent any restrictions being placed on people who refuse to have any potential covid-19 vaccine. Of course it is a very serious disease, and of course we should all take the vaccine. I absolutely stand with my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and the hon. Member for Strangford, who support vaccination. I will not give the least succour to the anti-vaxxers, but I say to the Minister that people have all sorts of strange beliefs in this world. If people do not want to take a vaccine, please let us not turn a blind eye to any kind of discrimination against them.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am very pleased to participate in this debate about the covid vaccine, and I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his comprehensive exposition of the matter before us.

We can all agree that it is simply not the case that either the UK Government or the Scottish Government have any plans to mandate the covid vaccine and make it compulsory. Indeed, the Scottish Government—and, I believe, the UK Government—have explicitly said that they will not utilise coercive measures to ensure compliance and increase vaccination rates. Before I go any further, I would like to say—I believe it has already been said—that we are in a very fortunate position to be able even to discuss and debate the roll-out of a vaccine. What a marvel! Six months ago, we would have been delighted to be in this position. Finally, we can see an end to the terrible damage and restrictions that this deadly virus has placed on all our lives. Too often, it has cost lives. Every Government, in the face of a pandemic or any threat to public safety or disease, must have the safety of their people at the forefront. That must be the overriding and principal concern. The public who, on the whole, have been extremely compliant with the restrictions, will overwhelmingly and collectively be breathing a sigh of relief that we now have a vaccine that will help to end —or begin to end—these terrible days. It will not just allow us to resume some kind of normality, but save lives, particularly of older people who are vulnerable to this terrible disease.

I will not be philosophical, because it is my personal view—perhaps I am an eternal optimist—that judging from the high levels of public compliance with the public health measures, which we have all found difficult, the take-up of the vaccine will be very high. Of course, individuals can choose to refuse it, but I honestly believe that the overwhelming majority will have it, just as the overwhelming majority of those eligible take advantage of the flu vaccine, and just as parents ensure that the vaccines to protect their children against rotavirus, diphtheria, hepatitis B, haemophilus influenzae, polio, tetanus and whooping cough are taken up.

Such vaccinations are given to children; in fact, that is the list of vaccinations given to children in the first 16 weeks of their life when they are at their most vulnerable. Without those vaccines, babies would be less safe and less protected from nasty, and potentially fatal, diseases. That is why parents take their children along to the local GP to have those vaccines administered. As always with vaccines, there may be a few uncomfortable side effects for a very small number of children or of any group receiving the vaccine. That is not new. The protection given to children, however, and those who receive vaccines against serious diseases far outweighs any discomfort that may subsequently be felt; and so it is for the very small number likely to have minor discomfort after the administration of the covid vaccine.

Although I appreciate that more tests are required to perfect a covid vaccine for children, because such vaccines are always tested on adults first, between the ages of one and 16 years old, five more vaccines may be administered to children. Older people may be offered several other vaccines from the age of 65 years. There is even a shingles vaccine. When pregnant, women are offered the whooping cough vaccine. Vaccines are entwined and embedded in various stages of our lives, and all of them are perfectly safe. There is a range of vaccines that are a normal part of our lives and which we accept readily, because we know that they are important for our health and wellbeing.

I read that 70% of the population needs to be vaccinated with the covid vaccine before we can return to normality, although I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester about that. Regardless, I hope that take-up will be higher than 70% by the time the roll-out is complete.

Regarding ongoing restrictions for those who may choose not to take up the vaccine, as far as I am aware, only Qantas airlines has said that it will not carry passengers who cannot prove that they have been vaccinated. We do not know yet if that is a knee-jerk reaction, if Qantas will be a lone voice, or if individual businesses will seek to impose conditions on the public to access their services while the vaccine is rolled out. We shall see, but I honestly doubt that that will happen. It certainly seems unlikely that businesses will be able to legally insist that those whom they employ must be vaccinated.

A word of caution: nobody denies that people have the right to refuse the vaccine, but insurance companies will surely levy higher premiums for life and travel insurance for those who do not take up the vaccine, because they operate on the basis of risk. They make all sorts of decisions about the level of our premiums based on that information, so that is something to consider.

[Mr Baker]

My constituency is Wycombe, by the way. I agree with the hon. Lady on this point. If people make a choice about their own person that increases their own personal risk and then ask somebody to insure them for it, it is completely reasonable to charge a higher premium. But I will just say this to her, if I may, on the Qantas point. I agree with her that it is just Qantas so far, but people are afraid out there. Actually, I want the take-up of this vaccine to be as high as possible, so does she agree with me that we in this place, in order to provide leadership on a cross-party basis, need to appeal to business owners and others to be reasonable about what they do?

[Patricia Gibson]

Yes, I agree. The reason why I have talked about Qantas is that I do think that it is a knee-jerk reaction. People are afraid. I think that, as the vaccine is rolled out, as there is more information and as they see that more and more people are taking up the vaccine with no ill effects, the concerns that both business and the general public might have will all start to dissipate. Perhaps I am just the eternal optimist, but I genuinely believe that that will happen, because vaccinations are not new.

What I have heard from constituents and what I have read is that the overwhelming majority of people want to stop having to worry about this virus. They want an end to the restrictions that we face as soon as that is safely possible. They want a vaccine to help put this dark time behind us, and they want these things to be delivered as soon as that is possible.

Many have contacted me—I am sure that I am not alone in the Chamber in saying this—to ask whether, in the roll-out of the vaccine, we could include, as a priority, those who are living with a terminal condition, which makes their vulnerability to the virus very concerning. I share the view that those who are living with a terminal condition ought to be prioritised for receiving the vaccine. I throw that in, because it is important at this point, when we are talking about concerns about the vaccine, to say that there are also concerns about groups who feel they may be excluded from being prioritised, which is very important.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship in this debate, Sir David. Over 300,000 people have signed the e-petition that we are debating, which shows the strength of feeling on this matter, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his leadership of this debate and for having taken it on on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It was the anniversary of his election to this place a couple of days ago, and he has made a significant impact over that year, although he will forgive me if I do not look back on that date with quite the same level of enthusiasm as he might. However, I thought he made an outstanding case about how detailed the process of a vaccine coming from conception to usage is. I hope those who are listening will have taken that on face-value terms, because it should give us all a lot of comfort.

Similarly, the word that I double-underlined was “marvel”. We should marvel at vaccination, and we should also marvel at the role of Britain in vaccination: whether in 1796, 1996 or 2020, and whether that is brilliant British scientists or enlightened British Governments of all persuasions. The thing I particularly reflect on is Britain’s role in vaccinations around the world, through the Global Vaccine Alliance and through our own bilateral aid arrangements. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of deaths have been prevented because of our role in the process of vaccinations, and we should take a lot of pride in that. It is a real British success.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—we are a bit warmer than we were in this Chamber together last Thursday—made a poignant contribution, with a reminder about loss. We can sometimes get wrapped up in the figures behind all this, but each one of the people whom we have lost this year is a person with a family and a story. His contribution was also very poignant when it came to the vagaries and variances in all of our experiences, as well as the range of vaccines, a point that was also made by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I hope that the 300,000 people who signed this e-petition, or those who choose to listen to this debate, will understand this vaccine as part of all vaccines, rather than anything distinct or different. Although it is the story of the day, it fits very much within the suite of things we think collectively are good for people, and it has gone through all the tests that have been described. I hope, again, that is something people will take comfort from.

I was very pleased to see the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) in this debate. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, I always follow his contributions closely. Before becoming the shadow public health Minister, I was an Opposition Whip—I do not know what I had done, but I was an Opposition Whip for some time—and the major upside of that role, if there is one, is that Members get to sit in the Chamber and hear from colleagues of all persuasions—ones whose contributions they might not otherwise look out for. They hear about Southend being a city—I have never been there, and the only thing I think about with Southend, Sir David, is you talking about city status.

The hon. Member for Wycombe made what I think was my favourite speech this year, certainly from the Government Benches, on 30 January—I do not remember the date of everyone’s speeches; I have a good memory, but it is not that good. It was the day before we left the European Union, and the hon. Gentleman made a speech in the general debate on global Britain. I have to say, I thought the scheduling of that debate was difficult, because feelings were very strong and running very high. Some people were in Parliament Square celebrating; others were at home, commiserating. The hon. Member made a very important speech about the need for victors to be gracious and for the vanquished to look forward. I think that everybody could take something from that. I am not sure, 11 months on, whether we are quite there yet, but I hope so, and I think that we all, as leaders, have a role to take on.

[Mr Baker]

I am honoured by the hon. Member’s words, and am very grateful.

[Alex Norris]

I have not finished yet. The hon. Member concluded his speech that day with lots of references to Ronald Reagan, which sent me down a reading rabbit hole that I have not yet finished. I still cannot get the attraction, but the merits of Reagan are perhaps a debate for another day. However, I thought the hon. Member made a very strong case on both the pragmatic and the moral arguments. I will come back to some of the implied coercion points that he made.

I welcome the Minister to his place. This is certainly the first time I have opposed him. We all enjoyed William Shakespeare being one of the first to get the vaccine, but no one made the Stratford connection to him as Minister. I thought that was a missed opportunity. I will make a few points, and hopefully draw him out on a couple of them. We know that many basic freedoms have been curtailed over the last year, and we all want that to end as soon as possible. We know that there is a strong desire for things to get back to normal, but these significant measures and restrictions on freedom are necessary, and we have seen yet another reminder of that today.

Vaccines are the most effective public health intervention, either in relation to coronavirus or health in general, so the progress that has been made should cheer us. It is therefore important that a significant proportion of people take up the vaccination, especially those with the greatest vulnerabilities. The last time we debated the covid-19 vaccine in this place was just over a month ago. It was the day after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine had achieved success in phase 3 studies. Similarly, since then both the Moderna candidate and the University of Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine have achieved similar success.

That is a remarkable story in terms of time. We saw wonderful pictures of people receiving their first dose last week, and I understand that this week the vaccination programme is being extended to GP surgeries. It has been a whirlwind month, and I commend the Government for what they have achieved. It is no small feat, and I know that the Minister will take my attempts to seek clarity in that spirit. I am not seeking to throw rocks at the success, but we want some answers.

I am particularly keen to know the Minister’s assessment of the take-up required for the programme to be effective. I submitted a written question on that and received a holding answer, but he might indulge me today. If the Government are not keen to be drawn on what the figure is, which I can understand, perhaps he could explain why they do not think sharing it is helpful. In my head, I would have a totaliser. When we are fixing the community centre roof, and we need to raise money, we colour it in every time we receive another hundred pounds, but that might well not be the right approach, and I would be keen to know why.

The vaccine is one thing; a vaccination programme is another. We have rightly been very critical of the big logistical challenges for the Government both in the roll-out of personal protective equipment and the implementation of test and trace. We cannot afford a situation where vaccines complete the set. I recognise that the early signs have been positive, but I wish to pick up on a couple of bits. We have been made aware of some care-home and hospital staff being at risk of missing out due to requirements of the IT system. Have those loopholes been closed yet? Has that been clarified?

Similarly, GPs have raised concerns with us about the new rules being brought in late in the day, so that vaccinations will take twice as long, as patients need to be observed for 15 minutes. Again, that might be on very good public health grounds, but I am keen to know from the Minister what they are. We know that general practice per designated site has to deliver at least 975 vaccinations over a seven-day period. I did not receive a convincing answer when I raised this last month with my opposite number, the Minister for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care, but what is the assessed impact on other GP services and how will we ensure that practices can meet their normal case load? I would be very keen to hear those points addressed.

Turning to the substance of what these 300,000 people have asked us to discuss, at the root it is about vaccine hesitancy. It is very easy to talk about the anti-vax elements. I am glad that colleagues have not majored on that, because to an extent that is a straw man. Multiple hon. Members made contributions about just how thin the basis for those conspiracy theories or anti-vax sentiments are. We could spend all day deconstructing them and never lose the argument, but that concerns only a very small proportion of the British people.

We know from polling, and from our constituency mailbags, that those people are a very small group indeed. There is a much more significant and noticeable chunk of people—though far from a majority—who are vaccine-hesitant, and entirely reasonably. Some might simply not want to have it, as the hon. Member for Wycombe said, and we ought to respect that. Others might not want to do so because of safety concerns—something I have heard from lots of constituents. They want to know that any vaccination, be it for covid-19 or anything else, is safe, so we as political leaders have a really important role in giving constituents the confidence that they seek. That will hopefully come from people observing the debate, and from our public engagements in general.

I know people will be watching this debate. I do not always think that about the debates we have; I suspect my 30-minute Adjournment debates do not pull in the big numbers. My message to people watching is that if they are unconvinced by what we are saying, which is perfectly reasonable, they should ask, ask, ask. If they get a question answered and are still not happy, they should ask the next one. I would certainly say that to my constituents. We will seek to get them information through all the available channels, if that is what it takes for them to feel confident about receiving the vaccine.

I agree with a number of hon. Members that the sentiment of the petition slightly misses where we are at the moment. There is a pretty broad political consensus against compulsion, coercion or inconveniencing people into submission. I know what our position is as the Opposition, but no one studies what the Government say more closely than we do, and I have never detected a desire for mandatory vaccination in what they are saying. We all want to have confidence, and to know that the roll-out has been done through the proper process, rather than in any other way, and like other hon. Members who have spoken, I hope that business will take the same view. The Government might have a role in that, and I would be interested to know the Minister’s reflections on the contribution from the hon. Member for Wycombe. I would say gently to businesses that compulsory vaccination will almost certainly not do what they want it to do. It is therefore important to take some time and have a cool head on this issue.

People’s unwillingness to take the covid-19 vaccine has a knock-on effect on vaccine hesitancy more generally. In fact, this is probably the FA cup final of vaccine hesitancy. Last year, vaccine hesitancy was in the World Health Organisation’s top 10 threats to global health—it was up there with a future pandemic. It is something that we have to address, whether it is related to covid-19 or not. In Denmark in 2013, false claims in a documentary about the human papillomavirus vaccine led to a decline in uptake of around 90% among some cohorts. Similarly, between 2014 and 2017 in Ireland, vocal attacks on the HPV vaccine from the anti-vaccine lobby led to a drop in uptake from 70% to 50%. These things matter.

What we see through those developments, and through our experiences in this country, is that the best method of countering those views is through proactive, positive health-promoting campaigns. I know that is something the Government are doing, and it is very welcome—we will support them in that. It is almost certainly too early to have enough data to be able to talk about the efficiency of such things, but we want the Government to keep pushing hard on this issue. That is what our constituents want us to do—to explain and, as I say, make ourselves available to answer any questions that they have.

We have had an extraordinary year fighting the virus. There is now clearly a path for us to take—a light at the end of the tunnel, or however people want to characterise it. We need to pursue it with the same vigour with which we attacked the previous year. If we do, we might just get out of this thing.

Covid-19

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely, and my hon. Friend makes a critical point. If in Bosworth someone is waiting for an operation on the NHS, they are more likely to get it if we keep the virus suppressed—in fact, if we keep it down, they will get that operation and we will get it done. Unfortunately, in the parts of the country where things have got too high, non-urgent, non-cancer elective operations have had to be cancelled. That demonstrates that, both for covid and non-covid health reasons, it is better to keep the virus suppressed.

I was halfway through my long list of the things that the NHS has been doing to prepare over the summer. At the moment, we are delivering 159 A&E upgrades; as far as I know, that is the biggest number of concurrent upgrades to emergency care in the NHS’s history. We have radically expanded telemedicine in primary and outpatient care. We are introducing 111 First, with an expanded 111 service to help people get the care that they need.

The NHS has learned how to treat covid patients better too, of course: not just by discovering treatments such as dexamethasone, in which the NHS played a critical part, but by improving clinical techniques—earlier oxygenation and later ventilation, for instance. As a result, our rate of hospital-acquired infection is down and the number of people who survive covid in hospital is up. We have been able to set an explicit goal that all cancer treatment should continue throughout this second wave, which speaks precisely to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) made.

But even with this expanded NHS and with the better treatments, the extra investment and the brilliance of the whole NHS team, who have done and learned so much about the virus and worked so hard to prepare—even with all that—and even if the NHS were twice as big as it is now, it could not cope, and no health service could, if the virus continued to grow as it is now. We must control the virus, to protect the NHS and ensure that it is always there, to treat patients with covid and patients with all other conditions.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

One of the wonderful things that my right hon. Friend has done is make available so much data. I am looking at the case data for Liverpool, and there it is—daily cases by specimen date. Thank goodness the number is now falling, and on a seven-day basis, again, it is falling. I am just wondering why now anyone in Liverpool would say anything other than that the Government’s previous strategy is now working. Why on earth, then, would people in other areas that are not even as badly off as Liverpool—or indeed Manchester, where the cases seem to be stabilising—want to see an even tighter lockdown?

[Matt Hancock]

Unfortunately, in Liverpool the overall case rate includes a very high peak among students. The over-60s case rate, which is also published on the same website, shows a flattening, but a flattening at a very high level, such that Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has already had to cancel non-urgent, non-cancer elective activity.

The danger of a plateauing at a high level, as the chief medical officer set out, is that if the rate starts to go up again, we are already under significant pressure in the NHS in Liverpool. The same argument goes for Tyneside, where again the overall case rate appears to be coming down, which is good news. The number among the over-60s, however, is flattening, again at a very high level, and in other parts of the country, including areas in tier 3, the numbers were going up.

It is not good enough just to control R and keep it lower than its natural rate; we have to get it below 1 to be able to change from a doubling time to a halving time of this virus. Even I—the most enthusiastic supporter of the tier system—can see that, unfortunately, cases were rising and the cases among the over-60s are rising, including in the areas with tier 3 restrictions. It is important to strip out from those data the outbreak among students. I have talked before about there being two overlapping epidemics: one among students and one among the wider community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

This morning, I chaired a meeting with the psychologist Emma Kenny. She spoke absolutely brilliantly so I shall shamelessly steal and abridge her speech from this morning. She said:

“Human beings are not meant to be isolated, in fact you are less likely to die if you smoke 15 cigarettes a day, than you are if you are lonely. Loneliness kills, which is why the Alzheimer’s society have been telling us for many, many months that care home restrictions are dangerous to their residents, the elderly literally wither and die…when they are kept from their close and loving bonds.

We are social creatures, and we need to physically experience the presence of others if we are to thrive. This is what makes us human, this is what keeps us healthy, and this is what kills us when we are denied.

And denied is what we have been, and what we continue to be. Research is telling us a terrifying story, and one that will be told for many, many years to come, one whose ending will be decided based on moments like today.”

Emma Kenny went on:

“I, and so many of my peers believe fiercely that children, more than any other demographic require safeguarding, legally and morally our democratic society should wish to protect children from harm. In fact, the Children’s act clearly, and rightly states that children’s welfare should be the paramount concern, and that physical, emotional, social and educational harm is unacceptable on any level where children are concerned…Yet, harm, abuse and neglect is exactly what the current restrictions are causing.

The last seven months has seen an exponential rise in reported levels of stress, anxiety and depression, with research finding that 80% of young people are experiencing a decline in their mental health. Suicidal thoughts in young people are also sharply rising, these are children, and they are so afraid, so traumatised, so concerned about their future, that they are deciding whether to experience a future at all. Indeed, the Government and the media have taught children to be afraid of living, of playing, of loving.

One of the biggest killers in the UK is poverty, in fact, poor people die on average ten years younger than their affluent peers, meaning they will not have the luxury of reaching the age of a Coronavirus death, and yet who are restrictions affecting most? The poor.

Children and young people are having their security ripped apart on every level. Their education, which for some children is the only consistent safety and care that they experience has been…desecrated, and thrown into chaos.

They are watching their parents lose jobs, they will soon watch them lose their homes, because restrictions are killing the economy, ruining businesses, and devasting the employment landscape, meaning that many adults will struggle to find work again... This silence”—

they are silenced because of lack of internet access—

“means that they cannot tell you their stories, and their story will unequivocally be to end restrictions so that they,”

those parents,

“can feed their children, and remain in the jobs and homes that they deserve to keep.

The Data is now there for all to see, and it unequivocally evidences the continued”—

Emma Kenny says—

“overreaction of this leadership.

Even more concerning is that scientists and medics who modelled their predictions correctly are constantly shut down, excluded and positioned as loose cannons in the scientific and wider community, even though each has been willing to stand in their truth at a cost to them financially, reputationally and institutionally. Why? They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, but their integrity, compassion, and scientific dedication, along with their care for the wellbeing and future of the human race means that they cannot remain silent, no matter how loudly they are shut down and attacked, no matter how greatly they lose.

Truth tellers are always willing to lose, because,”

as she says, as her father taught her,

“the right way, is rarely the easy way, but it remains the right way nonetheless.”

She finishes by saying that:

“Churchill said, ‘All the greatest things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honour; duty; mercy; hope.’”

She asks us to do our duty,

“to restore justice, to show the working classes mercy, and to return the very foundation that democracy is built upon. Freedom.”

--- Later in debate ---

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

There are several points that I want to cover. First, I will just reiterate to the Minister what I said to the Leader of the House. I really do not think that a 90-minute debate on Wednesday is adequate for the decision the House is being asked to take, which will potentially cost 10% of our gross domestic product. It seems to me that that warrants a slightly longer debate to allow Members from both sides of the House to set out the concerns and questions that they might have and to properly represent their constituents. I would ask Ministers to reflect on whether they think a 90-minute debate is actually adequate.

I know Ministers have referred to the debates we have already had, but of course we have not seen the regulations yet. We are not planning on seeing them till tomorrow. I anticipate that they will be quite lengthy and that there will be many questions about them. I suspect Members who are lucky enough to participate in the debate will have just one or two minutes to make their points, and I really do not think that is adequate. Even at this stage, it is not too late for the Government to think again and give us a full day’s debate on Wednesday, perhaps even with the House sitting later to enable that to be taken into account.

[Mr Steve Baker]

With apologies to the House, I just want to ask my right hon. Friend if he agrees with me that there has been rarely enough time for this subject—in particular, this evening—and whether the Government might consider putting on longer debates routinely.

[Mr Harper]

I take that point. I do have sympathy with the Government—I was a business manager—but it seems to me that the decision the House is being asked to make on Wednesday is an incredibly significant one that will impact on every single person who lives in England and, because of cross-border traffic, a very significant number of people who live in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. It seems to me that a longer debate would be more sensible.

The second issue I want to turn to is also one that I raised earlier with the Leader of the House, referring back to what the Prime Minister said in the statement. He said, in answer to the question from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), that the Government would publish and make available to Members all scientific information that underpinned the decisions the House is being asked to take. The House will know that one of the key pieces of information presented at the press conference on Saturday and referred to by the Prime Minister is the graph that sets out the scenarios for the number of deaths that may take place, and there is also the modelling that the NHS has done on the need for beds. As far as I am aware, none of that information has been published. The reasonable worst-case scenario, which the Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), referred to in her exchange with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has also not been published. The only thing that has been seen is a leaked version that went to The Spectator.

Again, it seems to me that, if we are going to make this decision, we need to see that evidence quickly so that we can make such a decision. The reason why I want to see it—I have an open mind as to what I am going to do on Wednesday, but this is the reason why I have a problem—is that in my area the prevalence of the virus is fairly low and the rate of prevalence among members of my community who are over 60 is low and flat or falling, so it seems to me that there is very little evidence that there is going to be a significant problem in our local hospitals, and that was reinforced by conversations we have had with those NHS professionals.

I am willing to accept that there may be evidence to say otherwise, but because what Ministers are saying is at variance with what I am being told locally, I do need to see some evidence. I am afraid that just seeing a graph, without seeing any of the assumptions or the data that underpin the models, particularly when they give such significantly different results, is not good enough. Let me give the Minister an example. Carl Heneghan, the professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford, and Daniel Howdon, a senior research fellow, looked at the graph that was presented, and have pointed out that the worst of these scenarios suggested that on 1 November there would be 1,000 daily deaths, which is about four times the level of the actual number of deaths taking place. That does at least cast some doubt on the accuracy of that scenario, which is why I want to see all of the data.

At the conclusion of the debate I ask the Minister to confirm that that information, as the Prime Minister committed to earlier today, will all be published tomorrow at the latest, so that we have a proper chance to scrutinise it before we are asked to take a very significant decision on Wednesday. I hope she is able to give that assurance, which I think will reassure not just Members on both sides of the House, but the millions of constituents we represent, who will expect us to take that decision with great care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

We have heard some superb speeches in this debate and a great deal of heartfelt contribution from all around the House. I always say that I believe that every single one of us came to this place to be a force for good. We all have unique challenges in our constituencies, but we strive to do the best that we can. Sadly, there are some clear patterns of failure that I need to address tonight—patterns of failure by this Government: a refusal to act, an inability to empathise and, crucially, the failure to learn.

The Government failed to get on top of this virus in the spring. They failed to act in time and by failing to learn from their earlier mistakes, they have again failed to get on top of the virus ahead of winter. In fact, on Saturday, the Minister claimed that only “a crystal ball” could have predicted the need for a second lockdown. Luckily, the Government do not need a crystal ball because they have experts, who, six weeks ago, highlighted the need for a short, sharp two-week circuit breaker—so yes, it was predicted. A crystal ball was not needed. However, this Government did not have the political will to act six weeks ago and refused to work with Opposition colleagues, instead deciding to use the health of the nation as a political football.

During the last Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister stated that he did not believe a national circuit breaker was the right policy for the country. A couple of days prior to that, the Health Secretary stated that a more targeted approach would get a grip on the virus and that a national circuit breaker was

“not the policy of the Government”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 784.]

It was clear at the time that this was the wrong approach and was at odds with the scientific expert advice on offer.

The Prime Minister has now warned of deaths twice as high over winter as they were in spring—sobering indeed—yet six weeks ago, the chief scientific officer was warning of the worrying forecast of daily cases. Why, then, did the Government choose to rule out so steadfastly measures that would save lives? Can they not see the damage and miscommunication that this causes? People were laid off last week as businesses anticipated the end of the furlough scheme, only for it to be extended on Saturday night. What is the Government’s message to all those people who have just lost their jobs?

Without a functioning test, trace and isolate system in place, there can be no way out of this crisis. The Government have had seven months to get on top of testing, yet the covid app does not work for the hundreds of thousands of people in England and Wales whose phones are set to unsupported languages. For those people, the app simply shows a blank screen. That does not promote confidence among the British people that the Government can get on top of tracing, and Serco is still failing miserably at tracing contacts adequately. The Government have had seven months to correct the situation. Understandably, this epidemic is unprecedented and, understandably, there are things that could not have been foreseen, but the Government have had seven months to rectify the situation and should and could have done better.

The Government’s continued flip-flopping on scientific advice breeds uncertainty. We have heard in the Chamber tonight Members from all parties talk of community uncertainty and of businesses that do not know whether they will ever be able to survive again. People from the wedding sector, people who run small gyms and people who work on golf courses want answers. They are just good people, trying to earn a living and wanting some certainty.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady has noticed, but scientific experts, even in the same field of epidemiology, quite often disagree profoundly. I wonder whether Labour has noticed that and what it plans to do about it. If the hon. Lady is looking for any ideas, I have tweeted out a summary of a book on the subject.

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and I congratulate him on his ability to tweet. I have a master’s in public health and am perfectly capable of understanding that the very eminent scientists who work as advisers to the Government are doing an incredible job. They were selected to work for the Government so that the Government could take their advice, and they have advised the Government that a two-week circuit breaker would have been beneficial, both to the economy and in respect of saving lives, had it been implemented weeks ago. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has the ability to tweet out information about a book; I will continue to read my books on epidemiology with great joy. [Interruption.] If he would like to intervene again, I shall take another intervention.

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Lady has done a masterful job of demonstrating mere politics, but has she engaged with the serious subject of experts disagreeing?

Covid-19

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have an advertising campaign, “Help us to help you”, to make the simple point to people that, if they are asked to go to hospital by a clinician, then it is safer to go to hospital than not to do so. In fact, we call them green sites and blue sites. Green means free from covid—we are as confident as we can be that they are. It is blue, not red, which means that we still want people to come to hospital, even if they have to come to A&E, because there is only likely to be, at worst, as much covid as in the general population, unless, of course, a person is in a covid ward treating only covid patients. The NHS has learned a huge amount both about the microbiology of the disease and about how to run health services in a world when covid is at large.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Of course this is a dangerous disease and, of course, cases are rising, including in my own area, so it is with some humility that I have a look at the daily excess all-cause deaths in all ages in England, which show that there has been no significant excess all-cause mortality observed in week 40 overall. Is it not the case that the good news in this second wave is that the disease is not progressing as it did in the first?

[Matt Hancock]

I want to keep it that way. It is true that the all-cause mortality rates are around the typical levels for this time of year, and that is partly because non-covid deaths are actually lower at the moment than in most years, and because, thus far, we have worked to keep this virus under control. We know from the basic mathematics of compounding growth and the exponential nature of the growth of any virus that the number of deaths will increase if the number of cases increase exponentially, hence the need for the actions that we in this House have voted for.

Public Health: Coronavirus Regulations

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I begin, I am afraid, by declaring my registered interest in Glint Pay, for reasons which will become apparent.

The problem with today’s statutory instruments is that they implement a strategy to suppress the virus until a vaccine has been found. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tweeted:

“Our strategy is to suppress the virus, supporting education, the economy and the NHS until a vaccine can keep us safe.”

That runs into three problems. The first is that a vaccine may not come. The second is that a vaccine may not be effective. The third is that all this is propped up on quantitative easing and ultra-cheap credit. Indeed, now we are reading in the newspapers about negative interest rates, and this is why I declared the interest. I think you have to have a peculiarly high level of economic education to believe that we can head towards £745 billion of QE and ultra-low or negative interest rates and that all this will not be a problem. I will not say any more about it. I think it will be a problem, and it is precarious indeed that the Government’s strategy is propped up on such a monetary policy.

Only yesterday, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by when he expected to have vaccinated the vulnerable population. Of course he was good enough to reply that he could not give me a date and made reference to SARS, which took place 18 years ago and for which we still do not have a vaccine. I was grateful to him for his honesty.

Personally, I think that privately the Government are a little more optimistic about the AstraZeneca vaccine, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned, but here is the thing: even suppose the Government had vaccinated the public with a successful, safe vaccine by Easter or possibly the summer, that still leaves our economy and Government spending propped up on ultra-cheap credit. The problem with that is that the Bank of England has told us on the Treasury Committee that if inflation comes in it will have to, under its mandate, fight inflation. That would effectively mean pulling the plug on Government spending. This is precarious indeed.

I turn in the last few seconds to the Great Barrington declaration. No one can deny that it is well motivated. Indeed, it says:

“Keeping these measures”—

lockdown policies around the world—

“in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

I have been looking closely at the critiques of the declaration. Professor James Naismith of the University of Oxford wrote:

“Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.”

For the reasons that I have given, I am convinced that the Government must find an alternative strategic plan between the Great Barrington declaration and where we are today.

Public Health

Steve Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 7th October 2020 Commons Chamber

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

First, I thank the Minister for the fact we are having this debate on the Floor of the House today, which fulfils the spirit of what the Secretary of State promised last week. May I just take her back at the beginning of my remarks to my intervention and my attempted second intervention? I asked whether she could set out some data about the effectiveness of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North East of England) Regulations 2020, which have been in place for some time. She said in response to my intervention that she would do so later in her remarks. It may have been my failing, but I did not hear her do so. I hope that when she responds at the end of the debate she can say so, because when we bring regulations in, I want to see that they are effective.

Certainly there are mechanisms in the regulations for that review to take place. For example, the Secretary of State has to review the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) Regulations 2020 every two weeks to see whether they are still necessary. Presumably, that encompasses looking not just at testing data, but at hospitalisations and the whole range of data. Can the Minister confirm either that that information has been published for us all to see, or that it will be published, so that we can make a proper assessment of the regulations’ effectiveness?

In the closing minute or so of my remarks, I want to say one thing. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) that there are only two choices: the so-called “let it rip” option and the lockdown option. I think there is a third option. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and with what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said in his excellent speech in the debate last week. I do not think there is going to be a vaccine quickly and, if there is one, I do not think it will be completely effective. I am afraid that we will have to live with this virus for some time.

I use the word “live” deliberately, because we need restrictions that enable people to live meaningful lives. That includes being able to do the valuable things that hon. Members have talked about, such as seeing friends and family—the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) touched on that—and acting in a way that enables the economy to be sustainable.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that people need some joy in their lives and something to look forward to, and that only by following such a path will we get that back?

[Mr Harper]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and the Government need to recognise that we are in this for the long term. We need a set of restrictions that are sustainable, that we can stick with over the long term, that people feel are deliverable and that enable the economy to flourish. I was encouraged yesterday by the urgent question that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury took for the Government, because it sounded to me as though the Treasury was starting to think about this approach of living with the virus and putting in place economic measures. That is very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

This is of course one nation. No area of our country should be left behind or forgotten by any Member of Parliament. I am therefore pleased to be able to speak in this debate.

I have a number of detailed questions that I would like to ask the Minister. First, on these regulations, is there any granular data that can give clarity on why the rise is so great in these areas compared to the different picture that we have in the south-west of England? That type of granular data should be available from local public health teams who were able to tell us, after the Leicester outbreaks, that the transmission was coming from takeaway shops and household transmission rather than from clothes factories as everyone assumed wrongly. Is not knowing this granular detail absolutely key to focusing restrictions on what is likely to be effective rather than on blanket harsh lockdowns that may achieve little at enormous cost?

To what extent is the spread of the disease related to large university halls of residence? What evidence is there that either lockdowns or track and trace are making a substantial difference to bringing down infection levels, or is that just testing a model? What measures have been taken to minimise agency staff moving between care homes? Can we confirm that there is no seeding of covid from hospitals into care homes again by discharging test-positive patients? Finally, on nosocomial infections, it appears that infections within hospitals are starting to rise. Is that being monitored and addressed? With that, I will end my contribution, because I want other Members to be able to represent their areas.

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.

Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions)

Steve Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with him on the point about scrutiny. I am very glad that we have been able to find a way to ensure that we can have that scrutiny and that colleagues on both sides of the House can have the opportunity to vote, but in a way that still does not fetter the Government’s need to act fast to keep people safe from this virus.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has set out and the manner in which he has done it, and I thank him very much indeed. He said earlier that he would not be renewing some of these provisions. May I just invite him to say something about mental health, and also something about schedule 21 relating to potentially infectious persons?

[Matt Hancock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have been working together to try to find a way through this that works both for the House and for the circumstances. There has been a change in the way that schedule 21 is used, and I believe that has reduced some of the concerns in this area, but we will continue to keep it under review.

I will say something about mental health later in my speech. There are measures on mental health in the Act that have not been used and that we are not seeking to renew. I hope that reassures colleagues that we take a proportionate approach to these measures and that although we want to make sure we have the measures we need, when we do not need them we will set them aside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK Government need to get a grip and work with the other Governments and local councils around the United Kingdom on an equal basis.

Right at the start of the pandemic, the World Health Organisation said that we should “test, test, test”, and it was clear that that would be a vital element in regaining any form of normality. The Government had the country’s full resources on hand, and on 20 May the Prime Minister promised a “world-beating” test, track and isolate system by 1 June. I am not asking for a world-beating system; an effective one would do just fine. But shamefully, this has not been achieved all these months later. Is not this the problem with the Prime Minister? He always promises a better tomorrow, but he never delivers today.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I said on Monday that I was actually quite pleased with the app, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is pleased with the app and whether he has installed it and switched it on.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, I have indeed installed the app. It has taken a significant time and a significant amount of wasted money to actually appear, but it has finally appeared and I would encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to download it.

Covid-19

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Of course, sometimes in this pandemic we have to move fast. Sometimes we have had to move fast, and we may need to do so again. The challenge we have in this House is how to ensure proper scrutiny while also being able, when necessary, to move fast in response to the virus. That is the challenge that collectively we all face.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I reassure my right hon. Friend that I am going to praise him later, but the Constitution Unit at University College London tweeted earlier about the regulations mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that

“this policy was briefed to the media 8 days ago. Was it really not possible to schedule proper, detailed parliamentary debate during that time, given the far-reaching consequences?”

It added:

“Given the current mood, it seems very likely MPs will ask this.”

Well, I am asking. Surely it was possible, in eight days, to have the debate that my right hon. Friend has called for.

[Matt Hancock]

I am grateful for the tone in which my hon. Friend has engaged in this issue. He is a great supporter of parliamentary rights, and I am a fellow traveller in heart. The challenge is how to do that and also be able to move at pace. I would be very happy to talk with him, along with others, about how to make this happen. I would say, however, in respect of the laws that came into place overnight, that I set them out in a statement—in fact, the Prime Minister set out many of them in a statement last week—so we have been clear about the policy intent. The question is how we can make sure that we deal with this appropriately in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. We had the Public Health England report before the summer; we need those recommendations to be implemented. The point I am coming to, which reinforces the point my hon. Friend makes, is that yes, suppressing the virus depends on a vaccine and its distribution, but it is also clear that we need a health inequalities strategy as well.

We face this second wave knowing more about the virus than we did earlier in the year. Treatment has improved and continues to improve—I pay tribute to the national health service and our medical science base for that—but exposure to the virus remains dangerous. Indeed, many who catch the virus are left with serious debilitating conditions—the so-called long covid. The Secretary of State has promised us long covid clinics, but we are still waiting for them to open.

The Opposition reject those siren voices who say that we must let the virus rip through the population while the vulnerable shield. That may suit those with financial security and support in place, but for the disadvantaged it could be lethal. Others say that we must put the economy first, but controlling the virus and protecting the economy are linked objectives, not in conflict with each other. There can be no economic renewal without a healthy population, so taking action now to save lives and minimise harm is in our long-term economic interests.

[Mr Steve Baker]

The hon. Member is making a very interesting speech, but I just wonder which Member of this House has said the virus should be allowed to let rip? I have not, and I am not aware of any other Member of Parliament thinking it should be let rip?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I was not directing my comments at any particular Member, but the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a debate raging on that very point and I was repeating a comment not a million miles away from the remarks the Secretary of State made at the Dispatch Box.

We support a strategy to suppress this virus to save lives, minimise harm and keep children in school, which brings me to the debate raging about restrictions and the role of the House in imposing these restrictions. Neither the Secretary of State nor I came into politics to impose curtailments on our liberties, but when faced with a virus that spreads with speed and severity and when faced with the biggest public health crisis for over 100 years, we understand the need for restrictions: these restrictions are about preventing harm.

That is why, in March, when the Prime Minister invited the then Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and me to Downing Street to discuss these restrictions, we offered our support and co-operation. That is not to say that we do not have deep concerns about the Act to be debated on Wednesday—the Coronavirus Act 2020. We believe the Care Act easements, because of how they affect people in receipt of care, must be switched off. We maintain deep concerns about the rights of people detained under the Mental Health Act, and we need reassurances about the rights of children with special educational needs and disabilities. We will be looking to Ministers to offer us such reassurances on Wednesday.

However, this House should of course play a greater role in the scrutiny of legislation. As the Member for Leicester South, I share Members’ frustration when restrictions are imposed, when the rules for our constituents are unclear and confusing because the relevant statutory instrument has not yet been drafted, or when rules come out at 11.30 at night. Indeed, I share the incredulity of Members when instruments come so late to Committee that they are out of date—my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) was debating the measures to close zoos on the day that zoos were reopening—and I of course share the frustration of Members when fines are imposed and there has not been proper debate across this House.

If this House can find a way for better scrutiny of these measures, we would of course be extremely sympathetic, but we will not support attempts to scupper restrictions that are clearly in the public health interest. Our priority will always be saving lives, minimising harm and keeping our children in school. Until a vaccine is discovered and distributed, that depends on driving the R value to below 1 with containment measures, social distancing and an effective test, trace and isolate strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I rise to do three things. The first is to praise the Government for everything they have achieved on PPE, on testing and on the track and trace app. In my libertarian soul, and in my instinct, my heart and my reason, I consider the Government’s track and trace app to be the very apotheosis of my worst fears. Yet over the weekend I studied what the Government have done. They have moved away from the first version, to the Apple and Google-distributed model, with all the private data remaining on the user’s phone. They have released a source code, both for the server side and for the client, which I very much welcome as a software engineer, although I doubt I shall be grinding through it. Against all my instincts—and in the knowledge that I am not the Member of Parliament for dogmatic libertarians across the country, with whom I generally agree, but in fact the MP for Wycombe—I have done the right thing: I have, against my expectations, installed the contact tracing app. I ran out of excuses, I have installed it, and I am allowing it to run even as we speak. I hope that will be of some reassurance, even to those libertarians who might condemn me for it.

Secondly, I want to say something about the science. I am not going to engage in amateur epidemiology, much as I have been enjoying picking it up, but I will praise my constituent and friend, Dr Raghib Ali, who is an epidemiologist. Unusually, he is an academic epidemiologist and also an acute medicine consultant who works in Oxford, so he is perhaps uniquely positioned to comment on the disease. He has been tweeting and writing about the disease. He is a very reasonable man. He has really helped me to keep my feet on the ground. I say to all Members who, like me, really hate and despise these restrictions on our freedom to look at what Dr Raghib Ali is writing. He has helped to keep me anchored in the truth that this is a very dangerous disease for people who are older and people who have pre-existing conditions, and we have just got to deal with it.

On the science, I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were present. As he framed the problem between either suppression or letting it rip, I thought that our friend Mr Osborne was back framing the issue in terms of what I think is a false dichotomy. I think we need to take another look at the scientific advice. There are professors out there telling us that this is an optimisation problem—we need to maximise the lives saved and minimise harm. There is, I think, going to turn out to be a third way that enables us to minimise harm. The Department’s own figures have shown, as reported in The Daily Telegraph, that the cost of lockdown in quality adjusted life years, adjusted for comorbidities, was greater than the cost of the disease thus far. So if we wish to maximise human flourishing and save lives, we have to look extremely carefully at the science.

I am working with my friend Professor Roger Koppl, from Syracuse University and author of a book titled, perhaps unfortunately, “Expert Failure”, looking at what actually happens with expertise. I wrote a brief for the Prime Minister, which I have also tweeted. My covering letter points out:

“Pandemic policy making has been asking the impossible of scientists, economists and politicians. There are solutions and they are fundamental to the success of a free society in an era of accelerating complexity and change.

There is a structural problem rooted in the division of labour which, when combined with bad incentives, causes inevitable failures of expert advice. The problems are acute, delicate, dangerous and long-standing. They do not arise from faulty expertise or bad actors.”

I am not going to call for anyone to be sacked.

So I hope people will look at the brief I have put out, which includes concrete suggestions. I will put on the record the Harold Macmillan quote with which the brief leads:

“We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts”,

however brilliant they may be.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what he has just said applies particularly to the university environment, where this year more university students will probably die from meningitis than from covid-19?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I do not know the facts about meningitis, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. I particularly welcomed the debate between scientists on this Sunday’s Ridge programme. We have seen that the science actually involves a great deal of uncertainty and debate, as brilliant people, well versed in their lifetime’s work, try to make their way through uncertain knowledge, to predict the future. We must all proceed with great care if we are to be concerned for our constituents’ wellbeing.

In a sense, what I am saying to the Government today is that we need to fix two parts of this process. We need to change the structure within which expert advice is provided. I have provided a brief to the Minister. I have tweeted it out and would happily give it to the Minister. We also need to deal with the problem that has been the subject of so much news this week. We need to deal with the issue of this House voting on restrictions of the people’s liberty before it is taken away. That is surely the fundamental point about democracy. I can say, hand on heart, that all Members of this House appreciate that, in an emergency, it is necessary for Ministers to use the powers they have to protect life, liberty and property and I do not condemn anyone, but we are now into a different phase of the disease. It really is time to reach an agreement—I am happy to say that we have just had a constructive meeting with the Secretary of State, the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House—and to reach a constructive way forward. I know it is inconvenient for Ministers to come to the House before they take away people’s liberties, but I say to Ministers: it is supposed to be. It is what keeps us a free people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). He claims to have the most beautiful constituency in these islands. I, of course, represent the most sophisticated electorate in these islands, as I have argued many times. He used to serve alongside me on the Work and Pensions Committee, and I shall confine most of my remarks to that subject. I thank him for the tone he adopted, because it was a lot better than some of the madder contributions earlier. One Conservative said that they thought the Government had turned to the dark side. Many of us came to that conclusion many years ago.

I will confine my contribution to ensuring that the Government support the least fortunate in our society. I was very surprised when I tabled a parliamentary question asking how many advance repayments there had been in the latest available figures. The latest figures available are for May this year—the height of the lockdown—and 1.6 million universal credit claimants had a deduction from their payments due to advance repayments. In West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, 800 individuals had an average of £61 deducted from their payments. In Glasgow South West, it was an average of £56 taken from 3,800 claimants.

Those statistics show that claimants had money taken off them at the height of lockdown. I think that is something the Government need to reflect on. I find it deeply troubling that the Government were taking money off people who were claiming universal credit at the height of lockdown. We have to make sure that people do not have to choose to heat or to eat. The consequences of such policies, as we learned on a webinar I took part in by Feeding Britain, of which I am a trustee, have put enormous pressure on food banks and other charities.

Where I do agree with the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is that the local organisations in both our constituencies—the churches, food banks and charitable organisations—have stepped up magnificently during the crisis. However, they have stepped up to do some things that they would not have had to do if the Government had not taken deductions from individuals for advance repayments. That has put pressure on groups such as Drumoyne Community Council with its food project, the Govan Youth Information Project, Govan HELP and G53 Together, which brings together a large number of organisations in the Greater Pollok ward of Glasgow South West. They have done a magnificent job of looking after all the people who have needed help during the crisis.

I have heard the conspiracy theories. I am sure I am not the only one whose inbox is flooded with theories about covid—that somehow it is a conspiracy and all of that. It is not; it is a severe pandemic that attacks natural human behaviour. It is natural to shake someone’s hand when we see them. It is natural to hug them if we know them well enough. We cannot do that in these troubled times, due to this disease and this pandemic.

I want to place it on the record, as I have done a number of times over the past few months, that a major round of applause should go to our constituency office staff—not just those in Glasgow South West, but those across these islands. They really have stepped up. Whether Members have been in this House since December or for decades, I am sure they would all agree that our constituency office staff teams have never been busier. I claim, with some justification, that mine are the best, but I know that every single Member of this House is grateful to the constituency office staff of every Member of this House.

[Mr Steve Baker]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to this timely and important debate in the place where I thought I was supposed to be contributing.

I come to this debate as a self-professed libertarian Conservative, and somebody who strongly believes that states are most effective when they tend to concentrate on doing some things well, rather than lots of things badly. I want to explain why I as a libertarian can be supportive of the measures that have been taken by the Government, and I want to explain to those who share my ideological views or just those who are frustrated at the moment, whose views have come into all of our inboxes, why I think what we are doing is proportionate and appropriate.

There are two times when I think that big states and big governments are appropriate: one is in a time of war, which I hope none of us in this Chamber ever has to go through, and the second is in a public health emergency, and we are in a public health emergency. The virus exists; it is not flu, as some of my constituents seem to want to tell me. It transmits: it transmits well in social scenarios, and for a small but very important number of people, it creates very difficult outcomes and can be fatal at certain points. That is a public health emergency by any definition.

We can debate the approach, we can debate the enforcement, we can debate the scrutiny and we can debate the strategy, but I do not think we can debate those facts. We should debate the enforcement, we should debate the scrutiny and we should debate the approach, and when we are debating that, I look at it from two principles: one of liberty and one of risk. On the liberty point, I am a strong proponent of freedom and choice and bringing them to as many people and as many constituents as I possibly can. But the ability to have the freedom to do things comes with the requirement not to harm others. It is that second part of the principle of liberty that we need to ensure that people understand. There is an externality in terms of what we do on a day-to-day basis. If we do not ensure that that externality is understood and regulated, then we are not only constraining our freedom but will potentially extinguish the freedom of others.

[Mr Steve Baker]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I would be very happy to give way.

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend’s speech is so marvellous that I am just baldly going to give him another minute.

[Lee Rowley]

I am so grateful to my hon. Friend; I did not even ask him to do that.

The second point is one of risk. I recognise that this is a nuanced and difficult discussion where there are no clear-cut answers for us all. This debate, I accept, has been unbalanced over the past few months during coronavirus. We have had a focus on some of the short-term, hugely important and hugely tragic issues—my own family have faced some of those—whereas the more hidden, longer-term consequences of similar things that we are debating and discussing are often not brought to the fore because it is more difficult to do and more difficult to articulate. It is a question of the level of risk that we as a society are willing to tolerate.

We cannot tolerate zero risk. I have zero time for the members of the Independent SAGE who populate the pages of The Guardian with the idea that zero cases is somehow achievable. It is an impossibility, and we should cease to even entertain it as a serious idea in solving the problem that is in front of us. By the same token, we cannot have complete risk. We cannot have complete freedom to do things, because of the externality that I spoke about. That means, ultimately, that we need a proportionate approach. For now, based on what we know, and understanding the challenges that we face, the Government’s strategy is proportionate. It accepts that there are challenges and problems, and it is trying to balance those.

We may find out more in the next few weeks about whether there will be changes to how the virus is moving, we may find out in the next few months whether we have a solution to this, and perhaps we will have to change strategy in the future as a consequence. But we have to be honest with people: there is no straightforward answer to this. There is no absolute science. There are no easy comparisons with other countries, and people should be very careful about making those. There is no constraint on liberty that can last for ever. Ultimately, no laws, no edicts and no enforcement can boil down to what we all need to do as individuals and citizens, which is to do our best for ourselves, our community and our society as a whole. For those who value liberty and agree to a temporary constraint for others, for community and for society, I support that, but not for one minute longer than is necessary, not for one more person than is required, and not for one more element of society that we need to change as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)]

I start by adding my thanks to those of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who have thanked frontline NHS staff and social care workers, key workers, businesses and communities from all their constituencies for how they have risen to the unprecedented challenge that has faced us. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for highlighting the good work that our pharmacists have done on the frontline so far, and how they have adapted in this covid-tinged world to keep us safe.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) suggested, this is where we are now, and we have to learn to live with this disease. I am an optimist, but I am also a realist. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning of the debate, the recent steep rise in the number of cases is something that should concern us all. Our first priority is to preserve life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) laid out. We have to adapt, and we have done.

The excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) showed us that we have come a long way, and that was the theme running through the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. We are continuing with our plan to slow the spread of the virus and balance very tough decisions about health, the economy and protecting individual freedoms. I would like to park one suggestion immediately: there are no plans to keep students at university over Christmas.  I really do not think that it helps those young people, when they are launching into a new phase of their life, for right hon. and hon. Members to suggest that those things might happen. It is, to quote the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), better to deal with the facts.

Colleagues’ contributions to today’s debate were wide ranging and thoughtful, and they were most welcome. There were too many speakers to highlight each individually, so I shall address some of the key themes that were raised by hon. Members across the House.

On access to this place, what I have heard today is that this House wants to debate the challenges and that Members want to put forward their and their constituents’ views. I know that their words today will have been heard. As the Prime Minister said, the aim is to provide more opportunities to hon. and right hon. Members via statements. The Secretary of State has been here innumerable times—over 800 times answering questions—but we will have more debates, questioning of the Government’s scientific advisers and access to local data. We are looking at further ways to ensure that the House can be involved more fully, and there will be more details soon.

We have, as a Government, supported businesses in an unprecedented way, which many hon. Members mentioned, with furlough, the bounce back scheme and the self-employment income support scheme. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their kind words, but it is tough out there. We know we need to balance the needs of the economy and our health needs. This covid-tinged world is the one we are now trying to live in.

My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) explained the challenges for his constituents, particularly in the wedding sector, and I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) somewhat gleefully suggesting that the delay of two weddings in his household was not the worst thing in the world. I know he did not mean that. As someone with a daughter who has delayed a wedding this year too, I think what came out from everybody’s speeches was that they were personal—about the pain of love and the difficulty of decisions that have had to be made throughout this crisis.

We have had to make choices. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) highlighted positive interventions by the Government, but the most essential point that I took from his comments was why we must keep education going—why we must keep it open and why we must give the next generation that hope.

As I take those themes, I want us to hold in our mind the critical thing that we started with: that we must stop the NHS being overwhelmed. That is still our key objective. Although we know that people’s lives have been disrupted, critical care has continued throughout, and I pay tribute to those in community care, primary care and the acute sector who have enabled that to happen. Our response to create surge capacity of over 2,000 beds through our Nightingale hospitals is the key to forward resilience, as are the more than 30,000 ventilators that are now available.

Many hon. Members spoke about cancer. I would like to mention in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I reassure them that the NHS’s recovery approach has looked to restore urgent cancer care immediately. The latest figures, from June, show that over 180,000 people have been seen, more than 90% of them in two weeks. We have formed a cancer recovery taskforce, which met on 22 September and will meet every month in this financial year. It involves charities, stakeholders and clinicians. The national recovery plan will be developed over the coming weeks and published.

We must carry on treating. Cancer hubs, where teams work together in covid-free environments, are up and running now. The message is clear: “Come forward still.” We still need to get people to have confidence that we are there and we are open. The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) mentioned the situation in her area. Certain areas, such as gastrointestinal and bowel, are particularly difficult because of the diagnostic pathway, but we are working hard to make sure those patients are seen as quickly as possible.

Many hon. Members raised the curfew. Several countries have, like us, introduced curfews at 10 o’clock at night. The contact tracing data indicating patterns of behaviour shows that our inhibitions reduce as the evening goes on because we have usually drunk a little more. Having a curfew at 10 o’clock balances the need for businesses to operate against people’s ability to enjoy themselves, but we will, of course, keep the situation under review.

One or two Members said that we should have seen better—we should have been able to look into the future—while telling us how good they were at explaining the past to us. If only that were true. Several Members spoke about local challenges in testing, but it is important to remember that, when we started, all we did back in March was 2,000 tests a day. We passed the 20 millionth test today. It should be recognised that we have built the largest diagnostic network in British history. We have one of the best in Europe, and arguably one of the biggest in the world. I pay tribute to those who fought so hard to get us there. We have had mountains to climb, and every time we go up one side there is a dip on the other. None of this is easy. We have never said that we have all the answers, but we keep going because that is what makes us able to deliver for the people of this country. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for what the Government are doing.

We have risen to the challenges on each occasion, and every week driving the system to be bigger than the week before. We have five major laboratories, backing up 258 mobile testing sites, 76 regional sites and 122 walk-through sites. In London, we had eight local testing centres in August; we now have 22. Yes, there have been challenges due to unprecedented demand, but the curve of returning tests to people is beginning to go in the right direction. We are seeing huge improvements in data flow, and we are we are making sure the directors of public health, health protection teams, Mayors and local authorities are involved in these conversations. It is right that we are challenged, but it is also right that we recognise what has been done.

[Mr Steve Baker]

Would the Minister allow me?

[Jo Churchill]

No, I am terribly sorry. I have only two minutes left.

I say to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and for Wealden (Ms Ghani) that I understand the need to see loved ones, but there is a balance in protecting care homes. As I sat on the Bench, one of my care homes texted me and said, “All is well. I feel in control.” May that long continue. We are getting 100,000 tests out to care homes every week. The strategy for winter is about having national guidance and local systems, and enabling care homes, which know their individual residents, to do their best for them.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden for acknowledging how far we have come. We have delivered more than 3.5 billion items of PPE. The strategy was put out today, and I pay tribute to Lord Deighton for all the work he has done. We are building supplies, and we have resilient supply lines that we did not have before. We started distributing to 226 NHS trusts, and we now send to 58,000 settings. The PPE portal is a blueprint for rapid mobilisation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) highlighted how we are using local factories in this country—in these four nations. That is where new business opportunities have arisen; it is not all doom and gloom. In treatment, we have secured good supplies of dexamethasone, which has helped mortality for the sickest patients. We also have the recovery programme, leading clinical trials, which has been called—not by us—the most impressive on the planet. By 2021, we will know more about the good and bad treatments. Once again, we are showing how the NHS, private business and academia work successfully together. I congratulate everybody involved in those. The global vaccine industry has responded with a speed never seen before. We are at the forefront of the science for finding a vaccine for this novel organism. There is a huge amount of planning going on to ensure we are ready to roll things out. We are walking a tightrope, as many Members have acknowledged. There are no easy decisions and there is no silver bullet, but we know that the thing is: hands, face, space. If even my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has downloaded the app, I urge everybody to download it. It is the fastest download in British history, and all these small measures will help us get the virus under control.

Covid-19 Update

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fruits of his tireless work, along with officials and others in the Government, including delivering mobile testing in Wycombe, but could he please tell us a little bit more about what he is doing to restore the full range and scale of elective surgery in the NHS, so that people with non-covid conditions can get their treatment back on track?

[Matt Hancock]

That is a really important point. It is critical, because the overall impact of coronavirus is not just the direct morbidity—the number of people who sadly die from coronavirus itself; there is also the wider impact, including those whose treatment has been delayed owing to the necessity of ensuring that the NHS was ready to cope with coronavirus, or because, for clinical reasons, it was important to delay the treatment because there is such a virulent virus at large. We are working very hard to restore treatments for non-covid reasons. That work has started. I was able to announce last week, for instance, that fertility treatment has restarted and cancer treatment is restarting, and other elective surgeries will restart as soon as it is safe to do so.

Public Health

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) [V]]

These rules are necessary and the Government made the right call when they put the country into lockdown in order to protect lives. Nothing that I am about to say should in any way be taken to diminish people’s obligation to obey the law.

My first point is that we see that these regulations were made on 26 March at 1 pm. The Prime Minister announced these rules on 23 March and police officers quickly set about enforcing them, stopping people on trains and, in one case, overturning a barbecue. People very quickly found themselves subject to what seemed to be enforcement action. On 24 March, the Government sent a text message, saying that new rules were “in force now” and that people “must stay at home”. The problem is that those rules were not in force at that time; they were not in force until 26 March. I press on the Minister the fact that we must not again have a situation where the Prime Minister makes an announcement at a press conference and police officers start enforcing rules before they are made. We must in future make the law and then tell the public that it is enforced. I press on him the fact that that must not happen again.

Secondly, there is a good case that these regulations are ultra vires, and I recommend that the Government have a contingency plan in place in case a court case— a judicial review—succeeds in demonstrating that. I will try to sketch out the position very quickly—if I have understood it correctly. This is from an opinion from Blackstone, and I have tweeted the original article if people have an interest in the detail. It says:

“The regulations purport to authorise conduct which would otherwise constitute the torts of false imprisonment and trespass to the person”—

that is the physical restraint and forcible removal to one’s home. It goes on to say that for primary legislation to sanction such tortious conduct there must be

“express words or necessary implication”

to that effect. But section 45G(2)(j) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, under which these rules are made, does not expressly, or by necessary implication, authorise physical confinement.

It is also the case that the Act expressly prohibits the Secretary of State from imposing certain of the special restrictions on people; they can only be imposed by a magistrate. It suggests that, under the 1984 Act, the Secretary of State was not meant to be able to put on people restrictions that would otherwise be tortious—false imprisonment or physical restraint, for example. Therefore, we may be in a position where these draconian rules—these necessary rules—are not well founded in law, and I would like to know today the Government’s position on that. I would like to be assured that, if the lockdown needs to continue, the Government will have a contingency plan in place to ensure that it is well founded in law.

The third point was very well made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). He called for harmony between the guidance and the law. There have been very severe, absurd problems arising because the police have sought to enforce rules that were not actually in law. For example, the law in England does not specify that people may not drive to exercise. I know of people who have stayed at home because they need to drive a short distance from a place where they cannot exercise to one where they can. People have been accused, for example, of not sweating adequately when cycling. When doing yoga, they have been accused of not exercising. These things are absurd and wrong and worrying for law-abiding people. The Government may not in future be able to close this difficult area by harmonising the guidance with the rules, so what I suggest is for them to have a look at the Highway Code, where there is already a precedent for rules given with a “should”, which means that they are, in a sense, guidance and not enforceable, and for things that people must or must not do. Given that we have that precedent, can we please close this gap, so that police officers are not put in the invidious position of trying to enforce what are really no more than Ministers’ opinions of what should be done—in other words, things that are not in law.

I want to finish by saying that I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for his liberalism. I am extremely thankful for the exceptionally high-quality policing in Wycombe, where I have had no complaints. None the less, the people of the United Kingdom should not have to rely on the goodwill of the Prime Minister and the Government or the good sense of police officers in order to go about their lawful business. I implore my friends on the Front Bench to ensure that we uphold the rule of law and the freedoms on which they depend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Opposition Member who was due to speak next is not now taking part in the debate, so we go to another Government Member, Selaine Saxby.