Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 828).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 846), the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 865), the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 897) and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 931).
Jo Churchill
It is my pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The regulations came into force on 4 August to tackle the outbreak of coronavirus in parts of the north of England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was made aware that the latest epidemiological data showed high transmission rates of covid-19 across Greater Manchester, areas of Lancashire and West Yorkshire. It was therefore necessary to impose restrictions to prevent further spread of the virus.
On 8 August, following concerns about the significant increase in local incidence rates of the virus, the regulations were amended to extend their remit to include Preston. On Wednesday 15 August, a further amendment to the regulations meant that the national restrictions that were lifted across England would not be applied to those areas covered by the regulations, due to the high incidence rates remaining across such areas. However, by Wednesday 26 August, on reviewing the up-to-date epidemiolocal data and information from local authorities, directors of public health, Public Health England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and contain teams, the Secretary of State was able to remove Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council and Rossendale Borough Council from the protected area. This meant that the restrictions remaining in those areas aligned with the those on the rest of England. On 2 September, we were able to remove certain wards in Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and Kirklees Metropolitan Council from the regulations following another review.
The concerns about the outbreak of coronavirus in the north of England have been significant, and the engagement with local leaders has been extensive and productive. I want to thank all local authorities and local resilience forums, Public Health England and the Joint Biosecurity Centre—as well as local directors of public health, all council leaders and the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham—for their ongoing support. I also want to emphasise that the decision to take action on each occasion was not driven by numbers alone; it was a judgment about the overall situation, taking into account not only the epidemiological evidence, but local insights and views.
Action had already been taken to protect the people living in the affected areas in the weeks before the regulations came into force, such as increased testing and public health support. We also gave additional funding to all upper tier local authorities involved. That enabled them to enhance the various local interventions and to support measures that have been put in place. We hoped that those interventions and the work of local public health teams would get the infection rate down without our having to take more drastic action. When the regulations came into force, however, the incidence rates in almost all these geographic areas were significantly above the national average.
Pendle had the highest incidence rate in England between 31 July and 6 August, at 89.7 infections per 100,000 people. Oldham had the second highest rate, at 82.3, and nine other local authorities in the north had rates in excess of 30 per 100,000. The epidemiological data and local insights suggested that the most likely route for the increased transmission of covid-19 was as a result of people living in different households in the area meeting up with one another. Multigenerational households, households with several members and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have experienced a higher risk of transmission.
However, by the end of July, it was clear that rates of infection were continuing to increase to undesirable levels. The cross-Government covid-19 operations committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, decided on 30 July to take further measures to tackle the outbreak, and the Secretary of State set out the measures in his statement. In general, these regulations prohibited households in the relevant areas of the north of England mixing with each other in their homes or gardens, apart from those with support bubbles or in other limited circumstances, such as on compassionate grounds. Some exceptions include work purposes, education or training, emergency protection, to avoid injury or escape harm, to facilitate a house move, to provide care to vulnerable people or to visit family members who are dying.
These regulations also included a provision extending that restriction to the protected areas covered by the separate Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020. The regulations include provisions making it a criminal offence to breach any of the restrictions or requirements. As with the national regulations, those who breach these provisions can be issued with a fixed penalty notice, with increasingly larger fines for repeated breaches. Offenders can also be fined following conviction.
Due to the increasing incidence rate in Preston as the regulations came into force, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the decision to add Preston to the restricted area covered by the regulations, extending the ban on households mixing with each other to residents of the city. Despite the restriction on inter-household mixing introduced on 5 August, the incidence rates continued to rise or remain undesirably high. Consequently, on 15 August, further restrictions were imposed requiring certain businesses and venues to remain closed, despite their being able to reopen elsewhere in England. The venues in each local authority area that had to remain closed for the time being included casinos, indoor skating rinks, indoor swimming pools and water parks, indoor play areas, indoor fitness and dance studios, indoor gyms and sports courts, bowling alleys, conference centres and exhibition halls.
By 26 August, rates had fallen or remained acceptably low in Rossendale and Wigan and by 2 September rates had also fallen much safer levels across Stockport, Burnley and Hyndburn, as well as across certain wards within Calderdale and Kirklees. In the light of the improving situation in all those areas at those dates, the Secretary of State removed them from the regulations, so the only restrictions remaining in force in each area were those applicable to the rest of England. The regulations must be reviewed every 14 days to consider the need for the restrictions to continue. The next review is due on or before 25 September. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State committed to reviewing them weekly, which he continues to do.
Given the urgency of the situation in the north of England, we used the emergency procedure to make the present set of regulations as soon as we could. They give effect to the decisions set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in response to the up-to-date epidemiological data and situational awareness relevant to each local authority area. Alongside the regulations, we provided guidance on the www.gov.uk website explaining what people living in an affected area can and cannot do.
Since these regulations and their amendments were implemented, the Government have continued to review the ongoing situation. The incidence rates in most of these local authorities have increased and remain high. Although we are debating only these five statutory instruments, there have been regular reviews considering the positions in each local authority area, and we remain concerned about the continued high level of the virus in many of them, primarily driven by community transmission. People must follow the Government’s clear guidance to socially distance, wash hands frequently and wear face coverings in public indoor places.
We always knew that the path out of lockdown would not be entirely smooth. It was always likely that infections would rise in particular areas or workplaces, and that we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to those outbreaks. The collective actions taken across the north of England have demonstrated a willingness and ability to take action where needed. We will, of course, use the experience of the restrictions in the north of England to help inform and develop our responses to any current local outbreaks.
As I said earlier, we will continue to make public the outcome of the reviews. I am very grateful to all Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process, and in the scrutiny of the regulations. I would particularly like to thank people in those parts of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire who have, in general, responded well to the measures put in place. It is thanks to their continued efforts that the changes to the boundaries were made, and we hope to ease measures further if improvements continue. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for her remarks and explanations of what the Government are seeking to do, as well as for her efforts over the past six months. It has been an awful lot of work for Ministers, and we are grateful; when we disagree, I hope that we disagree firmly but well.
It is a funny time to be in opposition. The clue is in the name: we oppose very many, if not most, of the things in the Government’s legislative agenda. We have significant concerns about some or all of them, so we seek to amend, we scrutinise, and in that way we hope to improve our parliamentary democracy. On any issue, it is very easy to engage in the narcissism of small differences, but in a pandemic that will not do. If the Government say, “There is a rule of six,” we could very easily say, “It should be a rule of five, or a rule of seven.” We could play that game all day—indeed, I was on the radio on Thursday, and people were saying just that. “You are too co-operative. The Opposition are too supportive of the restrictions being put on our freedoms.”
Similarly—obviously, this gained much more coverage—on Sunday morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition reiterated that we support the Government on the restrictions being put in place. We think it is obvious that if the infection rate increases, restrictions have to increase as well, but there were some extraordinary comments on Twitter—this was just from our own side—about how easily we were rolling over. I should probably never look at the comments, but sometimes I cannot help it.
The point I am building up to, however, is that the well of good will is not unlimited, because there is a real problem. Hon. Members will have read their papers, and will know that what we are discussing now is long after the fact. I do not think we would be popping anybody’s bubble or revealing what is behind the curtain, if I can mix my metaphors, to say that today is a bit of a fool’s errand. We are meeting weeks and weeks after these regulations were not only put in place, but changed. The first one we are discussing has since been amended on essentially four different occasions. There has to be a sense of reality about what we are doing, but hopefully also a recognition that, fundamentally, as an operation, this will not do. Are these very significant changes to happen on a very regular basis, only to be scrutinised in Parliament seven weeks later? I do not think so. It is not good for us as an Opposition, and it is also not good for the Government or for Government Back Benchers.
Of course, these regulations came into effect on 5 August. At that point, people living in the 15 local authority areas specified, as well as Blackburn—which was already under alternative restrictions—could no longer meet in groups of two or more households in a private dwelling, or in groups of more than 30 people outdoors. A variety of other conditions and exceptions was also in place. I recall this well: I was up in Manchester myself when it was announced, visiting my sister and her newborn baby, and I needed to beat a hasty retreat lest I had to stay there. I do not think my constituents would have been too impressed by that.
Again, we broadly support these measures and the intention behind them, because we all want to halt the spread of the virus, and we know that keeping people safe must be the No. 1 priority. However, we as an Opposition have to put on the record our concerns that it has taken seven weeks for us to get here. I talked to the Minister before we started, and I am sure that her colleagues have had a series of different versions of these delegated legislation Committees over the past few weeks.
Normally, we would put up my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), but we are giving him a bit of a rest. I think that is why they have sent me out to bat: some fresh legs with half an hour to go, to run around and put a few tackles in, which has never been something I have worried about doing.
This point needs to be reiterated. We are rightly talking about having control of this virus, but there is concern across the House and definitely among the population that we do not now have control of the virus, and are certainly losing it. A big part of that control has to be our understanding and scrutiny of the regulations, their quality, and their effectiveness.
Of course, we need to act efficiently. We would never support a situation where important and effective regulation that was needed could not be introduced in a timely manner, because we had not yet got to Committee Room 10 to deal with it. We know the pattern on which the regulations will be popping up—a statement from the Health Secretary has just finished and there will be one from the Prime Minister tomorrow—and I do not think it is beyond the realms of possibility that new regulations are coming. However, while we are talking about regulations from seven weeks ago, when will we reach the new ones? Will it take seven weeks? I do not think that that will be in our interest or anyone else’s. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
I know that the subject has been raised many times by Members on both sides of the House, and in the other place. We cannot be here just to rubber stamp what the Government propose. That stretches things too far. I believe that we are taking responsible paths, although I say that with the caveat that I state whenever I do any media work. When I open my emails, half of them say that I have been too hard on the Government and am not supporting the national effort; the other half say that the Opposition are too acquiescent. Who knows? Nevertheless, I do not think that anyone would think arriving late and rubber stamping a measure is in our interest or is what our constituents need from us.
Mr Speaker gets upset, as do we, that often we hear of important policy changes on a Friday or Sunday night, long before Parliament has the opportunity to hear them. Sometimes I talk about that to my friends who are non-political and they say, “Well, you know, you can’t be that person who’s worried about being told first.” I remember Gareth from “The Office”, who would always insist on having the news whispered in his ear just before the big team meeting so that he knew it first. That is not the point or what we are saying. We are saying that we have a parliamentary democracy for a reason. It is a very effective one and has been this way for a long time. We all treasure and love it. We must be among its greatest enthusiasts because we choose to come here every day. We cannot lose that, even in the most important circumstances. That is when it becomes all the more important.
However, we have had regulations coming into force only a quarter of an hour after they are available to read. Including the five before the Committee, there are 17 measures being debated this week, all of which are already in force. Other regulations have come into force before being revoked and never seen. There seems to be no opportunity during this period of time to debate them, and that will not work. We are hoping for some clarity and commitment from the Minister, and an assurance that the Government are actively seeking to get upstream of this blizzard of regulations.
I would hate to take the job of Whip, held by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington—I really would not want it—but I am sure the Opposition would be constructive about shifting the backlog if it meant that we could deal with regulations in something closer to real time. That would be better for everyone. However, this is not just about Parliament; it is a question of the cue we send out to the public. If they feel that the process is rushed or bypassed, there is a danger of undermining Parliament’s credibility.
People in the north are reasonable and intelligent—I am one of them. They are not daft and they know when things are being cooked up on the fly. I have heard that from friends and family. If they feel that measures are arbitrary, and that they have been made on the hoof, that undermines their confidence in whether they should stick to them or whether to say, “Just pop round, and no one will ever really know.” We know that in fighting the virus that will not do.
It is hard, as I mentioned a couple of minutes ago, not to reflect that we have just had a statement from the Health Secretary and there will be one from the Prime Minister tomorrow, and there was a chief advisers’ press conference this morning. We would never say no to hearing more information and certainly not to having more opportunities to talk about it, but it is hard to explain to a lay person what process of swift, clear and effective decision-making those things reflect.
Compliance is key to our success in getting out from under the virus and making the measures work. That is why we need to scrutinise them and have our say on them. As I have said, we do not propose to divide the Committee, but that does not mean we do not want greater understanding of some of the Government’s ideas. Certainly, as we get into discussion of curfews or hospitality closing times, we want to understand precisely the science behind such things.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. My colleague is making an important point. I hope Members will forgive me for repeating something that has come up at many similar Committee sittings. We represent communities to whom we are answerable, who want to know what is going on—why such measures are being passed, and why the policies are being imposed on communities. It is very difficult to explain what is happening when we have not had scrutiny or access to Ministers. Explanations should be upstream of any regulations being made, as my hon. Friend said. Back Benchers across the House are crying out for that. There should be a strategy that explains why the measures might be required in future. Strategic thinking needs to take place in advance, in anticipation of the circumstances. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Alex Norris
Yes, I do. Again, that is necessary for public confidence. We have supported the Government throughout. As infection rates decrease, we can open up more things and do more things. As infection rates rise, there will be greater restrictions. It would be better to understand what greater restrictions mean earlier in the process. Instead, it feels as though we are always running to catch up.
I am in danger of being much more negative than I usually am, but I have the chance to extol some virtues and talk about the benefits that we have today. We at least have hindsight at our disposal. We do not often get reviews of legislation this quickly after it has come into force, but today we have that. On 5 August, the seven-day case average in the north-west region, which is a good cipher for the area we are talking about, was just under 250. On 2 September, with the most recent of the four amendments, the seven-day case average was 486, and last week the rolling day average peaked at 1,200 on Wednesday.
It is therefore clear that although the regulations might have been effective, they are not entirely sufficient. That makes the case for greater restrictions. People need to understand that, even though it is frustrating. Certainly in the communities where freedoms have been curtailed, no doubt willingly, to beat the virus and protect each other, they need to understand the picture, what has happened subsequently and why we need to go further. We have a duty as an Opposition to point out that that was undermined by slowness in the early stages regarding personal protective equipment; lockdown itself; social care and more; the lack of scrutiny, as I mentioned; and particularly now, as we reflect on this here in Parliament, the shambles that is test and trace.
Short of a wonder vaccine, which will be gladly received when it comes, test and trace is our most critical weapon to get out from underneath this, but at the moment it is not happening. It is not working in a timely manner to properly find those who have coronavirus and to isolate them. That is why we are seeing the virus spread. Will the Minister update us on the progress towards getting a system that meets what the Prime Minister said in June about a 24-hour turnaround in response, because that is what it will take?
Can we hear a little more about what was briefed over the weekend? I am a man of the world—I understand that things get briefed to the Sunday newspapers. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have been calling for a recognition that if those who are being asking to self-isolate are offered only statutory sick pay that pushes them into poverty, that will be an incentive not to comply with the regulations. That is not a good thing, but it is entirely human. The £500 figure was briefed over the weekend. Will the Minister tell us more about that?
I have three final points. We have not had much of a debate on the merits of these specific restrictions because the horse is three fields down by now, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on where we are currently and where she feels we will be next week, in a month’s time and in three months’ time. We want a sense of what the journey is, even if that journey means things are getting more challenging. Okay, that will mean greater restrictions, but what sorts of restrictions and when? It would be good for Parliament and for everybody to know that.
I am sure this is close to your heart, Mr Hollobone, as someone with a long history in local government, but will the Minister tell us a little more about local authority engagement? She said in her contribution that that has always been good. That is not always the picture that we get from local councils in respect of whether conversations have happened and whether the announcement reflects them. Can we hear what process is being used to engage with council leaders?
Finally, regulation 4 of the first set of regulations requires a review at least once every 14 days, so there must have been three since they came into effect. I wonder why the results of the reviews have not been made public, and whether they could be more routinely in future. That would give us something better to debate when evaluating their effectiveness.
I will draw to a conclusion there; I have made my point on timeliness and I hope the Minister can address it.
Jo Churchill
I place on the record my thanks for the hon. Gentleman’s tone; I am grateful for the support. As we know from this morning’s announcement by Professor Whitty and Patrick Vallance, this is a difficult, fluid situation that is changing. It is important, as I answer some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me, that we keep that level of dynamism in mind, because that is the problem: we cannot see into the future. One of the challenges is that if we pre-empt where we are going, we are much more likely to be over-restrictive than under-restrictive.
The one thing we have not heard in the offer of support is how that support would work within the parliamentary framework. Do we sit for seven days, because these things are arguably coming at us hourly? Do we do it on a smaller basis? Do we go through usual channels? This is considerably more complex. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes, because often members of the public are not sure how this place works, and there is a challenge in helping them to understand why we do things in certain ways.
Matt Western
The Minister makes a valid point. As a constructive suggestion, we have Westminster Hall and we have spare capacity in this place. How about using Westminster Hall solely for the purpose of having these debates about everything related to the covid-19 pandemic and how we work our way through it, and we could do stuff in advance?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion; I am sure my Whip will take that away and feed it up through the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that there are other places on the estate but, as he will know, there are also restrictions on movement around the estate and what parts of if we can move to.
The restrictions we have debated today are necessary and important for three reasons. First, and most importantly, they are necessary to protect the people in the north of England and surrounding areas from this terrible virus. The restrictions imposed have been difficult, but I think the people of the north of England recognise that the measures have been paramount to try to stop the spread of the virus.
Secondly, the restrictions protect those of us outside the north of England. Containing was very much the strategy laid out on 10 May. These restrictions greatly reduce the risk of transmission within the protected area, which in turn reduces the risk of infection rates increasing elsewhere. We recognise and appreciate that in abiding by these restrictions, those in the north of England benefit the whole country, and I place on the record my thanks to them.
Thirdly, the restrictions show the absolute determination to respond to the outbreaks of the virus in a focused and effective way. We are learning from what happened in the north of England as we work with local authorities and others to respond to future localised outbreaks, such as those that one of my colleagues will be debating in the House in due course. Indeed, we were able to work down to a granular, ward-by-ward level, but we have found that it is probably not the best strategy to open up on that basis.
The next review of the regulations will take place on or before 25 September. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the date today. I would like to address the point that the hon. Member for Nottingham North made first about timeliness and speed. The Government are confident that the regulations were made lawfully under the emergency procedure of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. They are receiving parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the emergency procedure, and are being debated within 28 days.
The challenge with these regulations is that we caught the tail end of recess, which obviously pushed them out a little further. The procedure allows us to respond quickly to the serious and imminent threat to public health posed by coronavirus, first by imposing restrictions to break the transmission chain and to protect people, and secondly by removing those restrictions when it is safe to do so. The regulations we are debating show how fluidly and quickly we can make those adjustments and changes.
The Secretary of State considers that the requirements imposed by the regulations are a proportionate public health response to the threat of incidence and spread in England of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2— SARS-CoV-2—or covid-19. The regulations set out that a review of those requirements must take place every 14 days to ensure that they continue to be necessary to
“prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection”.
It is also important that timely reviews are made so that restrictions are not overly imposed on any part of the population.
We have subsequently amended the regulations to ensure that we continue to take necessary steps to protect public health as national restrictions were lifted over the summer—amendments were accordingly made on 8, 15 and 26 August. The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked how decisions are made locally and what the system is. Public Health England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and NHS Test and Trace are constantly monitoring the levels of infection across the country, and work with local authorities to implement additional control measures as appropriate. Those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, which is why that local knowledge is so important, and advice may differ according to the specific circumstances of any given outbreak. Indeed, tomorrow we will be talking about an outbreak in and around a place of work, which is obviously quite different.
The watchlist is already publicly available in Public Health England’s weekly surveillance report, and the decision to place restrictions on local authorities in the north of England was based on a number of factors, including not just the positivity rate, but the incidence rate of the virus, the extent of high-risk behaviours and the rise in the increased risk of transmission between the population. The next review will take place on Friday 25th—this Friday—and we are debating the regulations before that review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider all those factors when making his decision.
As I have just mentioned, we have increased the capacity of the test and trace system by more than 10% in the last few weeks, with the aim of reaching 500,000 tests per day by the end of October. I pay tribute to all those involved in the test and trace system because, initially, we could process some 2,000 per day. We are now well over 240,000 per day, and some capacity, including antibody tests, is well over 370,000 tests per day. We are on track to hit 500,000 tests per day by the end of October. There are four new Lighthouse labs coming on stream, including Newport, Newcastle, Charnwood and Brants Bridge. There are hundreds of additional staff and capacity is being bought up abroad. Test and trace has led to more than 420,000 people isolating who may otherwise have spread the virus. As we heard this morning, breaking that transmission chain is so important.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for giving way—she is being very generous. I have an observation: I visited our testing centre at the Ricoh Arena in north Coventry, which serves the whole region of Warwickshire and Coventry. In the hour I spent there yesterday, only 16 cars went in. There was clearly a lot of capacity—a big facility has been established there—and very professional people on site, but there must be a disconnect between the capacity she describes, which I saw, and what is being fed through to those centres. The numbers that she describes are huge, but I am not seeing that on the ground.
Jo Churchill
I think what we are all seeing on the ground is that demand has become exponential in the past few weeks. It is therefore a question of the system catching up, but it is important that the Government assess the risk factors and continue to protect healthcare workers and members of the social care workforce first to ensure that we are protecting the most vulnerable in society with the capacity that we have, and then begin to move through to other key workers. We need to have a risk stratification approach as the numbers increase.
This country’s population is in the region of 67 million. Even with a testing rate at 500,000 per day, it would take some weeks to get through that. There has to be a marrying of the testing capacity within the testing facilities and the ability of the labs to have the throughput that backs up behind it. We are doing an enormous number of tests, and it has been noted that we actually have a larger throughput than Germany, Italy, Spain and France.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister mentions Germany. I have just come back from Italy. Why is it that Germany and Italy have such lower numbers than the UK?
Jo Churchill
With the greatest of respect, I will move on, because we are somewhat going away from the regulations we are discussing. I was asked specifically about the test and trace figures in and around the north of England, rather than those stretching across Europe.
Jo Churchill
No, I am sorry, but I will not give way.
The north of England regulations were also amended on 2 and 8 September. The amendments made on 2 September removed certain local authorities or specified wards from the protected area under the regulations, following the decrease in incidence rates of the virus in those areas. On 8 September, the regulations were amended to enable certain businesses and venues to reopen, in line with elsewhere in England. The remaining restrictions continue to prohibit people from different households meeting in each other’s homes or private gardens, and to stop a small number of businesses reopening—for example, nightclubs remain closed in the relevant parts of the north of England, as is the case across the rest of England, for quite sensible precautionary reasons.
Let me conclude by recording on behalf of the Government our thanks to the people of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, particularly the health and social care workers—indeed, all key workers in those areas—for their ongoing hard work and dedication in keeping our vital services running and for saving lives throughout these unprecedented times.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 828).
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 846).—(Jo Churchill.)
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS ON GATHERINGS) (NORTH OF ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 865).— (Jo Churchill.)
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NORTH OF ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 897).—(Jo Churchill.)
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NORTH OF ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 931).—(Jo Churchill.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that we are applying social distancing, so I would be grateful if you sat in the places indicated. If you have speaking notes that you want to supply to Hansard, please do not send hard copies but email them to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.839).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020 No. 882) and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020 No. 906).
Ms Dorries
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. These regulations amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020, which will henceforth be referred to as the face covering regulations.
The face covering regulations came into force on 24 July and made it mandatory for people to wear face coverings in some indoor settings, such as some shops, supermarkets and indoor transport hubs in England. The original face covering regulations were debated and approved by members of the Committee on 14 September. This debate will therefore not focus on the content of the original set of regulations but will deal with the subsequent amendments.
Amendments were made to face covering regulations on 8 August, 22 August and 28 August to extend the requirement to wear a face covering to a wider list of indoor settings, to make clear that certain persons are exempt and to change the penalty structure for these regulations. I urge the Committee to approve these amending statutory instruments so that we may continue to use these powers to enhance protections for those visiting indoor spaces and minimise the risk of spreading the infection.
Amendments to the face covering regulations were necessary to ensure that this legislation tracked with the easement of lockdown restrictions and the reopening of further indoor premises, in order to offer the maximum protection to members of the public. These regulations are a necessary response to the serious and imminent threat to public health posed by the spread of coronavirus —covid-19—which is why they were brought into effect under the emergency procedure approved by Parliament for such measures. It is important that the Committee is able to scrutinise these amending regulations through this debate, which is taking place within the statutory 28 sitting days of the regulations coming into force.
This country has been and is still engaged in a national effort to beat the coronavirus, thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of the British people. Informed by the science, this progress has allowed us to cautiously ease lockdown restrictions, allowing sections of the economy, such as the retail and hospitality sector, to open. Colleagues will be aware that we introduced the original face covering regulations to coincide with the easement of some restrictions, to give members of the public greater confidence to visit public indoor spaces and to enhance protection for those working in these settings, as explained by the Secretary of State when he addressed Parliament on 14 July and announced these measures.
As I mentioned earlier, the face covering regulations, as originally made, were debated and approved by the Committee last week. The Government have continually reviewed and refined advice on face coverings. Prior to the face covering regulations coming into force, the Government had already been advising the wearing of face coverings in enclosed spaces where people might find it difficult to maintain social distance and might come into contact with others whom they would not usually meet.
Furthermore, face coverings have been mandatory on public transport in England since 15 June. Although face coverings are not a substitute for social distancing and good hand hygiene, the scientific evidence suggests that, when used correctly, they may have some benefit in reducing the likelihood of those with the infection, particularly if they are asymptomatic, passing it on to others.
On 31 July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Government would mandate the use of face coverings in further indoor settings such as museums and galleries, cinemas, places of worship and other indoor settings outlined in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020—SI 2020, No. 839—and supporting guidance. That was done to reflect the easement of further restrictions as more places were reopening to the public. Footfall in those places was increasing, and face coverings can offer additional protection measures to those visiting such spaces.
Subsequent amendments to the regulations offer additional clarity on exemptions and reasonable excuses and update the penalty structure to discourage non-compliance and to deter repeat offending. I will outline the purpose of each amending instrument to the face coverings regulations and then set out the policies and processes underlying their development, implementation, monitoring and review.
The amending regulations that came into force on 8 August increase the scope of the face coverings regulations by widening the number of premises where face coverings must be worn, reflecting the easement of some lockdown restrictions and the fact that more people would be visiting those places. The amendments include additional indoor places and remove some of the exemptions from the definition of a shop. The result of the amendment is that members of the public must wear face coverings in indoor places such as museums, galleries, cinemas, places of worship, beauty salons and other spaces, unless they are exempt or have a reasonable excuse not to do so. More information on the settings covered can be found in the regulations’ explanatory documents and supporting guidance. No amendment was made to the persons exempt from the face coverings regulations, to the list of reasonable excuses or to any other legislation in force. However, some minor typographical amendments were made to the regulations—for example, renumbering the schedules for clarity.
The second set of amending regulations came into force on 22 August and included further premises brought into the scope of the face coverings regulations—namely, casinos, members’ clubs, social clubs and conference centres. To ensure that there is no doubt that the face coverings regulations only cover indoor premises, the amending regulations also update the definition of “relevant places” to make it explicit that face coverings are required only in indoor premises.
These amending regulations also remove certain exemptions from the definition of a shop that are listed in schedule 2—for example, premises for indoor sports and leisure activities. Consequently, these regulations introduced an exemption for elite sportspersons, the coach of an elite sportsperson, referees, professional dancers and professional choreographers, from the requirement to wear a face covering where they are acting in the course of their employment, training or undertaking a competition at relevant places that are in the scope of the regulations. In addition, given that the face coverings regulations were amended to include indoor places of worship as a result of SI 2020 No. 839, these amending regulations insert an additional exemption into regulation 3 to exempt pupils under the age of 19 at a religious school from the need to wear a face covering when undertaking education or training within a place of worship as part of the curriculum of a religious school.
The amending regulations that came into force on 28 August amended the penalty structure, to discourage non-compliance and to deter repeat offending. The original face coverings regulations stipulated that a penalty notice of £100 could be issued to someone over the age of 18 who was in breach of those regulations and that that would be halved to £50 if paid within 14 days. The amending regulations insert a laddering fine structure into the face coverings regulations, so that the fine payable for the second and subsequent breaches of those regulations, or of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020, doubles for each occasion, up to a maximum of £3,200, with no discount for early payment from the second fine. That is in line with enforcement provisions in other coronavirus regulations. The amendment does not make any change to those who have powers to enforce the policy.
Although the vast majority of people have complied with rules throughout the pandemic, and enforcement measures remain a last resort, these amendments will further deter non-compliance and tackle those who repeatedly breach the requirement to wear a face covering. It is important that we all continue to play our part in reducing the risk of transmitting the infection as we visit indoor places.
I would like to be absolutely clear that, although we want as many people as possible to wear a face covering, we recognise that some people are not able to wear one for a variety of reasons. The amending regulations do not remove or make changes to the list of exemptions or reasonable excuses beyond those additions I have already described.
The face covering regulations include a review clause, requiring a review of the need for the requirements, as amended, at six months. A sunset clause is included so that face covering regulations expire 12 months after the day they came into force. We will continue to monitor the impact and effectiveness of this policy in the weeks and months ahead, and we will develop our approach to enforcement and to communicating the policy as necessary.
I am grateful to all hon. Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process and in scrutiny of the regulations. We will, of course, reflect on the issues in the debate to come. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction. As she rightly pointed out, today we are debating amendment No. 2 to the original regulations on face coverings, which we debated only a week ago, and the amendment to the regulations on the wearing of face coverings in a relevant place and on public transport.
The first amendment to the face covering regulations, which, as we heard, came into force on 8 August, required the wearing of face coverings in additional indoor premises to those listed previously. It added indoor places of worship, crematoria and burial grounds, chapels and museums, galleries, cinemas, public libraries, public spaces in hotels, such as lobby areas, and community centres to the list of relevant places.
On the face of it—if you will pardon the pun, Mr Efford—those are all indoor settings that are not fundamentally different in character from those covered by the initial set of regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister set out why, in those circumstances, an amendment was necessary. Was it that the scientific advice changed between July and August about the places where face coverings would be effective, or was it simply that those places were an oversight in the first set of regulations?
The regulations also list the premises exempted from the definition of “shop”, including premises offering certain medical services, gyms and photography studios, and add premises that were previously exempt from the definition of a shop as relevant places where face coverings must be worn, unless an exemption or reasonable excuse applies. Those include places such as nail, beauty and hair salons and barbers, tattooists, piercing parlours, massage parlours, storage and distribution centres, auction houses, spas, funeral directors, veterinary practices, premises providing professional services including legal and financial services, theatres, casinos, nightclubs, dance halls, conference and exhibition centres, bowling alleys, amusement arcades, indoor soft play areas, skating rinks or other indoor recreation activity premises. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister set out the rationale for the changes to the definitions in what would appear to be a very short period of time.
The amendment (No. 2) regulations, which came into force on 22 August, added further indoor premises where face coverings must be worn, including casinos, members’ clubs, social clubs and conference centres, and removed premises that were previously exempt, meaning that face coverings must also be worn in funfairs, theme parks or other premises for indoor sports, leisure or adventure activities. The regulations also added further examples of circumstances in which a person would be exempt from wearing a face covering in the relevant places, including for elite sportspersons, the coach of an elite sportsperson, referees, and professional dancers and choreographers when they are either acting in the course of their employment, training or undertaking competition, and for pupils at religious schools who are under the age of 19 and are undertaking educational training in a place of worship as part of the curriculum.
Finally, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which came into force on 28 August, amended the penalty amounts for fixed penalty notices issued under the legislation that governs the wearing of face coverings on public transport and in relevant places. As we have heard, this means that the penalty for a first offence remains at £100, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days. For each additional breach of the face covering regulations on public transport and in relevant places, the fixed penalty notice amount now doubles, up to a maximum of £3,200—a system that is now known as laddering.
The regulations also provide that fixed penalty notices issued before this approach was implemented will not be included in the laddering. For people who received a fixed penalty notice before 28 August, the first fixed penalty notice issued after that date will be for £200. Each subsequent fixed penalty notice will double in cost, up to a maximum of £3,200. All subsequent fixed penalty notices issued after the £3,200 limit has been reached will be levied at £3,200, and any discounts for early payments will not apply to fixed penalty notices issued for £200 and above. I very much doubt that anyone has yet been issued with the maximum fixed penalty notice of £3,200, but I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether anyone has reached the top of the ladder—or escalator, as it might well be called.
I want to make it clear, as I did during the debate last week on the initial regulations, that the Opposition support these SIs. We all have our part to play in beating this virus. It is important that we all follow the advice to wear a mask, unless someone is exempt. As we know, that is important not just for keeping each of us safe, but to ensure that people can go about their livelihoods as much as possible.
As cases begin to rise again, people are concerned about what the winter holds for them and their families. With the sharp rise in coronavirus cases and the difficulties that people across the country are facing in getting a test, there is mounting concern that we do not have the virus sufficiently under control. There is no doubt that Professor Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance gave an extremely sobering message this morning about the challenge we face over the coming months.
The Opposition will support the SIs because they will help limit the transmission of the virus, but it is also important that this place plays its role in scrutinising the legislation, which is why we are having this debate. I want to raise a number of issues, starting with the timing of the regulations. Since 11 May, the Government have been advising the public to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces where they might find it difficult to maintain social distancing and might come into contact with people whom they would not normally meet, yet face coverings became mandatory on public transport in England only on 15 June, in shops and transport hubs on 24 July, and in the other relevant places covered by the regulations on 8 and 22 August.
The question of why there was such a delay between the Government’s recommending their use and mandating their use featured heavily in the debate on the wearing of face covering regulations last Monday, more than seven weeks after they originally came into effect on 24 July. As the Minister will no doubt recall, I asked her at the time whether she could explain why there was such a delay between the Government’s advising people to wear masks on 11 May and the introduction of the wearing of face coverings regulations on 24 July—a period of some two and a half months. The Minister responded not in the debate but in subsequent correspondence, and I am grateful to her for her reply. I would have been even more grateful if I was satisfied with the answer I had; unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case.
In a letter to me, the Minister says:
“Our advice from the Deputy Chief Medical Officers is that evidence is limited but suggests that face coverings may have some benefit in reducing the likelihood of someone with the infection passing it on to others, particularly if asymptomatic disease is common, which is now established for the novel coronavirus.”
That is something that we all understand and accept—hence we are not opposing the regulations—but it does not really explain the reason for the delay in making it mandatory, although the Minister goes on to say in her written response to me:
“The Government reflected on how the public had responded to the guidance to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces.”
Again, it is not in dispute that the Government would have reflected on this, but we do not know what those reflections uncovered or why it was determined that regulations were required. The letter continues:
“As lockdown restrictions began to ease across the country, we felt it necessary to mandate the use of face covering in some indoor settings such as shops, supermarkets and indoor transport hubs. As shops reopened, we anticipated an increase in footfall and introduced these measures to provide some reassurance to people and help them benefit from some small additional protection that face coverings can offer when it is not always possible to socially distance. Nevertheless, social distancing and hand hygiene remain the most important way to control the virus.”
I think that that articulates rather better the Government’s thought processes, although it is to be noted that their position is that social distancing and hand hygiene remain the most important weapons against coronavirus; however, neither of those measures has become compulsory. It may be that it has been deemed, on balance, that they are too difficult to enforce in any meaningful way, but if the Minister could add anything on that point I would be grateful.
I have a couple of quibbles with the explanation. It talks about shops reopening, but of course supermarkets have remained open throughout, so I am not sure how that can be part of the reason for the delay. Although some shops were closed in the lockdown, most were reopening by early June and all non-essential retail was back open by 15 June. On that basis, the regulations should have come into force by that date—not five weeks later. Given that the Government’s own explanatory memorandum states that mandating the use of face coverings in a range of public indoor settings offers a reasonable protective measure to reduce the risk of infection on contamination by the virus, why was there a delay? Why not introduce the measures more uniformly across indoor settings in the case of shops when they reopened, instead of five weeks later? In the case of other settings, why do it in stages over the period of a month, causing confusion over when they were or were not required? As Members of this House and the other place have rightly said, the delays have not only fuelled confusion over where people should wear face coverings; they have caused people to lose trust in the Government’s message and, sadly, to stop following their advice.
That brings me to another issue, which is that conflicting advice and confusing statements from Government are not helpful in the fight against the coronavirus. If we want people to understand the rules and follow them, we need clear communication from the Government and the rules need to make sense.There is a struggle to understand, at times, why the rules still apply only to some people and not others. Will the Minister explain why, for example, the regulations do not apply to those who are actually working in shops, transport hubs and the other places where they apply? That was raised in the previous debate, but we did not get a satisfactory answer. Surely someone in a restaurant or pub serving members of the public is going to come into contact with large numbers of the public, so I wonder why it is not a requirement that they wear a face covering.
It is correct that many retail environments have put up screens to ensure that their checkout staff are protected, but many staff are of course engaged in other activities around the store, such as stacking shelves, often when members of the public are walking past. What is the difference between someone in that situation spending a significant amount of time in the aisles, and someone who is shopping there as a member of the public?
The last time the Committee met I also did not get a satisfactory answer about schools. It is notable that in the incredibly long list of indoor places where people gather and might find it difficult to socially distance, schools, colleges and universities barely get a mention. The National Education Union was right to say that the “slow” and “incoherent” way in which the decision was reached would not inspire confidence from parents or teachers. We are aware of the confusion caused by the Government’s 11th-hour U-turn about requiring secondary school pupils to wear face coverings in school corridors in local lockdown areas in England—an announcement made just days before schools returned. Of course that makes little sense to a pupil who lives in a local lockdown area but who is educated in an area that is not under lockdown, and who therefore is not subject to the same requirements.
Current guidance means that it is school leaders who have to make individual decisions about the use of face coverings in their school. Not surprisingly, the National Association of Head Teachers has said that that approach is “neither helpful nor fair”. I for one have received emails from concerned parents asking why the wearing of masks in schools is not compulsory. I understand their concerns when the country has about 75,000 teachers off, and 740 schools that are either wholly or partly closed because of the virus, and when teachers and pupils alike are unable to get tests.
As the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers said, it was
“in no way unpredictable or surprising that the demand for Covid-19 tests would spike when schools reopened more widely this term”.
We certainly have been calling on the Government to take more action over the summer to prepare for the autumn.
Obviously, with increasing numbers of local authorities now facing lockdown restrictions that affect more than 13 million people, more areas face local restrictions, meaning that more pupils will be required, by default, to wear face coverings in communal areas. But what about other areas? It is widely acknowledged that we are now seeing a rise in cases all across the country, with the R rate estimated at being between 1.1 and 1.4.
The Opposition support the use of face coverings becoming compulsory in communal areas in secondary schools as a step towards reducing infection rates. In her response to the debate, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why that is not being made mandatory and why instead we continue to see this variation across the country.
Also, what about universities? It has been reported that some universities require face coverings to be worn in all shared indoor spaces, while others do not. Again, the responsibility should not be placed on individual institutions. Local authorities are also rightly concerned about spikes in infection as universities return. Universities have been calling for clear national guidance on the use of face masks on campus to help reduce the spread of the virus. As many students have returned to university, will the Government or the regulator publish guidance calling for all universities to take that step?
On enforcement, as the explanatory memorandum notes, although the majority of the public have complied with the regulations, there is a minority who have not done so. We support measures against the very few people who are frequently and repeatedly breaking the rules that, of course, are there to protect us all.
As we have already discussed, the new premises cited in the amended regulations include casinos, members’ clubs, social clubs and conference centres. Putting aside for a minute the question of why they were added to the list so late on, I want to explore the inclusion of members’ clubs and social clubs in a little more detail.
There is no doubt that such clubs have been extremely hard-hit, like many other parts of the economy. In particular, the restrictions on large gatherings have affected their ability to hold functions, which for so many of them represent the difference between their making a profit or a loss. However, something perplexes me somewhat—what is the fundamentally different element between what I would generically describe as a social club and a pub? What is the difference? I do not know how often the Minister frequents either of these types of establishment—
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Could it not be argued that a social club has more control over who is inside the club? Unlike a pub or a bar, where anyone can walk in, in a registered social club people have to be members or signed in, so there is proof of who is there. Does my hon. Friend agree that social clubs have more control than a pub over who is actually in their space?
Justin Madders
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, it was the case until fairly recently that there was no legal requirement on pubs to take test and trace details, so they were in a very different position from social clubs.
However, the main thing that perplexes me is that if we look at the layout, the function and the activity of pubs and social clubs, they seem to be extremely similar. Can the Minister explain from either a political or scientific perspective why they are being treated differently for the purposes of these regulations?
It has been said that these regulations play an important role in giving people the confidence to travel, to return to the workplace and to frequent the retail and the hospitality sector. However, for that confidence to be in place, we need the enforcement regime to be universal and rigorous, and at the moment that does not appear to be the case.
The latest figures that we have for public transport show that between the regulations being introduced, which was on 15 June, and 20 August, there were 115,423 interventions to remind passengers to wear face coverings, with at least 365 fixed penalty notices issued. However, we also know that by 20 August only eight fixed penalty notices had been issued under the relevant place regulations, but if the Minister can update us on that today I would be grateful.
Even allowing for the time difference between introducing the regulations for public transport and transport hubs, one has to wonder why there is such a disparity between those figures. They suggest that people are more compliant in transport hubs and retail spaces than they are on public transport, but frankly that is unlikely. Alternatively, is it more likely that the disparity can be explained by the lack of enforcement in transport hubs and shops? Can the Minister confirm if that is the case and can she also confirm what is being done to ensure compliance?
As several Members said in the previous debate, we need clarity on how these requirements will be enforced. What we are hearing across the country is that they are not being enforced as effectively as they could be. The legal requirement to wear a face covering when using public transport was introduced in June, and then in shops the following month, but it was clear that the police did not see it as their role to enforce that requirement
I wonder whether the high level of interventions taking place on public transport are mainly in London. The Minister will recall how we discussed during the last debate the fact that Transport for London staff were specifically mentioned in the regulations. As I know from my own constituency, however, little enforcement is happening on public transport. I have had multiple constituents complaining that when they go on buses and trains, some travellers seem to be able to travel without face coverings, and are not being challenged. Despite the regulations providing very broad powers to a wide range of people, it is still not clear who those people are, and whether bus or rail companies have the powers they need to enforce the regulations, despite their staff being an obvious choice.
We have the same unanswered questions about the retail sector, which faces similar problems with enforcement. Just as bus companies are reluctant to ask their bus drivers to enforce the rule, many of the major supermarkets are not asking their staff to police it, relying instead on encouraging shoppers to play their part through signs and public address announcements in store. Regarding enforcement numbers, it would be interesting to know how many of the fines or fixed penalty notices that have been issued so far related to transgressions in retail environments.
We know from a shopworkers’ survey carried out last month by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers that 75% of shopworkers have been abused by customers who were asked to socially distance, and almost half had experienced abuse as a result of asking shoppers to wear face masks. In that circumstance, it is not surprising that shop staff are reluctant to carry out that role. Nobody should face abuse for asking people to comply with public health measures, and such reprehensible behaviour by members of the public should not go unpunished.
The Minister has quoted a figure of 96% compliance with the wearing of face coverings in shops. I wonder if she could explain the nature of that survey: was it simply asking people whether they had complied with the regulations, or was it based on observation? I should imagine that most people contacted by a polling company and asked whether they intend to comply with the law would answer that they did—who wouldn’t? Four percent, possibly, but from my own observations, I suspect that the compliance rates are rather lower. Next time Members visit their local shops, I urge them to have a look around and see for themselves whether there is an issue of compliance and enforcement.
In July, the Prime Minister increased the pressure on the police to uphold face mask laws, seemingly at odds with the Police Federation, which described the task as “impossible”. Does the Minister agree with that description? If not, would she at least accept that the low number of fixed penalty notices may indicate a problem with enforcement?
Listening to those who represent the people on the frontline is important. With the rule of six and the new legal requirement to self-isolate, the number of enforceable restrictions is increasing. I was concerned to read, in a response to a written ministerial question I received last week, that no physical checks are currently being carried out on people who are requested to isolate. Presumably, if fines are now to be issued to those who break quarantine, there must be some kind of enforcement to make that effective. There are very real pressures on the police, due to the reduction in their numbers over the past decade, and they simply cannot continue to be handed responsibilities if those responsibilities are not accompanied by sufficient resources to enable them to do their job. We need answers that have not been forthcoming to date. Will the Minister set out what resources have been handed to the police to ensure these measures are complied with?
Despite media reports that covid marshals are already operating in the streets, we still have not got to the bottom of who they are, what their role is, or how they will be resourced. We do know that council leaders have expressed concerns that they are not able to resource them, following a decade of cuts; of course, councils are already facing significant, multi-million-pound shortfalls in their finances this year. The Minister was unable to answer questions in Committee last week, and the concern is that despite the emphasis the Prime Minister has placed on them, the scope of covid marshals will turn out to be disproportionate to the reality of what is happening on the streets.
When the Minister responds, will she be able to confirm whether covid marshals will be required to enforce the wearing of face coverings in relevant places, on public transport, or both? If that is the case, how will they be funded, and how will this be communicated? It is important that people know not only that their actions can be subject to enforcement, but by whom.
For there to be public confidence in the rules, adherence to them and compliance with their enforcement, it is vital that everyone understands who has the power to enforce them. Uncertainty about that will only create friction, tension, and greater uncertainty.We need absolutely crystal clarity from the Government about who is able to enforce these rules and the circumstances in which they are able to do so.
The Chair
Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the marshals are not within the scope of the orders. He should move back on to the subject.
Justin Madders
Unfortunately, we are not actually sure whether they are or not within the scope following the debate last week.
Justin Madders
No doubt the Minister can answer the questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) last week on whether the wide enforcement powers created by the original regulations, the amendments to which we are discussing, were intended to cover face coverings as well.
Mr Jones
It is not clear; we have not been given a list of people who can actually enforce these powers. The regulations are relevant to marshals if marshals are given the powers and included in the list. We do not know whether marshals are in the list of individuals to whom the Secretary of State could give powers.
Justin Madders
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that we finally get some clarity on that today.
I again raise the Opposition’s concerns about the way these regulations have been brought in, and the delayed scrutiny and debate of them. Many points and questions I and other Members have raised should not be being heard weeks after the regulations came into force. Although the amendments to the regulations on the wearing of face coverings were laid during the summer recess, as I raised earlier, had the initial regulations been debated in a timelier manner, perhaps that situation could have been avoided altogether. As the Minister will be aware, the Opposition have repeatedly called for regulations to be debated before they come into force. I have raised the issue of new regulations being introduced and not debated until weeks later on every occasion that we have discussed coronavirus regulations, yet it still happens every time we debate a new statutory instrument.
Despite the Government’s own acknowledgement that they are aware of Parliament’s concerns about allowing for the timely scrutiny of regulations, particularly in relation to the timing of debates, we are once again debating regulations weeks after the event. I note that we are perhaps debating these regulations rather more promptly than the previous face covering regulations, and that the Government have scheduled 17 sets of regulations for debate this week, which will hopefully bring us a little bit more up to date. Of course, I have made it clear on numerous occasions that we accept that the initial coronavirus regulations had to be introduced hurriedly in response to the initial threat from rising numbers of infections from what was, at the time, a new and unknown disease, but we are no longer in that situation.
Each of these regulations contains the phrase at the start:
“the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
I accept that, earlier on, that would have been the case, but that cannot really be said of these regulations. What is the urgency for these two sets of regulations to correct oversights and omissions from earlier regulations and other regulations increasing the level of fines for transgressions? Is it really the Government’s position that correcting their own mistakes is a good enough reason to override parliamentary scrutiny? What is the reason for the urgency in the increase in fines? As I say, we have no problem with the laddering proposals in these regulations, but what required them to be introduced before there was any debate?
I am concerned that the Government appear to be falling into a regrettable pattern of treating parliamentary scrutiny as an afterthought, relying on claims of urgency that are really not justified as Members on both sides of the House and in the other place have repeatedly expressed their desire for these debates to be held in a timelier way, to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny. Despite those multiple pleas and the Government’s assurances that they have listened to those concerns and are working hard to address the problem, it seems that every time we face new regulations, we still face a rubber-stamping exercise, weeks down the line.
These regulations are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law. I make this plea as I have done on a number of occasions. The Government should be aware that we remain extremely concerned about the continuing contempt being shown for parliamentary scrutiny. They can and should make time to debate regulations before they become law.
We believe it is possible to arrange, through the usual channels, for these Committees to be set up at short notice, so that important regulations such as this are debated in a proper manner before they become law. I know that many on the Government Back Benches share that view, and I will of course clear my diary, if necessary, to ensure that the Opposition play our part in ensuring proper scrutiny of, and accountability for, such regulations. It seems likely there will be more regulations on their way. I hope we can debate those in the proper and orderly manner that it is this Parliament’s duty to do.
The Chair
Before I call Mr Jones, I remind the Committee that the measure is about the locations where masks should be worn; it is not about the empowerment of enforcement agents. Will Members remember that when they speak?
Mr Jones
I will not challenge you, Mr Efford, and I welcome you to the Chair today. We had a debate last week about enforcement and who could and could not enforce the regulations. The Minister promised to write to us last week with a long list of individuals, but we have still not got it.
Mr Jones
Well, I am sorry but I have not received it, and I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has, either. The list would include people who could be designated by the Secretary of State. He could designate, for example, marshals, but I shall leave it there.
In terms of these regulations, my hon. Friend points out a growing trend with this Government: they seize emergency powers. We in Opposition support them because we saw back in March that clear action needed to be taken, but there has been no give and take in terms of trying to involve the Opposition or even Parliament in how the regulations are implemented.
My hon. Friend raises a very good point about the way in which the regulations have been introduced, because it raises a broader issue here. For these regulations to be effective, they have to have public buy-in. We are elected to this place to represent our constituents. We have seen over the past few weeks the utter confusion there is now about what people can and cannot do—added to that is the announcement of just half an hour ago. When the Secretary of State introduced the lockdown regulations for the north-east last week, he excluded any reference to childcare, so my inbox and that of everyone else in the north-east was inundated with people questioning whether they could take their grandchildren to school. I am glad to see that sense has been arrived at this afternoon and the clarification has been made, but that is one example, and these regulations will lead to more confusion, as I shall illustrate.
Again, these regulations have not been well thought through. First, we discussed last week how a relevant place is defined. The first regulation extends the number of places where a face mask is needed in what is deemed a relevant place. Before, it was shops, supermarkets, shopping centres, banks and post offices, but not included were restaurants that could provide table service to customers, bars, pubs or areas of a shop or shopping centre that provided for the consumption of food and drink, and seating areas in coffee shops, supermarkets, cafés and food courts. We discussed whether seating areas in transport hubs were covered, and I got clarification on that from the Minister this week.
The relevant places are then extended to include indoor places of worship, crematoria, burial ground chapels, museums, galleries, cinemas, public libraries, public spaces in hotels such as lobby areas of hotels, and community centres. I will come back to the issue of clubs in a minute. To me, this is not very clear. Many hotel lobbies, for example, have seating areas where people perhaps just want to sit and wait to be checked in, but many hotels have seating areas where someone can order a sandwich or a drink or another type of refreshment, so are those areas excluded? Occasionally, for example, I walk into the Radisson Blu hotel or the Royal County hotel in Durham and ask for a sandwich at the reception, and it is delivered to me as I sit in the reception area. Am I then exempt from wearing a face mask or not?
I will come on to community centres, and I am sure hon. Members will know of similar situations to mine. I have a number of very good community centres in my constituency that provide food, but not regularly. They have seating areas for luncheon clubs and various catered events. Under the definition in the regulations, the community centres should be excluded on the basis that they have seating areas and provide food. Do they actually have to provide food at that time? Are we saying that if they are providing food, people there do not have to wear face masks, or that if they are not providing food, people do have to wear face masks? Those are things that will be very confusing to local organisations. It would be interesting to know how that actually works.
Another issue is the definition of a place of worship. That is pretty simple in that a place of worship is a church, a synagogue, a mosque and so on, but increasing numbers of churches do not actually have fixed buildings. They meet in people’s houses as community churches. I have a number in my constituency, and I am sure that there are some in London as well. Are they covered under the rule of six? I imagine that there would be more than six people in those congregations. Are those houses covered as places of worship? For those individuals, that is what they are. We might not recognise them as traditional places of worship, but for their congregations, they are. Will those congregations have to wear face masks in the houses where they hold their services?
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about social clubs. Many of them were struggling before the pandemic as it was. Their membership tends to be elderly, so a lot of people will not be going to the clubs. They are no different from pubs, in my opinion—except that, importantly, the regulation around them is more strict because they know exactly who goes in, and there are disciplinary proceedings if things happen. Putting them at a disadvantage is wrong.
I now come to the question of wearing face coverings in nail bars, beauty and hair salons, barbers, tattoo and piercing parlours, massage parlours, storage and distribution centres, auction houses, spas, funeral directors, veterinary surgeons and so on. Based on these regulations, if the hon. Member for Aldershot goes into his barber or his hairdresser to have his locks coiffured, he will have to wear a face mask. I am aware that many women, as well as men—the hon. Gentleman included—have their hair washed when they go to their barber or salon. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman goes to a salon rather than a barber. Does the person have to wear the face mask while they are actually having their hair washed? That creates some very difficult problems, does it not?
I went my local barbers a few weeks ago, where I had a disposable gown put on me. To be fair to them, they were good at making sure that people socially distanced, and hygiene was very good. If we are asking people to wear a face mask when they go to a salon, including when they have their hair washed, that will be very difficult.
Mr Jones
The Minister says no, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Aldershot has a different view. Asking a person to wear a face mask when they have their hair washed will cause difficulty, because they will then be sitting in a salon with a damp or wet face mask on. What is the science as to how effective a face mask is if it is wet? I am not a scientist, and we do not have here my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who last week actually went into the science of the way in which face masks work. Clearly, some of the more robust ones might stand up to that use. The one that I have with me may well do—I think it was washed yesterday by Mrs J—but I am sure, Mr Efford, that by the end of your salon appointment some of the more disposable ones would be floating around in the handbasin. Again, the issue is just the confusion that the measure causes.
The other issue is about fines. Clearly, No. 10’s strategy over the weekend was to sound tough on fines: “We are going to start fining people. If people don’t follow the rules, they are going to get fined.” [Interruption.] Does the Minister want to intervene?
Mr Jones
Was it wind?
The problem is that what No. 10 was saying might sound tough, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, how many people have actually been fined? The problem with these types of regulations is that they are confusing to people, so people are not going to be very clear about how they will be enforced. This does come down to enforcement—we had this discussion last week. I have no problem with a police officer or someone else—I think it was a community support officer under the regulations last week—giving out fixed penalty fines if they think that right. We asked for a definition last week of a TfL official, for example; they are not identified. We also asked another question, because in the regulations there is a long list of people and then there is a catch-all provision whereby it could be anyone whom the Secretary of State designates to give those fines. That is why my hon. Friend and I raised the issue about marshals. I do not want to go down that path and upset you in any way, Mr Efford, but if the Secretary of State actually gave local authority marshals the power to issue fines, I would find that very uncomfortable; I am quite happy if people have had training in dealing with these situations. We were offered a list last week, but I am still waiting for it.
This does matter, because we are now extending the regulations to other areas. I come now to my closing remarks, which are about the entire Government approach to this area. We are supposed to be seeing now a super-duper new communications centre at No. 10, but frankly, there is confusion outside the House and these provisions will add to it. The unintended consequences of some of the regulations that have been brought in lead to that confusion, and it is made worse by some Ministers who try to act tough in the way in which they put things over. It is important that we be able to communicate the position, and I do not think we can, with the way these provisions are structured. The Government have been remiss. We should have had more opportunities for debate. I am glad to now hear from Conservative Back Benchers the arguments for why we need more scrutiny of these things in Parliament, which would allow us, as representatives of the people, to have a say before they actually come forward.
Ms Dorries
There were an extensive number of questions from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but if he does not mind, I will first answer the questions from the hon. Member for North Durham.
Ms Dorries
Absolutely. I do apologise: he is right honourable—he will be “Sir” soon.
On face masks for hair washing, salon owners have a responsibility to their staff and themselves and to their customers to keep everyone safe. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot will not mind my saying that I am not quite as follicly challenged, and I had my own hair washed at the hairdressers two weeks ago and I wore my own mask. I will admit that the ties that went behind my ears got slightly damp, but there were no masks floating in sinks or anything like the other extravagant descriptions that the right hon. Member for North Durham provided us with about a day in the hairdressers. There were no problems whatever. I have yet to see anybody not wearing a mask walk into a hairdresser’s salon without their being given a mask by the staff there. It would be extraordinary if somebody had an appointment at a hairdresser’s salon and just walked in without wearing a mask. So, the answer is, “No—that is not a problem at all”.
Mr Jones
I accept the point the Minister is making, but until now there was no indication that people actually needed to wear a face mask. She talks about her own experience, but how, for example, would a hairdresser cut the hair of the hon. Member for Aldershot, or shave it round the sides, if he had a face mask on? Does that not make it very difficult?
Ms Dorries
The tie on a face mask is close to the skin; it is not worn in the hair. It is worn like a hearing aid—around the skin.
Ms Dorries
I literally cannot go into the ins and outs of a hairdresser’s means and ways of cutting somebody’s hair, Mr Efford; all I will say is that we have had no complaints.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of worship in homes—the answer is a very blunt no. Houses are not covered. He also mentioned hotels and hotel foyers. Again, if there is a bar or a café inside the hotel, or wherever one may be, then one is allowed not to wear a mask.
Ms Dorries
I will ask for an answer on that one. I would imagine that if it were in an environment where food was normally served in a hotel, it would not have to be open, although I will wait for a definite answer.
However, I would challenge the right hon. Gentleman—and I will answer a question asked by him and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston during this debate about the figure of 96% of people wearing masks. That figure came from the Office for National Statistics. It was not a case of what the right hon. Gentleman suggested, but with the ONS—people were actually just answering a survey. All the people here have been going around shops and hairdressers, and it is hard to go anywhere in a public space and find anyone who is not wearing a mask. However, I have asked for an answer about whether a bar has to be open, and I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman receives it.
As for community centres—[Interruption.] Sorry, I thought the right hon. Gentleman mentioned social clubs.
Mr Jones
No, I just mentioned community centres. Many community centres have facilities for providing food, but do not provide it on some days, for example. On the days when they do not serve food, will people have to wear face masks, or will people be exempt only when they are actually serving food?
Ms Dorries
Again, a community centre will be run by people who are responsible, and have responsibility for their staff and the people in the community centre. Any community centre would have a policy that people should wear masks. But again, I will get back to the right hon. Gentleman on that particular point.
Mr Jones
If a luncheon club is going on and the Minister is saying that people have to wear face masks, it gets down to the point about leaving it to the actual local people to decide. That is not the regulation. It needs clarifying, so they can say, “Fine. If we’re providing food, then people don’t need to. Clearly, if we don’t, or have some other event on and food is not included, then they may have to comply.”
Ms Dorries
As I said, Mr Efford, I will revert to the right hon. Gentleman with an answer to that particular point.
On the substantive points raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, he raised one overarching question a couple of times in his speech, namely why, if we made the guidance on 11 May, we did not introduce it officially until after that date. That is for two reasons. First, the science on wearing masks was evolving, and evidence was coming in from China, Lombardy and other places where masks were being worn, or not, and where studies were taking place on the efficacy of masks in prohibiting the spread of the virus.
Secondly, at the same time, we began to ease restrictions, and as we eased the restrictions we saw an increase in footfall. It was necessary to bring in the regulations because we were easing the restrictions, and the public were coming out on to the streets and into the areas where we were doing so. However, as I have said before, we have seen huge compliance from the public.
The right hon. Member for North Durham did not mention that I was incredibly generous in engaging with him last week on the points that he made about covid marshals. They are out—I was hoping for a nod from the Chair—
Ms Dorries
I will not take any more interventions, and we will now move on. Covid marshals will be subject to their own SI shortly, but this Committee is about three SIs on face coverings. I will keep to the point of face coverings, which is what I am here to address. I am not here to debate an SI on covid marshals.
I have set out why we felt it necessary to do as we did after the guidance. We were also receiving information that people were happy with wearing face coverings, and, from public compliance and people wanting to keep themselves safe, it was obviously the right thing to do at that time.
Justin Madders
The Minister is absolutely right to say that she has been generous in taking interventions, both today and on previous occasions. I want to try to understand what she has said about the delay. She has talked about the science evolving, and of course we accept that. However, virtually all retail was open by mid-June, and yet the regulations did not come in until 24 July. I am trying to understand why there was such a delay between those two dates.
Ms Dorries
I revert to the substantive point: we were constantly easing regulations at the same time as we had issues to do with Leicester. We had areas in the country where rates were rising at the same time as we had national easement. It is very complex, but at the time it was felt that the public had complied and were wearing masks to go into shops and public places. However, we felt it was important, as footfall increased and we had spikes in other parts of the country, that we introduce guidance nationally for people to wear masks.
I will answer some of the shorter points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked me how many people had received FPNs: it is eight to date. I am not aware of what fines were charged, and whether they were on the ladder or went up to the full amount, but eight FPNs have issued so far. I was also asked why we are not legislating for handwashing.
Ms Dorries
No. It is incredibly difficult to legislate for people to wash their hands. However, given how compliant and how willing the public have been to wear face coverings—we only have to see how many people are carrying hand sanitisers, and how responsible and conscientious the public have been—I am not sure there will ever be any need to legislate for handwashing. That would be an incredibly difficult piece of legislation, and I am sure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston agrees that that is not where we want to go.
The hon. Gentleman brought up the question of staff in various areas. I go back to my previous answer to the right hon. Member for North Durham: it is not compulsory for shop or supermarket staff to wear face coverings, although we strongly recommend that employers consider their obligations, where appropriate and where mitigations are not in place. It is also important to mention that the list of where to wear face coverings and where the exemptions apply is not exhaustive; it is something that is reviewed almost daily. We listen to representations from Members on both sides of the House, and from organisations and individuals, about where they think the exemptions should apply, and what else should be included in the list. This is a constantly moving feast. The fact that we are here today is not the end of it—the process will continue. Businesses are already subject to legal obligations to protect their staff, so a safe working environment is what we expect of everywhere where staff are employed and where members of the public come on to the premises.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned face coverings in schools. I will mention universities as well; I know that his son has gone back to university this week. The Department for Education has updated its guidance recently on wearing face coverings in schools, following, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the World Health Organisation’s statement about children over the age of 12. However, the Government’s absolute priority is to get children back to school and keep them in school.
The Department’s guidance sets out that face coverings should be worn by staff, by visitors and by pupils when moving around the school. They should be worn in further and higher education settings indoors, such as in corridors and communal areas where social distancing cannot be maintained. However, as we discussed last week, obviously that does not apply when people are eating, because it is difficult to eat with a mask on—it is not practical. Schools are not included in the regulations before the Committee, with the exception of an exemption for pupils of religious schools receiving educational provision in a place of worship.
It is important that university students can start the new term and the campuses can remain open. Again, education is an absolute priority, and it is also an important thing for students’ mental health and wellbeing. It is important that these things are done safely and we have been working closely with universities, and the sector, to help them to prepare for their intake of students, which, as Members know, is staggered from the beginning of September to almost the end of October, depending on where the university is, and which years are going back there.
Universities have introduced a number of measures such as staggered term times and staggered returns. There have been some assertive information notices across universities, such as “Don’t kill your nan”, and requirements about where students should wear face coverings. We have helped universities to make campuses safe by reiterating the face covering message throughout to students, including where they should wear them. Again, there is an impression that students will completely disregard all the social distancing regulations. I am not saying that they will be perfect, but universities have stepped up to the plate and are doing their bit. I am not sure which universities are providing disposable face coverings, but I think that the message about what students should be doing will be put out strongly to them.
The Government’s aim, with all the regulations and all that we are doing about face coverings, is to achieve as high a compliance rate as possible. We are incredibly impressed with the public’s response and the compliance so far.
Justin Madders
Will the Minister say a little about the distinctions between pubs and social clubs? As I and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham have explained, that is an important issue for our constituencies, and we want to understand that distinction.
Ms Dorries
I believe that social clubs were part of the original discussion. I shall find out why they were not included. I cannot guarantee that I will be able to write to the hon. Gentleman about that tomorrow, as before, but I apologise and I shall get back to him and provide an answer.
The Government have always been clear that the highest priority in managing this national crisis is protecting our public and saving lives. Face coverings and public compliance in wearing them is a part of that endeavour. I am satisfied that the additional premises included in the amending regulations are necessary, reasonable and proportionate. The amending regulations offer further clarity for members of the public on where they should wear a face covering, exempt further categories of person and update the penalty structure to maximise compliance with the policy. Our guidance has consistently set out to the public that, to protect themselves, they must continue to follow social distancing measures, wash hands regularly, adhere to the isolation guidance and wear face coverings where appropriate. The current guidance from the Government states that people should also wear a face covering in enclosed public spaces, where social distancing is more difficult to maintain and where people might come into contact with others whom they do not normally meet.
Today has provided an opportunity for the Government to hear people’s concerns through the contributions made during the debate. Parliamentary scrutiny is a vital part of the regulation-making process, and I am pleased to have been able to set out the content of the regulations to the Committee. I hope that the Committee has found the debate informative and that it will join me in supporting these amending regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 839).
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 882).—(Nadine Dorries.)
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 906).—(Nadine Dorries.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 822).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 898), the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 930) and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 935).
Edward Argar
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. These regulations are on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As you have indicated, I will also deal with three other sets of regulations, all of which relate to the original statutory instrument.
The regulations that we are discussing today, made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, came into force originally on 1 August. At the end of July, the Secretary of State announced that restrictions already in place to tackle the outbreak of coronavirus in Blackburn with Darwen needed to remain in place, and that due to increased transmission of covid-19 in the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area, the restrictions should apply there too.
However, the epidemiological data at that time allowed my right hon. Friend to agree to removing the restrictions previously in place in Luton. Therefore, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Luton) Regulations 2020 were revoked and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 were made in their place. That meant that certain businesses were not allowed to open and gatherings of more than 30 people in private homes or outdoor public spaces were prohibited in those two local authority areas.
These regulations were reviewed regularly, as required, and since then the amending statutory instruments that we are also debating today have been made, coming into force as follows: S.I. 2020/898 on 26 August, S.I. 2020/930 on 2 September and S.I. 2020/935 on 3 September. On Wednesday 26 August, further amendments were made, reflecting a fall in incidence rates in certain parts of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council’s area, justifying the relaxation of restrictions in those wards. Consequently, the regulations were amended to cover only specified wards in the Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council area as well as the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area, allowing those wards where the incidence rate was lower to come back into line with the ongoing national picture and national restrictions.
A similar review took place the following week, and there was evidence that the incidence rate in parts of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area had fallen, so the Secretary of State again decided that it was appropriate to remove certain wards from the regulations. On Wednesday 2 September, the protected area was amended by specifying the remaining wards in Bradford where the restrictions needed to remain in force—those where the incidence rates continued to be unacceptably high. The amendment that came into force the next day, 3 September, corrected an omission, in the previous one, to remove one further ward from the Bradford protected area.
The concern about the outbreaks in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford has been significant, and engagement with local leaders has been extensive, repeated and productive. I place on the record my thanks to the local authorities, local councillors, the local resilience forum, public health officials and the joint biosecurity centre for all their work in relation to the regulations and subsequent reviews. Like many colleagues in the House, I had the privilege of serving for many years as a local councillor before entering the House, and I think it important that we recognise the role that many local councillors and local councils across the country are undertaking at this time, in very difficult circumstances. I recognise that with our thanks.
I emphasise that the decision to take action on each occasion was not driven by numbers alone; it was a scientific judgment about the overall situation. The numbers were as follows: on 1 August, the rate in Blackburn with Darwen was over 70 per 100,000 people; by 26 August, it had fallen to 52 per 100,000 people; and by 2 September, it had fallen again to 48 per 100,000. Similarly, on 1 August the rate in Bradford was around 47 per 100,000, falling back to around 44 per 100,000 by 26 August, and remaining steady in the following week. However, those advising the Secretary of State and local public health officials also took account of the overall situation, including local insight and knowledge, in addition to the raw epidemiological data.
Action had already been taken to protect people living in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford in the weeks before these regulations came into force, such as increases in testing and public health capacity. We also gave additional funding to the upper-tier local authorities involved, enabling them to enhance the various local interventions and to support the measures put in place. It was hoped that those interventions and the work of the local Public Health England teams and other local teams would get the infection rate down without our having to take more drastic action. Regrettably, however, the rate remained unacceptably high, so we needed to impose restrictions to reduce the risk of transmission.
In general, these regulations maintain business closures in the protected areas as they were nationally before the relaxations on 25 July. At that time, the national incidence rate had fallen to a sufficiently low level for it to be agreed that more close-contact businesses and services could reopen. However, as I have already set out, the epidemiological data and understanding of the outbreaks occurring in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford did not support the removal of those restrictions in either place.
Given the urgency of the situation in both locations, we used the emergency procedure in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make the present set of regulations as soon as we could. They give effect to the decisions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In particular, regulation 3 required the following businesses to close, in addition to those required to close by the remaining national restrictions: casinos; indoor skating rinks; indoor swimming pools and water parks; indoor play areas; indoor fitness and dance studios; indoor gyms and sports courts; bowling alleys; and conference centres and exhibition halls. Regulation 4 restricted gatherings to no more than 30 people, whether in private gardens or outdoor public spaces.
These regulations must be reviewed at least every 14 days, to consider the need for the restrictions to continue. Following such reviews, the Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford regulations were amended, as I have already mentioned, on 26 August, and on 2 and 3 September, reducing the remit of the protected area each time so that the restrictions applied only to wards within the Blackburn with Darwen and City of Bradford areas where the incidence rates remained unacceptably high, allowing targeting of the restrictions. Regulations 5 to 9 in the original statutory instrument set out how the provisions will be enforced, making it a criminal offence to breach either the requirement for certain businesses to remain closed or the ban on gatherings of more than 30 people.
As with the national regulations, those who breach the regulations can be issued with fixed penalty notices, with increasing amounts to be paid by repeat offenders or those fined following conviction. To assist everyone living in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford who is or was affected by the regulations, we published guidance on the www.gov.uk website, clarifying what they can and cannot do.
Since these regulations and their amendments have been implemented, the Government have continued to monitor and review the ongoing situation. In fact, the incidence rates in both local authority areas have risen recently across most wards. The incidence rate for the seven days from 2 September to 8 September in Blackburn with Darwen has now risen to over 100 per 100,000 people, and during the same period it also rose to over 100 per 100,000 people in Bradford.
We are debating only these four SIs today, but there have been regular reviews since they were made, considering the position in each local authority’s area. As I say, we remain concerned by the continued high level of the virus across the broader areas covered by the restrictions imposed by these regulations—driven primarily, it appears, by community transmission.
We always knew that the path out of the lockdown would not be entirely smooth. It was always likely, and it was always made clear, that infections would rise in particular areas or workplaces, and that we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to such outbreaks. These restrictions have demonstrated our willingness and ability to take action where we need to. As has been the case throughout the pandemic, the Government have acted with speed in our response, moving rapidly to take the steps and action needed.
I suspect that members of the Committee—especially the hon. Member for Tooting, the shadow Minister—will wish to touch on the process by which the regulations are being scrutinised, and I will be happy to respond in my winding-up speech should she wish to do so.
We will, of course, use the experience of the restrictions in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford to continuously inform and develop our responses to any future local outbreaks. This issue has been raised in previous delegated legislation Committees where similar regulations have been discussed, but we will make public the outcome of these latest and subsequent reviews in due course. I am grateful to all Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process, and for their scrutiny of the regulations. I reiterate my gratitude to not only the local councils, local authorities and public health teams, but to Members representing seats in the area, who, regardless of party, have all behaved throughout with the very best interests of their constituents at heart.
In particular, I want to thank the people of Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford who, after national restrictions, have endured a continued period of very challenging restrictions. I know what it can be like, both as a resident and as a Member of Parliament representing such areas: parts of my constituency outside Leicester were among the first to have local restrictions. I saw then the extraordinary resilience and determination of the people of my city and constituency, just as we are seeing it in those other areas. They endure some very difficult times, and it is right that we recognise their sacrifice in doing the right thing.
Although it is unfortunate that the restrictions cannot be lifted at present, it is thanks to people’s continued efforts that it has not been necessary at this point to impose more localised restrictions, although we have seen changes at a local level in other areas. I would highlight—I am sure I do not need to—the words of the chief scientific advisor and the chief medical officer today, which sound a warning for us all that we have to continue to focus on following the rules to suppress the virus. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I will start by saying that Labour Members will not oppose the regulations. Keeping people safe and preventing the spread of the virus remains the No. 1 priority, and Labour Members will always support regulations that aim to achieve that. It is important, however, to consider the impact that the regulations have already had and will continue to have on those living in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford.
The national lockdown, necessary as it was, led to a period of social isolation unlike anything many of us have experienced before. The mental health impact has been profound, with rising levels of loneliness, depression and anxiety across the country as a whole. When the restrictions were slowly lifted, it was not only a relief for many of those struggling with their mental health, but a lifeline. Although targeted local lockdowns ensure that the difficulties experienced by individuals affected are not spread nationwide, that does not make their sacrifices any easier.
Mothers are having to give birth on their own. Within the regulations there is reference to circumstances whereby individuals can attend a person’s giving birth, but what has the reality been? Can the Minister tell me how many women locally have given birth on their own? Not being able to visit loved ones is not easy at the best of times. In a period of a public health crisis and economic uncertainty, with no real end in sight, the toll is significantly greater. That is why the people of Blackburn and Bradford need all the support that they can get from their Government. What additional resources are being offered to support the wellbeing of those in the affected wards?
People who rely on others for deliveries, shopping and care needs have been understandably worried. I completely understand that the specific set of restrictions imposed by these regulations was designed to avoid a more severe economic lockdown that could potentially create more problems than it solves. However, those decisions must be made in full partnership with local authority leaders and public health experts on the ground.
Communication is key if local lockdowns are to be effective. Will the Minister explain how the decision was made to restrict socialising, rather than economic activity, and outline how that was agreed with local leaders at the time? It would be useful to know how regular the communication with local leadership has been throughout the time when the regulations have been in place.
It is local people who need to abide by, enforce and live with the regulations; they cannot be sidelined in the decision-making process. They need immediate, clear and decisive communication from central Government so that they can act to address increases in case numbers before they become unmanageable. That process must be completely transparent and should be a partnership involving working together to keep people safe, not something announced by Ministers at the last minute without engagement.
It would be foolish to presume that the regulations have not had economic consequences. With households forbidden to socialise with others, local pubs and restaurants have been experiencing much lower footfall than normal. The hospitality industry has already been decimated by covid-19, and such local restrictions make it even more difficult. That is not to say that the restrictions should not be brought in. However, the businesses in question must be adequately supported.
I understand that the Government have taken steps to provide significant support to businesses and workers since the beginning of the pandemic, but with the winding down of support schemes in the next month, the future of many local businesses and their employees is desperately uncertain. Will the Minister please outline what additional targeted economic support, in addition to the national measures already in place, is being offered to areas with local restrictions to ensure that they do not fall behind the rest of the country during the recovery?
As we have said since the beginning of the pandemic, lockdowns are effective in preventing the spread of the virus only to a certain extent. They are short-term measures that bring a host of economic, social and mental health problems, and without an effective test and trace strategy coinciding with them they cause just as much harm as good.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
On the issue of the effects on mental health, a number of concerned constituents have now come to see me about visits to care homes and to relatives in supported living accommodation. Does my hon. Friend agree that there appears to be a one-size-fits-all approach to visiting, and that that needs to be looked at in the light of the experience in places such as Blackburn with Darwen, and Bradford?
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his heartfelt and articulate intervention. He expressed the feelings of many families who feel ripped apart, unable to see those they love the most. A one-size-fits-all approach is not fitting at a time like this. We have to take into consideration the deep pain that families are going through.
We have been promised a “world-beating” test and trace system for months. Yet here we are, six months on, and our entire testing system is in a dire state. Members may be tired of hearing us talk about the state of the test and trace system, but we must be honest about the position we are in. Without a successful, adequate test and trace system, we risk losing lives and further affecting people’s mental health and businesses.
It has never been acceptable that there should be reports of people being asked to drive more than 50 miles to be tested. However, at this stage it is unbelievable. If people are being told to return to work or to go to school, but are prohibited from stopping in the street to chat with their neighbours, the least that should be expected of Government is to guarantee access to tests to those who need them. The Government knew that encouraging people to return to workplaces and opening schools would undoubtedly lead to a rise in demand for testing. Yet they have been nowhere near equipped to deal with it.
At this point, I would like to ask whether new concerns have been raised since schools and universities have gone back. How are restrictions ever to be lifted if people cannot get access to testing? I would like to know from the Minister what actions the Government are taking to rectify that, and I would like assurances that areas in local lockdown are not facing prolonged restrictions owing to problems with the Government’s own test and trace system.
Adequate testing provision also relies on communication of what people need to do to self-isolate properly and for the correct amount of time. Nationally, there has been changing guidance on the incubation period of the virus, and the Government ignored World Health Organisation guidance in the early weeks. That led to mixed messaging and confusion about self-isolation guidance.
Locally, it would be helpful to have answers to the following questions. On “relevant persons” being responsible for the dispersal of gatherings, have any of the local authorities within the scope of the SI raised concerns about licensed premises and the inability to carry out checks due to not having enough resources to do so safely? How many fixed penalty notices have been issued for not adhering to the regulations, and how many offences were carried out under the regulations?
The decision to lift restrictions in certain wards, but to keep them in neighbouring ones, seems counter- productive. If infection rates are dangerously high on one end of the road, surely there is a risk of further spread of the virus. If they are not dangerously high, why does one end of the road have restrictions while the other does not? Can the Minister please explain the reasoning behind that? Again, have Ministers made these decisions in full partnership with the local communities that they affect, or have they overruled local leaders who raised concerns?
As I have already mentioned but feel it is necessary to reiterate, imposing restrictions without engagement with local authorities is absolutely the wrong way to go and will lead to confusion, frustration and an inevitable resurgence of cases. Only by working together can we curb the spread of the virus. I hope the Government listen to our concerns, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting says, we support the extension of the regulations. It is absolutely vital in a period of a public health pandemic that we put lives and people’s safety first. The rates are very high in Blackburn with Darwen, and I want to be clear about what support the Government are providing to the local authority to communicate with its residents.
The Minister talked about putting information on gov.uk. Although I can reassure him that I find that a useful resource, it is not useful for everybody. It assumes a level of digital connectivity, which is not the case for lots of people, whose access, even if they have a mobile phone, is data limited. For many people, there will be language issues with access. There is a cost to a local authority in providing information in the right languages; sometimes that is orally, not on paper, because of the literacy levels of residents. What extra funding and support is being provided to the council to ensure that this can be funded, and that it is not having to make a choice about what other services it cuts to do that?
There is also a cost to enforcing the regulations and, crucially, pre-empting them. I completely concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting that we need to ensure that councils are seen as partners in the process, because they have tentacles that run deep into the community: into faith groups, community groups, tenant groups and those individuals—we all know them in our constituencies—who are like gold dust. They are the people who can talk to a neighbour and persuade them to do the right thing—perhaps those people are scared or unable to communicate as clearly about it. The key issue is that a lot of people will be having to make the right choice but will be suffering in hardship.
It is a welcome step that the Government have finally announced that they will increase benefits to £500 for the isolation period. It would be helpful to know whether that is 10 days or a fortnight, and whether the Government are considering any support for people who are giving up jobs and will not get paid. It is easy to say that people will get £500, but they have to get through the benefit claims. In the meantime, they can end up with quite significant bills. For people on low incomes, £100, £200 or £300 is an insurmountable object. For many months or even years to come, that becomes a huge issue.
Only a few weeks ago, the Business and Planning Act 2020 was passed. It encouraged off-sales from licensed premises for the same hours as the licences on those premises, yet we now see in Blackburn with Darwen, and elsewhere in the country, a curfew—a closure of such premises from 10 pm to 5 am.
I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the rationale. What happens after 10 o’clock that makes the virus more likely to spread? There are many other environments where people are able to meet and will be doing so. What is the particular rationale for that? If they are to open at all, why not later? If they are not safe, why are they opening at all? Maybe I am being too black and white about it, but it would be helpful to hear what the Minister has to say.
Overall, I am confused, as are many residents and constituents, about the messaging that we are getting from the Government. Six hundred people can meet and mix in a school. It is quite right that our children should be back at school, which is something I fully support. Sixty people can be in a pub, but there is the rule of six. Of course, there are different rules altogether in Blackburn with Darwen. I do not think it is down to the Minister, but how will the Government, for whom he speaks—his boss, the Prime Minister, at No. 10—finally start getting some clarity out on this issue? The rule of six sounded so simple, but it has raised as many questions as it was supposed to resolve. I did not criticise it in the first few days because I felt that at least it sounded clear, but the more you delve into it, the less clear it becomes. It is important that local authorities are funded to be proactive and ahead of the curve. It is Blackburn with Darwen today, with other areas that have been locked down in the north-east and Merseyside and so on. However, as the Mayor of London is highlighting and as those of us in London know, it is likely to hit London soon and other areas of the country are there. Local authorities and local public health teams are able and willing to be proactive: not sitting at their desks waiting for a trace call, but able to be proactive, out there in the community to try and pre-empt things and be ahead of that curve. Are the Government putting any thought into how we can use that huge, useful and talented local resource to make sure that, together, we work—if I dare say “to beat this virus” I echo No. 10, so let me say—to manage the difficult health situation we are all suffering at the moment?
Edward Argar
Multiple questions were asked. I will endeavour to answer as many as I can, but where a specific figure was asked for by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tooting, or the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, if I do not have it to hand, I will endeavour to write to them with any further information.
I am grateful, as always in these meetings, for the tone adopted by the shadow Minister: while challenging, it was reasonable and pragmatic. She is quite right to highlight the importance and the focus of all Members on keeping people safe. I particularly highlight the fact that she, in her other work, goes a little bit above and beyond most Members in doing that. I thank her for that. She raised a number of points and I will try to capture them all.
The hon. Lady’s first point was around social isolation: the mental health cost and the cost on people’s lives of the national lockdown restrictions—people have seen the light at the end of the tunnel, but then local restrictions have been imposed. It will not surprise her to know that, while some of my constituents were only caught up in the local lockdown in Leicester and Leicestershire for a few weeks, I still had casework and people writing to me raising exactly that issue.
Support bubbles, while not a solution to everything, have been a big step in helping to combat loneliness for those who are single and very isolated. It is not a panacea for all of those problems, but it was an important step forward. I know the investment the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) is making in this space, and I know that she and the hon. Lady have spoken about that, certainly across the Dispatch Box and I suspect probably in the corridors of this place. My hon. Friend shares the determination of the shadow Minister to make sure that we are able to do everything we can to tackle the mental health cost of the pandemic, and she is right to highlight the impact that that can have on particular groups.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool always makes thoughtful and compassionate contributions in this House and in Committees such as this one. He is right to highlight the impact on people of a lack of visits, often for very good reasons. Before I was a Minister, I was co-chair, with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. People with dementia are another group where you can see the rapid decline that a lack of human contact can bring about. That is something, in terms of mental health, that the Government are fully seized upon, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention takes that incredibly seriously.
The shadow Minister was also right to talk, as I did in my opening remarks, about the sacrifices that people have made throughout, and it is right that we remember all of those and are grateful to everyone for what they have done to protect their fellow citizens. I do not believe that the Department has the statistics that she asked for in respect of those giving birth alone within that particular area, but I will ask that question on her behalf. I know it is something that, again, my hon. Friend the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and others across the House have been raising—quite rightly. The guidance has been updated and clarified. It is important that trusts adhere to that guidance and follow the guidance set out by the Government.
The shadow Minister talked about partnership working, as did the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. They know that I had a background in local government in London before becoming a Member of this House. As such, I am very clear that when we work in partnership with local authorities and local councils, we achieve a far better outcome, because we combine the scale and—for want of a better way of putting it—the clout of national Government with knowledge of individual communities and what works within them. In that way, we get a much better outcome than if we try to pursue one at the exclusion of the other.
The hon. Lady and the shadow Minister asked what the engagement meant in practice with regard to local authorities being consulted and engaged in the making of these regulations and the changes. Although I do not attend meetings of the Joint Biosecurity Centre or the gold meetings that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chairs, the views of local council leaders and local public health leads all feed into his work and form a clear part of his decision making and the consultations that he undertakes. This does not mean he is bound to follow exactly what those people say, but they are consulted, and he takes it very seriously. I know this because I saw it from the other side of the fence, as it were, as a constituency MP in Leicestershire. I think that that is the only sensible way to approach this, and of course, local Members of Parliament also get to feed their views into the regular review periods and review sessions that the Secretary of State undertakes.
I will clarify the figures and write to hon. Members to make sure I have the right ones, but my recollection—it is only a recollection—is that across the four tranches of support for Blackburn and Darwen, for example, about £11 million of Government support has gone to the council. However, I commit to checking that that figure is accurate and writing to hon. Members to confirm it. There is financial support to help councils cope, just as we put in in Leicester, and that support is not only to help them cope with the additional work they have to do and the local public health work, exactly as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said. Forgive me for coming back to my own city, but in Leicester, multiple languages are spoken, and one of the key things was to provide the councils there with funding to put out communications in a variety of languages and forms, to try to address the point that has been raised by all those who have spoken: it is not just about doing this work, but communicating it so that people know what is happening in a way that is accessible and clear to them. In my experience, people want to do the right thing, but it is up to us to make that as clear to them as possible. This is inevitably complex, because the regulations change, the circumstances change, and the scientific advice we receive and act on changes. However, it is incumbent on us to try to make all of those things as clear and intelligible to everyone as possible.
The shadow Minister raised the issue of test and trace. We have made it clear, as has the Prime Minister, that the UK has achieved a significant amount in terms of its testing system over the past six months. Per 1,000 people, we are testing at a higher rate than any large European country, including France, Spain, Italy and Germany. We are testing on average 2.3 people per 1,000; each of those countries is testing about 1.15 or 1 person per 1,000, so we have massively increased our testing capacity. However, it is absolutely right—the Prime Minister was very clear about this—that we are open with the British people about the fact that a lot more needs to be done, and at pace. Although we have scaled up capacity, we need to do more.
The shadow Minister asked what reassurance I could offer to suggest that we are making progress in that area. She will be aware of what the biggest bottleneck is: although demand has significantly increased, this is not about blaming people who are understandably anxious, worried or concerned, and go and get a test. Yes, it is the people who have symptoms who should get tests, but this is not about blaming people who are anxious and worried: it is just a reflection of the fact that demand has gone up significantly. The real bottleneck—the real challenge—is to make sure capacity keeps up with that demand. The lab capacity is the bottleneck that we have seen. A new lighthouse lab came on stream recently in Loughborough, near my own patch, and more are coming on stream on an almost weekly basis to meet significantly increased lab demand, with greater use of automation and machine analysis of the tests in those labs. I suspect that the shadow Minister has a greater sense of what that means in practice than I do as a non-scientist, but we are rapidly expanding lab capacity to meet that need.
Meg Hillier
The Government have committed to increase tests to 500,000 a day by the end of October. Are the Government still on target to deliver that?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, is encouraging me to nail my colours to the mast, and I will. Yes, I believe we are. The Prime Minister has been very clear that there will be 500,000 tests across the pillars by the end of October. That is a very clear target, and it is one that he intends to meet, just as we met the 100,000-tests target. It was very difficult to do that, but we did it, and I am confident that we will meet this target. In this place, it is sometimes easier to set very low targets, because we know we will hit them. That is not the way of the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who wants to set ambitious targets because he knows that if we meet them, we will be delivering what we need.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister is making thorough points, but we are all keen to understand the capacity. Certain numbers are claimed, and perhaps, as he just said, there will be 500,000 at the end of October—we will see—but there is a difference between claimed capacity and real, delivered capacity. As I said in a previous Delegated Legislation Committee, yesterday I went to the testing centre in Coventry, which supplies Coventry and Warwickshire. It is a large facility; I do not know how many facilities there are of an equal size across the UK—perhaps the Minister would confirm that in writing to me in the next couple of days. Given that only 16 tests are done in one hour, over a 10-hour period that is 160 tests. If we factor that up, even if there were 100 testing centres of that size, that is not a huge quantity, compared with the 500,000 the Minister is claiming. Perhaps the Minister can respond in writing; it is unfair to ask him to give an answer now.
Edward Argar
I will respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to get back to him in writing, and I will try to get that number for him.
Matt Western
Related to that, on the capacity in the labs, would the Minister provide the figures that are available for real capacity on the ground, and the lab capacity, which I think probably is the bottleneck?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Regardless of the capacity in car parks or testing centres, there is a limited value to doing multiple tests if they are not processed in the lab in a timely fashion because of the bottleneck of lab capacity. That is possibly why his test centre is seeing fewer people than it would have the physical capacity to process if the lab capacity were not a challenge.
My recollection, which is a couple of weeks out of date, is that the capacity to process the tests was about 165,000 for community testing across all pillars and all types of test—the swab test as well as the antibody test. In that 500,000, there are multiple pillars. The capacity to process tests and the tests done were the same, and were, I think, about 165,000 a few weeks ago. We are using the capacity that we have, but it is constrained in the labs. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that. I will check the exact question that he posed when I see the transcript of this debate, and I will try to give him as direct and detailed answer as I can to exactly what he said.
Edward Argar
Yes.
The final thing that I was going to touch on before concluding was something raised by the shadow Minister. Again, I do not have the stats on a localised level to hand, but if I can get them I will write to her. She raised the fixed-penalty notices and offences within that area. I do not have up-to-date, detailed stats for that exact area, but if I can obtain them, I am of course happy to write to her. I reiterate my gratitude to all Committee members, local councillors, local authorities and the people in the affected areas for their forbearance with the challenging restrictions to protect people.
Meg Hillier
Noting the questions that I asked, does the Minister have any comment to make about the curfew—the 10 o’clock finish for licenced premises? It would be helpful to hear the Government’s view.
Edward Argar
Oh, yes. I mentioned this previously. The challenge is not pubs and hospitality venues, which are all doing a phenomenal job to keep their customers safe and try to ensure that they function as a business. They have had a very tough time, and I pay tribute to them for what they are doing, the measures they have put in place and how diligently they are working. Pubs in my constituency outside the lockdown area, when bits of it were in, went so far as to check, when they signed everyone in, whether the postcode came from within the lockdown area, and if it was they would very politely say, “You shouldn’t be here.” I pay tribute to landlords, restauranteurs and others.
We are anecdotally hearing that if people have been in a pub or out for dinner for two or three hours—how can I put this gently?—their adherence to or recollection of the regulations can lapse after a few drinks. The regulations try to strike a balance that addresses that and reduces the risk of those contacts through groups mingling while allowing those sectors to continue to operate in as a safe way as possible. We are cognisant of the health impact and the economic impact on them if restrictions were to be much tougher, so we are seeking to strike a scientifically advised balance in addressing those issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.822).
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.898)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.898).—(Edward Argar.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.930)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.930).—(Edward Argar.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.935)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.935).—(Edward Argar.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 824).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 875).
Ms Dorries
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. The regulations came into force on 3 August and 19 August respectively. On each occasion, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that the latest epidemiological data allowed a relaxation of some of the measures imposed on those living and working within the protected area of Leicester.
The regulations were preceded by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020, brought into force on 3 July, which imposed the first interventions in Leicester and the surrounding wards. They required the closure of all non-essential businesses, restricted indoor gatherings to no more than two people and outdoor gatherings to no more than six people from different households, and prohibited residents from staying away from their homes and visitors from staying within the protected area. They were debated by the House on 29 July.
Since those measures were introduced, and by the first review date, the number of positive cases in Leicester decreased and the rapid increases prior to the lockdown were arrested. It was clear that our co-ordinated national and local effort, particularly by the people of Leicester, was working. Amendments to those regulations came into force on Saturday 18 July, removing the boroughs of Blaby and Charnwood from the protected area. Then, on 24 July, a further amendment to the regulations allowed specific businesses and out-of-school childcare and educational establishments to reopen in Leicester. The amendments that came into force on 1 August removed Oadby and Wigston from the protected area.
The first of the regulations that we are debating today repealed the previous Leicester regulations. That is why we are not debating statutory instruments 2020 No. 754, No. 787 or No. 823, which have all been revoked. I hope that that summary sets the context of the present set of regulations. Given the urgency of the situation in Leicester, we used the emergency procedure to make them as soon as we could. They give effect to the decision set out by my right hon. Friend of State responding to the latest epidemiological evidence and local insights.
It is as important to remove restrictions as soon as possible as it is to impose them when transmission rates are unacceptably high, so that the people whom the restrictions impact hardest are not subject to them for any longer than necessary. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 allowed more businesses to reopen across the city of Leicester. Residents were allowed to stay overnight away from their homes, and the restrictions on how many people gather in homes or outdoors were replaced by a restriction preventing different households from meeting up with each other in homes and gardens.
At that stage, the only businesses that remained closed were those where the transmission risk remained unacceptably high in the light of the incidence rates of coronavirus in Leicester—for example, nightclubs and casinos; nail bars, salons, spas, tattoo parlours and skin piercing services; sports venues such as indoor ice skating rinks, swimming pools, bowling alleys, and fitness and dance studios; outdoor swimming pools; conference centres and exhibition halls. There were various exemptions to the list—for example, to let blood donations take place at those locations, and for elite sportspersons and professional dancers to continue training.
The revised restriction on household gatherings in private homes was also subject to several exceptions to mitigate the impact of the measure. For example, those who were part of a support bubble arrangement were allowed to continue to meet, a person could attend a birth or visit someone who was dying, and gatherings necessary for work, education, childcare or charitable work could take place. Gatherings were also permitted in emergencies, to avoid injury or illness, or to escape risk of harm, to move to a new house, and to provide caring assistance to a vulnerable person.
The regulations include provisions that make it a criminal offence to breach any of the restrictions or requirements. As with the national regulations, those who breach the provisions may be issued with a fixed penalty notice fining them £100, or £50 if paid within 14 days, with repeated breaches attracting increasingly greater amounts. Offenders may also be fined following conviction.
On 19 August, the regulations were amended, considering the more stable incidence of the virus of 70 per 100,000 people. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed that it was safe to allow more businesses to reopen in accordance with covid-secure guidance, but not to relax the restriction on households meeting one another in private homes. From that date, nail bars, hair salons, tanning booths, spas, beauty salons, massage parlours, tattoo parlours, body and skin piercing businesses, and outdoor swimming pools could reopen. We also published guidance for people living in Leicester, to help them to understand what they can and cannot do under the restrictions. That was updated each time there was a change.
Concern about the outbreak in Leicester has been significant. Engagement with local leaders has been extensive, repeated and productive throughout the period. I thank the local authorities, the local resilience forum, Public Health England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and the local director of public health, to whom I have spoken a number of times and to whom we refer repeatedly. Ivan Browne of Leicester City Council, who has done an amazing job, is the director of public health.
On each occasion, the decision to take action was driven not by one number but by a judgment about the overall situation. When we imposed the first lot of restrictions at the beginning of July, however, one number stood out: the seven-day infection rate, which in Leicester was 135 cases per 100,000, which I know the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Leicester West, understands fully is an extremely high rate—three times higher than in the next highest area at that time. On the clinical front, admissions to hospitals were between six and 10 per day in Leicester, rather than one per day in other hospital trusts. Actions had already been taken to protect people in Leicester, including increases in testing and public health capacity. We hoped that those interventions and the work of the local public health teams would get the infection rate down without us having to take more drastic action but, sadly, that was not to be.
As required by the regulations, we have reviewed the situation at least once every 14 days since then, and we revised the geographical extent and the nature of the restrictions as and when it was safe to do so. We also published guidance for people living in Leicester, to help them to understand what they can and cannot do under the restrictions. I emphasise that point again. I think the hon. Lady would agree that the guidance and information produced have been extensive, thanks to people such as Ivan Browne.
We always knew that the path out of lockdown would not be entirely smooth. It was always likely that infections would rise in particular areas or workplaces, and we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to such outbreaks. As the Committee has heard, the protected area covered by the regulations is due to be extended from tomorrow to include the Borough of Oadby and Wigston. Unfortunately, following a drop in the incidence rate in that area earlier this summer, rates have now risen to an unacceptably high level. We decided that restrictions on households meeting each other in their homes need to be put in place. As I said, there are ongoing reviews of the Leicester regulations. The next review is due on or before 25 September. We will of course make public the outcome of that review in due course.
I am grateful to all Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process and for their scrutiny of the regulations. In particular, I thank people in the protected area in Leicestershire, who have responded well to the measures put in place. It is thanks to their continued efforts that we were able to reopen non-essential retail, childcare and educational establishments. We hope to ease measures further if the improvements continue. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. The Labour party will not oppose the regulations, which lift many, although not all, of the additional restrictions Leicester was put under as the first area to go into local lockdown.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me, however, for raising questions on behalf of my constituents and of people across the city about why some restrictions remain in place, and for raising a number of serious concerns about how this whole process has been handled and the lessons that we might learn for local lockdowns in the rest of the country; about the impact Leicester’s extended lockdown has had on the lives of people in our city; and about the support that we need to minimise that impact, ensuring the best possible recovery. That is something that now applies to other areas in local lockdown. Finally, I will touch on the very real problems that we in Leicester are experiencing with test and trace—problems that are mirrored across the country—and the lessons that we can learn to put that right. Sorting out test and trace is essential to getting on top of the virus and avoiding even worse harm to our economy. Those issues are incredibly pertinent to announcements made today.
I will start by asking why some restrictions are still in place. One of the most important questions, and one that my constituents ask repeatedly, is why they are still not allowed to meet their families in their gardens. I cannot stress how horrible it has been for people to be separated from their families for months on end. They understand why being indoors causes difficulties, but why can they not be outdoors in their gardens? The Minister for Care told me in person that the reason is that reaching the garden would involve going through the house, and there are concerns that the infection might spread indoors; people might be less careful in the private atmosphere of a house than in the garden. In response, I asked, “Can you publish that? Can you put that description of why you are doing it with the evidence that underpins it online?” I have had many emails from constituents about it, but I am not a scientist; I cannot speak for the science, but I do want my constituents to know. Ivan Browne, Leicester’s brilliant director of public health, has also asked for that evidence, but it still has not appeared.
Why there would be a problem with outlining that reasoning online for my constituents? As the Minister will know, if we want people to comply with rules, there has to be trust, and for there to be trust, we have to be open with people about those reasons. I believe that the vast majority of people are completely reasonable and will listen to the reasons and follow the rules.
Will the Minister publish evidence or an explanation of why the Government are lifting the requirement for people in Leicester to shield from October 5th? Lots of people who are shielding are really pleased about that, but others are really concerned about why we are doing it, particularly in the context of the news that we have heard today about infections rising exponentially. Will the Government stick to that policy or change, it and can we have some information, because it is really important for people who have been shielding to know why?
I will turn now to the handling—or, rather, mishandling—of the additional Leicester lockdown and subsequent reviews. I will not go over what happened when the lockdown was first announced—as the Minister knows, I went through that last time we debated similar regulations—but I have never seen anything like the mishandling of that lockdown and the subsequent reviews, and I have worked, for my sins, in and around Parliament and Government for 23 years, including in the Department of Health. I understand that these are unprecedented times, but that could have been handled better.
Let me tell the Committee what happened when the results of the second review of the restrictions came out on 30 July. People were desperate; they were absolutely clinging on to the news for answers. “Am I going to be able to see my mum and dad and my brother and sister?”, “Am I going to be able to go back to work?”, or, “Is my business going to be able to open?” We were told by the city council that we would get the results of this review by mid-day; then just after lunch; and then by 5 pm. We waited and we waited, but by 8 pm there was still nothing. Finally, at 8.30 pm, I received a message from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the shadow Health Secretary, asking, “Are you on this call?” It turned out that an email had been sent after 8 pm, not by this Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary but by the social care Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. I got on the call and I discovered that it was not about an announcement regarding Leicester; it was a call that included all the other MPs in the midlands and the north whose areas were going into an extra lockdown. People can imagine just how agitated many of them were. And even after that call, nothing was properly communicated to the public, so it was left to me and the other Leicester MPs to tweet what we had very briefly been told in that call, because our constituents were desperate to know what was happening.
I say all that not because I give a monkey’s about how I am told, but because I care about how my constituents are told and how they are treated, and because if we want people to abide by the rules, they have to know what the rules are, rather than being left to scrabble around to try and make sense of a tweet by the Health Secretary at 9.15 pm. And just for the record, I do not think that it is ever good to tweet at that time of night; that is true in general, but particularly on an issue such as this. I think the vast majority of people are prepared to do the right thing and make sacrifices, but they expect fairness from the Government and at the bare minimum to be treated with respect, and as if their lives and livelihoods matter. That is what my constituents told me; they said they felt that they did not matter and had just been left hanging on for news that completely affects their lives.
That is not good enough. The Government need to change how future local lockdowns are announced. They need to set clear dates and times for announcements, and say how they will be made. My constituents think that the Government have to provide concise and readily available information to the public. The Government must not ever send a tweet to make this kind of announcement.
I turn now to the impact that the extra lockdown has had on our city and the need for more support. I should say in advance that I know these issues are way beyond the Minister’s direct remit, but she will understand why I want to put this on the record.
All of us in this room know the terrible toll that the virus has taken on people’s lives and livelihoods, and the situation has been even worse in areas with local lockdowns. Leicester, which was the first place to go into local lockdown, has suffered the longest. People are still not able to meet up with the people they love the most—their mums, dads, brothers, sisters, aunties, uncles, nephews and nieces. As I have already said, it is vital that the Government explain why such meetings are not allowed, even in people’s gardens.
The pressures on unpaid family carers are perhaps even more severe. Many tell me that they have been pushed to absolute breaking point, providing many more hours of care a week or being forced to shield with the people they care for, so as not to risk infecting their loved ones. They have received no extra help or support, let alone any desperately needed breaks. As one woman told me in a recent surgery: “I have nothing left. You can’t pour from an empty cup.” Will the Minister explain why the Government’s winter plan for social care contains nothing on improving support for family carers, beyond saying that they will get guidance, a phoneline and a free flu vaccine? How will that help the people upon whom the whole health and care system relies?
People with relatives in care homes also feel pushed to the limit, as they have been unable to see their relatives for nearly six months. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) told me about a constituent who had contacted her about this issue, describing the anguish that her family was experiencing. Her constituent said:
“As someone who has a family member in a care home”—
that is, in a care home in a ward that was particularly affected—
“I’m seeing and hearing (via Skype) my family member becoming very distressed, withdrawn and their condition deteriorating due to the lack of physical and visual contact with their family members...My family are absolutely distraught by the fact that we are not being allowed to see our family member but are having to hear them sobbing on the telephone and being told by staff how agitated they are and how lockdown is affecting them and causing their condition to deteriorate. We can’t get this time back with our family member and time is precious.”
None of us wants to risk bringing the virus back into care homes, but instead of banning family visits in high-risk local lockdown areas, why do the Minister and the Government not make it their top priority to get visits happening again by guaranteeing at least one family member a weekly covid test, so that they can see the person they love and, crucially, that person’s health does not get even worse?
As I said in our last discussion on the regulations, families are under massive financial pressure, too. Since the start of the pandemic, the number of people on universal credit in Leicester has doubled and unemployment is rising month on month. More and more people are struggling to make ends meet, pay their mortgage or rent, keep the gas and electricity on, and even put food on the table. As chair of the “Feeding Leicester” programme to tackle food poverty in the city, I see the brutal impact of the virus on a city where 40% of children were already living in poverty even before it struck. Our emergency food partnership of 16 local food banks has seen a 300% increase in demand since the pandemic began. Christ the King food bank in Beaumont Leys, which I visited the other week, went from supporting about 80 families a week to 400, through the unbelievable, amazing efforts of its volunteers. The volunteers told me that, whereas at the start of the lockdown they were helping many people who were shielding, they now see more and more people who have been made redundant. With one in three employees furloughed in Leicester, they are worried about what will happen when the furlough and self-employed schemes finish next month. As winter is fast approaching, many people face the awful choice of heating or eating.
I know that those issues are beyond the Minister’s direct responsibility, but why will her Government not consider the approach taken in countries such as Germany and France? Those countries have extended their employment schemes until 2021 and made them much more flexible, so that people can work part time, or a few hours, to keep contact with the world of work and keep their business going, but still get enough support to pay the bills, or people can have support tied to training to develop new skills in areas of the economy that are likely to grow in future. Ministers must end their one-size-fits-all approach and continue to support the hardest hit sectors of our economy, where people still cannot go back to business as usual, as well as parts of the country such as Leicester that are still subject to local restrictions.
Leicester’s businesses have been subject to the longest lockdown in the country. While some additional—and hugely welcome—support has been made available, it will not be enough to help many of them survive, even though they were completely viable before the pandemic and have done the right thing. After lobbying from me and other MPs from the city and the county, the Government agreed to provide an additional £2.6 million for Leicester’s businesses to help them to cope with having to stay shut for longer, but I am afraid that, as the East Midlands chamber of commerce has said, Government support for businesses in areas of extra lockdown “only scratches the surface”. What we really need is
“a comprehensive package of support from Government for firms affected by local restrictions, which are sadly becoming more frequent each week.”
I hope the Government will fully acknowledge the additional funding that our local councils need to keep on top of the covid crisis. Leicester City Council’s response to the pandemic is already set to cost more than £40 million, and that figure is likely to get even greater as cases rise and additional lockdown measures come into place.
Finally, I turn to test and trace, the problems we see in Leicester, and what the Government could do to get it right. I pay tribute, as the Minister has done, to the amazing work of our local director of public health, Ivan Browne, his team and all the other Leicester City Council staff who have been working around the clock to get tests to the people who need them. As part of that, the adult social care team under the fantastic directorship of Martin Samuels is working really hard to prevent infections in care homes. In the past 11 weeks they have been ringing each care home at least twice a week and collecting data directly, as little information has been available from the national test and trace system. I do not understand that. Why can we not get the information on care home test results from the national test and trace service back to our local system? Perhaps the Minister can explain that. We have consistently found that staff are being tested about once a fortnight, not once a week—only half as often as recommended.
My own calls with local care homes show that some are having real problems getting test results back and sometime having to wait up to seven days. That means they have to do the next test before getting the results back from the last, with all the risks that that brings from having potentially asymptomatic staff at work for a whole week. The Government first promised weekly testing in care homes with a 24-hour turnaround of results in July, but that is still not happening, even in a high-risk area such as Leicester, where it should have been an absolute priority.
The problems with testing are not confined to care homes, as I am sure hon. Members know from their own experience. Schools in my constituency are also reporting serious issues with testing, particularly for children. Previously, we had lots of walk-in centres in Leicester because of our outbreak. People could simply walk in and get tested, but now parents are being told they must book an appointment first. Not only has that caused confusion, but there are no appointments available to book, so pupils are missing out on yet more time in the classroom. They have to go home and self-isolate because they cannot get a test at all.
The Children’s Commissioner was absolutely right to say today that the Government “risks failing a generation” of children if they do not sort out the testing fiasco, and that the progress made by reopening schools just weeks ago risks being “thrown away” unless the tests are available to keep children in class. That must be an absolute priority. Two things need to happen. First, there has to be much closer working—
The Chair
Order. I gently remind the shadow Minister not to stray from the scope of the regulations.
Liz Kendall
No, I absolutely will not. You will be relieved to hear, Mrs Murray, that I do not have much more to say. Forgive me for trying to get this on the record but, as a local MP, the lockdown is the most important thing that has happened to our city, and I want to make sure I reflect on that.
We have to work much more closely with local public health teams to share information and build their capacity on test and trace, rather than have a centrally driven approach. We know that our teams get much better results when they call people, because people recognise a local number. That is a basic, simple thing. The teams tell me that when the person they get hold of on the phone gives them all the contacts that they have had in the last 10 days, they have to give that information to the national test and trace system. How on earth does that make sense?
We also have to build lab capacity, which we desperately need to grow to help to bring the testing backlog down and speed up turnaround time for results. Many universities and research facilities stand ready to help, but the Government have again insisted on national contracts with private sector organisations instead of also having a really good local approach. I hope the Minister will say what steps she will take to shift the focus to a more locally led approach to test and trace in Leicester and across the country. That is relevant to these regulations. I do not want the Minister to come back here to put them all in place again because we cannot get the test and trace system working. I want the Minister and the Government to succeed on test and trace, on keeping our kids at school, and on opening our economy, because that is what is best for my constituents.
In conclusion, many lessons need to be learnt from Leicester’s experience. There must be much better handling of local lockdowns in terms of how decisions are taken and information shared, both with residents and those responsible for making the lockdowns work. We must get to get to grips with test and trace, with a more locally led approach that builds on the knowledge, resources and capacity of local public health teams who know their communities, rather than a centrally managed and controlled system, and we must have a much more tailored and flexible approach to supporting local economies that have faced extra restrictions.
People do not want handouts and they do not expect Government schemes to carry on forever—that is not something that I have ever argued for—but they do expect support to help them get back on their feet when they do the right thing. Above all, we need to understand that the failure to sort out testing is making our economic recovery even harder. We cannot deal with the economic crisis unless we effectively deal with the health crisis, and I am afraid the Government have been sadly lacking on both. I thank the Committee for its forbearance.
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her impassioned speech. Nobody would ever doubt her commitment to Leicester. As a Minister who has now been responsible for restrictions being put in place in a number of areas across the country, I know how upsetting that is for everybody and especially MPs, who really care about their constituencies and the lives of their constituents. It is distressing. The hon. Member for Leicester West raised many points today. I will hopefully address all of them and will do so as best I can. She did go out of scope in bringing up testing and tracing, but I will, with the tolerance of the Chair, address some of those points.
First, I thank hon. Members for being here today for what is an important debate. The restrictions that we have debated today are necessary in these unprecedented times, and they are important for three reasons, the first and foremost of which is to protect the people of Leicester and the surrounding areas from this terrible, dreadful virus. The lockdown that we have had to impose has been difficult, but I think that the people of Leicester recognise that letting the virus spread unchecked would be far worse.
Secondly, the restrictions are important because they protect those of us who do not live in Leicester. As a result of these ongoing restrictions, there is less risk of the unacceptably high infection rates in that city spreading elsewhere. We should recognise that the restrictions and difficulties faced by the people of Leicester will benefit the whole country.
Thirdly, the restrictions show our absolute determination to respond to the outbreak of the virus in a focused and effective way. We are learning from what has happened in Leicester as we work with local authorities and others in order to respond to future localised outbreaks. We have seen that recently in parts of the north-west and north-east of England, as well as in the midlands.
I am pleased that, since 3 July, when the original restrictions came into force, the area of Leicestershire subject to the restrictions has been reduced and we have been able gradually to allow businesses to reopen and residents to meet up with each other. That recognises the reductions in the incidence rate and shows that Leicester is on the path to realigning with the rest of England’s measures. The next review will take place this Friday, 25 September.
I would like now to deal with some of the points that the hon. Member for Leicester West raised. She spoke about the issue of gardens and asked why people could not go into back gardens. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for social care was absolutely right in her answer previously. It is because not all homes have access to gardens without going through houses, and winter is coming—to quote a far better phrase from a better source than me. Winter is indeed coming and people will not be so inclined to stay in the gardens and not go into the houses. We do not want people not to be able to mix in their gardens. We want families to be together. We want people to mix. But as always, we are guided by the science.
I am sure that the hon. Lady heard the announcement by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser today. If we said, “Can people mix in gardens; can they do that?”, and they said that it was safe to allow them to do so, we would. We want people and families to be in contact. It is heartbreaking that families are not. But I am afraid it is as it is. We cannot make one rule for families who have direct access to a garden and another rule for families who do not. That just is not fair.
I will mention businesses in a moment; I will deal now with the test-and-trace aspect that the hon. Lady mentioned and the testing. I have to say—with your forbearance, Mrs Murray—that we have one of the best testing rates in the world; it is equivalent to at least one test for every five people in the country, outpacing Germany, Spain and France. I never miss an opportunity to say that at the moment, because we are one of the best testers out there. We had the capacity for over 250,000 antigen tests on 18 September, from just 2,000 a day in March, and over 2 million testing kits are delivered to almost 9,000 care homes—I will not go on with the rest of the list, Mrs Murray, because I know that you would pull me up.
On test and trace, where do I start? We have reached 86.6% of people who have been contacted; that is over 13,000 positive people who have been reached via contacting. This system did not start on day one; it was not up to speed on day one. We agree with that. The virus blindsided us—for want of a better word—but we are in a much better place now with test and trace, and I have to thank Baroness Harding for her extraordinary efforts.
Grants are now in place for businesses that are required to shut due to the new measures. They can claim up to £1,500 per property every three weeks, because we recognise the impact of localised restrictions on local businesses. That is why we allowed the opening of non-essential retail as soon as the data showed that it was safe to do so. Leicester businesses have access to a large number of support schemes that are in place to help businesses through what is a very difficult time. They include discretionary grants, tax breaks and more. The only way to protect our people and economy is to prevent a second wave of the virus, which is why measures such as those that we have taken in Leicester are necessary and proportionate.
The hon. Lady spoke about shielding. As incidence rates are starting to fall, we continue to review the position. People who are clinically extremely vulnerable and living in the city have been advised to continue to shield. That advice is being reviewed as part of the wider reviews of the measures, and it will be changed as soon as it is safe to do so. Support for shielding has been extended to allow the advice to be followed.
The hon. Lady made a point about communications and having information about the lockdown in Leicester—the words communicated to people. She spoke about coming on to the MP engagement call, and she said that the decision was suddenly arrived at and no one knew. I have to correct her. We had discussions with the Mayor of Leicester, Ivan Browne, and with Mike Sandees from the county side of Oadby and Wigston, who has provided two mobile testing centres in Oadby and Wigston and done a fantastic job. Everybody in Leicester wants this nightmare to end. I know, because I was involved in the calls and meetings. We had the Mayor of Leicester, the leaders of both the county council and Leicester City Council, the chief executives of both the county council and the city council, the directors of health from both councils, and the chief constable. Almost all the people who were responsible for the implementation of the local management outbreak plan were in discussions about the reviews and what was happening in Leicester all the way along.
As the hon. Lady knows, we cannot manage what happens in 10 Acacia Avenue in Leicester from Westminster. That is why we introduced local managements outbreak plans across the country. Every local authority stepped up to the plate. They did their bit, and we provided them with £400 million-worth of funding to do it. Leicester has received a considerable sum of money.
As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, we have also now introduced consensus meetings, where hon. Members can discuss the incidence rates in their constituencies with their directors of public health and their chief executives. The meetings are normally held on Tuesday afternoons for representation to JBC—joint biodiversity centre—Silver on a Wednesday, and we take the decisions in JBC Gold on a Thursday. The Secretary of State introduced that four or five weeks ago so that MPs can be actively involved in the decisions that are taken in their local areas.
I urge the hon. Lady to be part of the consensus meetings with those individuals on a Tuesday afternoon. If she thinks that some wards should not be in lockdown, or that parts of the regulations should be relaxed, she can make those representations. If they are not listened to by her local authority, she can come to the Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Care and give us the evidence and data to show why she thinks that the wrong path is being taken in Leicester and why she thinks that the local authority is locking down or suggesting the imposition of restrictions where they should not be doing so. I urge her to do that. We do not make any decisions in the Department of Health and Social Care without full consultation with everybody on the ground, particularly those who are responsible for designing and delivering the local outbreak management plan.
Let me conclude by recording on behalf of the Government our thanks to all the people of Leicester, particularly the NHS and care workers in the city. They put themselves on the frontline on a daily basis with their ongoing hard work to keep our vital services running and to save lives throughout this crisis.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 824).
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (LEICESTER) (NO. 2) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 875).—(Ms Dorries.)
Draft Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I know that you have a long-standing interest in the topic of the draft regulations, and I am pleased that you will oversee the debate.
Each year, hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on exit payments to public sector workers that exceed £100,000. The money funding these payments comes from taxpayers. The draft instrument will fulfil the Government’s 2015 manifesto commitment to end six-figure pay-offs by capping public sector exit payments at £95,000.
The concern over high exit payments is shared by many across the House. For example, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), an Opposition Member, said in the House as recently as 13 March 2020:
“The hon. Gentleman is rightly drawing attention to a significant problem. Is there not another aspect to it, which is that many of these individuals, quite frankly, should not be being given any payments, because they should actually be being sacked for failure to perform their jobs? They are taking sums of money and then transferring to other parts of the public sector, where they will have a repeated pattern of failure. Is there not a need for a real change in culture”.—[Official Report, 13 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 622.]
I am sure that view, expressed by an Opposition Member, is shared by many other colleagues in the House.
Public sector workers play a vital role in the running of our economy. Earlier this year, we accepted the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies and announced a significant real-terms pay increase for around 900,000 public sector workers. However, we must ensure that all aspects of public sector pay and remuneration deliver value for money for the taxpayer. There are many recent examples of employees leaving their role and receiving six-figure packages funded by the taxpayer, and it is our view that these large exit payments do not deliver that aim, not least given the wider economic impact of coronavirus.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Although I do not think there is disagreement on the need to tackle excessive exit payments, why are the Government choosing to include harassment and discrimination payments in the scope of what they seek to do?
Steve Barclay
I will come on to the distinction between those on large payments, where I think there is a degree of consensus in the House, and how the waivers will address some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members expressed in the previous debate on this issue. I will come on to that if he gives me a moment, and if he then wants to come back with an intervention, I will be very happy to accept it.
Exit payments are important to an employer’s ability to reform and to react to new circumstances. They are also an important source of support for individuals as they find new employment or as a bridge to retirement age. That is why the Government are taking forward these important regulations to cap public sector exit payments at £95,000. The level of the cap amounts to almost six times the maximum statutory redundancy payment. On an average salary of £24,897, the average person would have to work almost four years to earn £95,000, while someone working 35 hours a week on the national living wage would have to work around six years to earn £95,000—and that ignores the fact that the first £30,000 is paid tax-free. As such, it is clear that a £95,000 cap will still offer a significant level of compensation while ensuring value for money for the public finances. In fact, I think that the majority of our constituents would regard it as a generous amount.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Minister has talked about trying to address some concerns. What can he tell Members about how he will address the concerns expressed by the nuclear workers who were given specific guarantees about their pensions that have been repeatedly overridden?
Steve Barclay
I very much welcome that intervention, because that concern was raised by a number of Opposition Members when we debated this issue in the House previously. We have agreed a waiver that will apply to nuclear decommissioning as part of the draft regulations. I will come on to the wider point about how the waiver will apply, but the exemption that applies to nuclear decommissioning illustrates that we have taken on board some of the concerns that Opposition Members have raised.
I am grateful to all members of the public, employers, unions and others who submitted their views as part of the consultation process. The consultation in April 2019 received more than 600 responses, which helped inform the final regulations following the earlier consultation in 2015, which had more than 4,000 responses. I am also grateful to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends for their representations during the development of the policies.
The Government’s intention was made clear at the start, which was to apply the cap to all public sector workers. As the 2015 consultation stated, it would apply to
“all bodies classified within central and local government and non-financial public corporation sectors as determined by the Office for National Statistics for National Account purposes, with a small number of exceptions.”
The 2019 consultation stated:
“The government is proposing a staged process of implementation across the public sector. The first stage will capture most public sector employees, before extending the cap to the rest of the public sector in the second stage. Prioritising in this way will ensure most exit payments in the public sector are limited to £95,000 without further delay, while work continues on expanding the scope of the regulations.”
To ensure fairness and consistency and to give taxpayers confidence that their money is being spent properly, it is right that all public sector bodies are immediately in scope, with limited exceptions, such as the one I just referred to. The consultation in 2019 proposed capturing public sector bodies in two stages. Many of the responses objected to that proposal. We have therefore revised the proposal and reverted to applying the cap to all public sector bodies at once. The Government’s intention to cap exit payments has now been in the public domain for more than five years, providing public sector bodies and employees with sufficient time to communicate their views, including through the consultation process, and to prepare for the implementation of the cap.
Neil Coyle
The Minister raised the point about fairness, and he says this matter has been in the public domain since 2015. Why, then, has no equality impact assessment been undertaken? How many people are affected and when will the Government provide the EQIA?
Steve Barclay
It depends on different circumstances as to how many people will be affected. A key issue is that the proposals do not affect individuals’ accrued pension rights. A concern was raised in the previous debate about the impact on pension rights. Again, that is one of the issues we have listened to and taken on board. It is important to note that accrued pension rights are not affected by the regulations. In the vast majority of cases, the cap will have no effect on the exit package of an individual, because individuals retain any right to receive an unreduced pension, provided their overall exit payment falls below the cap of £95,000, which applies in most cases.
However, the Government believe it is right to include all payments related to exit within the scope of the cap. The option of an employer-funded early retirement, known as pension top-up payments, is often the most costly element of an exit payment. It is ultimately funded by the taxpayer, so it is right that it is included.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. The measure states that all payments will be taken into scope. A very practical example is the case of the Birmingham women who received unequal pay for many years. The 174 women took the case to the Supreme Court and won. For some full-time care workers, the payments would have been more than £100,000 just to catch up on the unequal pay they had experienced for many decades of service in a difficult job. Why are the Government including that in these regulations?
Steve Barclay
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I took that point away from the previous debate and was concerned to show the House that we had listened. In fact, it echoes the next line of my speech: I do accept that in some circumstances it will be appropriate for employees to receive an exit payment of more than £95,000.
Steve Barclay
I am always generous in taking interventions. I was trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s legitimate challenge, but I will of course take the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Patricia Gibson
May I just ask the Minister, for the purpose of clarity, whether he is saying that he will exempt nuclear decommissioning workers? Magnox is on the list here, so unless the Minister has been very clear and I have not listened properly, I wonder whether he will clarify that point.
Steve Barclay
I am very happy to share with the hon. Lady the detail of that waiver as it relates to the pensions of Nuclear Decommissioning Authority workers. The waiver will apply in respect of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. That includes—
Steve Barclay
If the hon. Lady will allow me to answer the question, I was going to read out the exact legal prose. Sometimes we are accused of not being precise enough, so I was going to go straight to the legal text for her. It says:
“made to or on behalf of an employee…who is employed…by a company or other body holding a site licence granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 for one or more nuclear-licenced sites…and on a site that is subject of a decommissioning programme agreed between the NDA and the BEIS Secretary of State, and…whose employment is terminated”—
details follow accordingly. So there is an exemption there.
I will come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. In fact, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, who has not as yet spoken, said in the previous debate that she accepted the wider principle of exit payment caps, but had some concerns. We have sought to look at, and listen to, the concerns that Opposition Members have raised. I accept that there are some circumstances in which it is appropriate for employees to receive an exit payment over £95,000, including where imposing the cap would cause genuine hardship. We are committed to ending taxpayer-funded six-figure payouts for the best-paid public sector workers, but it is appropriate that the waiver system can be exercised with ministerial discretion if it is felt that implementing the cap would go against the original principles and result in hardship.
Steve Barclay
Let me just finish the point. The waiver may also be used to give effect to urgent workplace reforms. It applies where a payment is made as a result of the application of TUPE regulations, or where the payment is made to settle a grievance related to whistleblowing, discrimination, or health and safety-related dismissal. This mechanism is very important in allowing us to review how the cap is being applied and to ensure that we remain consistent with our original aims for the regulations. I hope that this system will address many of the questions that hon. Members have.
Does the hon. Gentleman want to come in one final time?
Neil Coyle
I just want a clarification on the waiver process. Do the Government intend to make it the case that a local authority has to seek permission from a Minister in the Department to honour a legally decided case of discrimination and make the payment that a court has ordered? Is that the process that local authorities and other public bodies will have to follow?
Steve Barclay
That is a very valid question. In a whistleblower case, for example, there is no requirement on the local authority to submit a business case for approval. There are mandatory causes for exemption. However, where a discretionary exemption is sought, such as on a restructuring, it is necessary to submit a business case.[Official Report, 2 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 1MC.]
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I simply remind him that as a Minister, I constantly get requests when bodies want to exceed the £150,000 payment. They are quite happy to submit business requests for that, so I do not see why it is onerous to say that the same applies to seeking consent when looking to restructure, and to exempt in that way.
In other parts of the United Kingdom, devolved Administrations have already acted to implement their own policy on severance payments. The Scottish Government have implemented a £95,000 cap on payments made by devolved bodies by updating the Scottish public finance manual. It is right that this Parliament does the same by approving these regulations. As we respond to the financial impacts of covid-19, the inappropriateness of large exit payments is reinforced. Ensuring that rewards are proportionate and taxpayer money is spent fairly must be prioritised. The regulations are carefully designed to end excessive exit payments, and will come into force 21 days after they are made. I commend them to the Committee.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Although no one believes that huge exit payments from the public sector are right, and it is an issue that needs to be addressed, we are concerned about the way the Government are implementing the regulations. They are unnecessary, premature, unhelpful, place burdens on the public sector that are disproportionate to their purpose and, in some cases, present perverse disincentives, too.
I will outline those points in more detail. The Minister referred in particular to regulations implemented on a similar basis by the Scottish Government. Committee members will be aware, particularly if they were in the Chamber last week, that when it comes to challenging the Scottish Government, I certainly do not pull my punches with the SNP, but it would only be fair to acknowledge—as the Minister ought to have done—that one of the big differences between the approaches of the Scottish and UK Governments is the exemption of pension strain payments from the cap, which, as we have heard from many representations by trade unions and representatives of chief executives in local government, is one of the key problems and challenges when it comes to implementing the regulations.
Of course, that is not the only challenge. Without index-linking, the threshold will slowly reduce in real terms, catching more and more public sector workers within its scope. That sets in motion a steady ratchet on public sector workers. If the cap is necessary—the Minister has outlined the case for that on many occasions—it would be right for it to be linked to public sector pay, so that there is no erosion of the level of cap in real terms.
The provisions are presented as an attempt to exercise restraint on payments to the very highest paid public sector workers. However, as highlighted by so many of the responses and representations made by trade unions—who are not, by the way, famous for defending excessive levels of high pay, but are absolutely steadfast in defending public sector workers who receive ordinary or, in some cases, modest levels of pay—this is not something that will simply affect the highest-paid workers. It will catch an awful lot of ordinary workers on ordinary levels of pay, as a direct result of including pension strain payments in the cap. If the Government’s intent is simply to prevent higher-paid workers being paid large severance payments, a simple index-linked earnings-level exemption would provide that without most of the problems that the waivers create.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said, there is no equality impact assessment for the scheme, and the list of included and exempted bodies also causes concerns. Why is the judiciary exempted, but not staff of the Crown Prosecution Service? The staff of those elements of the justice system have very different demographic profiles. As we heard very strongly from the TUC, the decision not to undertake a comprehensive equality impact assessment gives serious cause for concern. The TUC is of the view that the Government may well be in breach of their obligations under the public sector equality duty. The union GMB argued at the time that the Treasury’s 2016 equality impact assessment was seriously deficient. It is now also out of date. GMB is also concerned about the public sector equality duty.
The Minister mentioned the waiver process, which seems cumbersome and overcentralised, as all decisions by local authorities need approval from the Treasury. I would have thought, given some of the examples of public sector waste and profligacy as a result of Government incompetence and the bad management of contracts that we outlined this morning, that the Minister would welcome some of his time being freed up to ensure that more taxpayers’ money is more wisely spent. Maybe the regulations might keep his eyes focused on the wrong issue, so that we end up in a position whereby the Treasury is penny wise but billions of pounds foolish when it comes to some of the spending commitments and priorities that the Treasury has outlined in recent weeks and months. Although it is the Labour online conference week, I will not dwell too much on that, Sir Christopher, because you will no doubt rule that it is out of the scope of the regulations, and rightly so.
To go back to the ongoing consultation—led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government —on changes to the local government pension scheme that are necessary to give effect to the provisions, if the Committee approves the regulations, local government employers will find it difficult to agree redundancy packages with staff and unions in the meantime, because of concerns about the legality of the exit payments. A £95,000 cash payment and no access to pension is not permitted by the regulations governing early access to unreduced pension in the local government pension schemes.
There is also a wider point about local government unions. I should say, having been in local government as an elected member, that I am also a member of Unison, which represents members of local government. Local government unions have in their collective bargaining on pay and conditions deliberately favoured positive pension concerns and priorities over other issues. Local government workers have given up other benefits to keep those pension terms. The regulations are an arbitrary attack on terms that have been secured through agreement between unions and employers.
The regulations also provide inadequate recognition of contractual notice periods. Although they exempt up to three months’ pay in lieu of notice, the Government will know that some public sector staff are contractually entitled to six months’ notice. COT3 settlements, which are ACAS-arranged compromise settlements, are mostly included in the scope of the cap—but not employment tribunal awards. That will have the utterly perverse effect of incentivising people to go to tribunal, and flies in the face of the Government’s push towards early conciliation, creating a much more costly process for everyone.
It would be helpful, particularly given the intervention made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, to clear up the issue about settlements in discrimination cases, and how they are treated. It would also be helpful if the Chief Secretary would elaborate on why health and safety settlements are not exempted from the cap. They are unlimited if people go to tribunal. The Government need to clear up the issue of where they stand on settlements in discrimination and health and safety cases. Both are treated as unlimited if people take them to the employment tribunal.
As we have already argued, the inclusion of pension strain costs means that long-serving workers on lower salaries, and not just the highest-paid, will be caught out. The Local Government Association has given figures and examples showing how, on its estimate of the methodology for calculating pension strain costs, the cap of £95,000 would, as a result of the pension strain issue, hit certain people leaving with a severance payment. They would include a woman leaving the scheme at age 55 on 31 March 2019, after 35 years’ service, earning £23,500—not a particularly large amount of money—with a severance payment based on statutory weeks multiplied by actual weekly pay, multiplied by 1.5.
Moving on to people leaving with a redundancy payment, the LGA highlights the example of a woman leaving the scheme at age 55 on 31 March 2019 after 35 years of service, earning £25,100, with a redundancy payment based on a maximum weekly pay of £525. Therefore, the idea that it is only the highest-paid public sector workers who are targeted simply does not hold water.
There are some basic questions about fairness and impact. It is no good Members standing on their front doorstep clapping the public sector workers among their fellow residents on the street, and getting their mobile phone out to enjoy a few retweets, if in the middle of the pandemic we arrive back in Parliament to attack the conditions of the very public sector workers who are supporting our country through the crisis. For those reasons we cannot support the Government. We shall oppose the statutory instrument and it is a source of deep regret that the Government have listened, as the Chief Secretary said, to some concerns, but that they have not addressed some of those fundamental concerns we have raised this afternoon.
Patricia Gibson
I shall try to be brief. I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Ilford North, who is concerned about equality impact assessments, and how the measure has unintended consequences that have not yet been addressed. No one—not the Scottish National party and probably not any other party—has any objection to the general principle of a public sector exit payment cap. However, I note that the measure before the Committee gives rise to concern about waivers in cases of unfair dismissal and health and safety-related detriment. The waiver process is a matter of concern.
The SNP does not—and I certainly do not—support the statutory instrument. It is singularly unfair to those in the nuclear decommissioning industry. Those workers have suffered cuts to their pensions in the recent past, and that is a cause of profound concern to all those in the industry, not least those in my constituency who are employed at Hunterston. Some history, if you will give me latitude, Sir Christopher, is important. When the nuclear estate was privatised in the 1980s, the Tory Government under Margaret Thatcher gave guarantees requiring the new private sector employers to continue to provide pension benefits for those employed at the time of privatisation. The phrase used at the time to describe that settlement was,
“at least as good as those they were receiving in the public sector.”
Where we have had revisions to the pension arrangements of nuclear decommissioning workers on more than one occasion in fairly recent years, we know that commitment has been abandoned. Now there is the prospect of these exit payment caps.
The UK Government have decided that, because the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is classified as public sector, these schemes fall under public sector arrangements, but clearly these pensions are not public sector pensions. Decommissioning sites are now in the private sector and, unlike for every other public sector worker, redundancy is an inherent part of their job.
The Minister seems to have said and to have put on the record today that all nuclear decommissioning workers will be exempted from the public sector exit payments cap. We should have had sight of that commitment—if I have understood him correctly and that is his commitment. We should have had that commitment long before now, and we should have had commitments and guarantees to employees of Magnox Ltd and others affected by the Enterprise Act 2016.
I note that Magnox is specifically mentioned, but the way I read this, the provisions on relaxing the cap contained within the regulations are not adequate and not sufficient to give comfort to nuclear decommissioning workers that they are indeed exempted in the way I know the Minister wishes them to be, and as they should be. The regulations should be drawn specifically to exclude those workers in nuclear decommissioning and I would like to see more specificity on that.
It seems that, because of that lack of specificity, we have been asked to agree on something here today in which there is a lack of clarity, from what I can see. We know that nuclear decommissioning workers do a very highly skilled job and that their job is sometimes dangerous, but to be caught up again, after all the cuts to their pensions in recent years, in attacks on their pensions through these public sector exit payments regulations is not acceptable. As we speak, it is creating disincentives for people to work, to be recruited and to stay in that industry, and it is extremely bad for morale.
Nuclear decommissioning workers who have contacted me, and who I know will have contacted any MP who has a nuclear plant in their constituency, are concerned. I am sorry to say that, when it comes to their pensions, they are right to be concerned, because it can be seen that the agreements they thought they had with the UK Government over several decades and the guarantees they were given are not being honoured.
When I raised this with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury three years ago, I was told that,
“it is necessary to have terms and conditions that reflect the modern situation that applies across the economy as a whole.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 769.]
How does that square with the cast-iron guarantees made to these workers when the nuclear estate was privatised? They were not told that those cast-iron guarantees were actually written on water.
The problem is that these workers are classed as public sector workers, but their terms and conditions are not devolved to the Scottish Parliament, as they are for other public sector workers. Scottish nuclear workers still have their severance and early retirement terms dictated by the UK Government, but the goalposts have clearly been moved when it is deemed financially beneficial for the Government or the industry, while the pension interests of the workers always seem to be a secondary consideration.
The Office for National Statistics has classed Magnox as a public sector organisation despite the fact that it works on sites that have been privatised. The draft guidance from the Government uses the definition of a public authority contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which includes bodies specifically listed in schedules to the Act, publicly owned companies and any other body designated as a public authority by the Secretary of State. Interestingly, Magnox is not listed in the schedules, and that is because it is privately and not publicly owned. Consequently, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Magnox, except where stipulated in employee contracts with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and so neither do the IR35 reforms.
We have confusion and concern among nuclear decommissioning workers. That continues, and it is not acceptable. As we pontificate over these exit payment caps, I urge the Minister to remember that any change and any further attacks on these workers is a betrayal of the guarantees that they have had. We have been told today of waivers or exemptions—I am not even quite sure what the Minister is suggesting—but Magnox’s inclusion in part 1 of these regulations makes anything he says now equivocal. We need a clear statement that the measures will not affect nuclear decommissioning workers. That is a simple ask that needs a yes or no answer, and I look forward to the Minister giving me that yes or no answer.
Steve Barclay
I thank colleagues for their engagement in the debate. As I have already remarked, the Government are strongly of the view that the regulations are important in delivering value for money. It is right that the cap on public sector exit payments comes into force without further delay to stop the excessive payouts that are, unfortunately, all too common.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran asked me to clarify the position on nuclear decommissioning, which has been a much-debated issue. Indeed, there was extensive debate during the passage of the primary legislation about the inclusion of nuclear decommissioning workers in the scope of the regulations. As we have set out many times—most recently by ensuring that the cap covers all of the public sector at once—the cap should apply to all public sector organisations with very limited exemptions. The defining feature of that is what is set by the Office for National Statistics.
We are able to exercise our own judgment, but for the most part, the scope has been guided by the ONS, which makes objective judgments, independent of Government and the regulations. The ONS classification is what means that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and its site-licensed companies are in the scope of the regulations, but we have a mechanism to waive certain pension-related payments upon redundancy, and that is what has been decided—I read that out for the benefit of the hon. Lady. In short, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has a waiver, but the organisation is classified by the ONS, which is why it is within the scope of the cap—that is the interaction between the two.
The hon. Member for Ilford North started by generously acknowledging that we have listened and addressed some issues of concern. There are some areas of misunderstanding: an equalities impact assessment was issued with the primary legislation. He then said that on the one hand, we do not need the regulations, but that on the other, he was against excessive payments. I would argue that the whole purpose of the regulations is to curb the excessive payments that he, I and a number of colleagues across the House agree are not value for money.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark—
Steve Barclay
I will take his intervention before I address his question and then I can answer them both at the same time.
Neil Coyle
I appreciate that. If the Chief Secretary believes that the issues are resolved, why has the British Medical Association—the organisation that represents the health workers that he clapped on Thursdays—already sought a judicial review against the regulations because they extend the scope of the enabling statute? How does he square the circle when the regulations mean preventing some contractually agreed payments and tribunal award, and which the BMA says represents an unlawful extension of the primary legislation?
Steve Barclay
The reality, without wanting to stray into the issue of litigation, is that this is a cap on payments, so a body representing members may have concerns about that. The issue before the Committee is what constitutes value for money for the taxpayer. I remind the Committee of the fact that payments can be more than six times the national living wage and four times the average earnings. During the time of coronavirus, those are very substantial payments. You will be familiar with, Sir Christopher, some of the payments that were read out on the Floor of the House—those of NHS managers for example, who receive very large payments and then reappear elsewhere in the NHS very shortly.
Wes Streeting
Of course, it is easy to point to those examples. I wonder how the six-figure pay-off to Mark Sedwill could have been considered value for taxpayer money, and how much the wider cull of top civil servants under the Government is costing the taxpayer.
Steve Barclay
I was going to come to local authorities, but to address the issue of senior civil servants, that flowed from the decision to split the role of the Cabinet Secretary and the head of the civil service with that of Sir Mark’s other role as National Security Adviser, which meant that he was stepping down before the end of his tenure. It was therefore appropriate that Sir Mark was compensated in line with the civil service compensation scheme, and the sum is in line with the normal rules governing civil service pensions and compensation. Since 2015, in anticipation of the introduction of a cross-public sector cap on exit payments, any civil service exit costing more than £95,000 requires approval by Cabinet Office Ministers to ensure that it provides value for money to the taxpayer. As someone who worked with Sir Mark, particularly in my role as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, I place on the record what a fine public servant he was and how much I valued working with him during his time in office.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, who made a number of interventions—I hope that comment is not untoward—also raised a legitimate point about local authorities. As I say, it is something I looked at in particular. Local authorities’ ability to restructure should not be dependent on six-figure taxpayer-funded payouts. Councils will still be able to restructure and exit staff in any way they wish, provided the sum of any exit payment does not exceed £95,000. The Government accept that there might be instances where it is in the interests of urgent workplace reform to relax the restriction imposed by the regulations, so there is flexibility within the system.
Finally, the hon. Member for Ilford North raised the issue of index-linking. The point is that we want to retain the flexibility to revalue the cap both upwards but also downwards. If one looks at the economic consequences of coronavirus, ensuring that there is flexibility in the system is a prudent way to manage the public finances.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to everything the Minister has said. I appreciate the arguments that he has put forward, but we should remember that, in the time of covid, many of the people who will be affected by the proposed changes are on relatively moderate salaries and have given years of their lives dedicated to public service, and will be giving everything to help get through this covid crisis. I want to put on the record that it is vital that the Government keep the measure index-linked so that it does not erode over time and vital that all the promises that the Minister has made today do not become meaningless within a few years.
Steve Barclay
I acknowledged earlier that in a previous speech the hon. Lady accepted the principle of capping excessive payments, but raised concerns to which I listened intently. I join with her in paying tribute to the work that so many have done across the public sector, but at the same time it is important to get value for money. For that reason, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.