Covid-19 Update

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that any decision about an inquiry is way beyond my pay scale, but the noble Lord is entirely right: there will clearly be massive lessons that we need to learn about the ways in which we do government, and health, and manage our public health. Those lessons should certainly include the economy since the impact of this disease on it has been profound. We will be living with those consequences for some time to come. We need to learn how to protect the economic future of our children when dealing with these kinds of national epidemics.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, one of the most public failures of communication has been the refusal of the Prime Minister to talk to his counterparts in the devolved nations. Yesterday, they had the privilege of a conversation with Mr Gove. The Prime Minister has still not spoken to them since May. I find that extraordinary. I have never seen Mark Drakeford so angry. Does the Minister agree that unilateral decisions taken in England can have a perverse impact, particularly on Wales, as many people live in Wales but work in England? Will the Prime Minister now engage? Will those devolved Ministers be at the COBRA meeting tomorrow, for example? When will the Prime Minister set up the regular, reliable meetings with his counterparts for which they have been asking for months?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a powerful point but it is at odds with my own experience. I deal with my counterparts in the devolved authorities on a very regular basis. We have extremely strong bilateral relations and I pay tribute to the collaborative spirit in which they go into those conversations. All I can say is that I am extremely grateful to those in the devolved authorities who have worked so closely with us in a four-nations response to this epidemic.

Covid-19 Update

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I answered the question as clearly as I possibly could. This is about communication and clarity and making sure that people understand the instructions; it is not about science. If that is not effective then the guidelines are pointless.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I was sorry to hear him say rather dismissively that people are clogging up the system because they seek some sort of reassurance, although they do not have symptoms. That seems to me a perfectly natural and human reaction. Can he confirm that basically government policy now is actively to discourage anybody without any symptoms in any situation seeking a test? If that is the case, what is his answer to the letter that he received from the directors of public health in the south-east, who are deeply worried that an area of low infection could easily become an area of high infection? What will he say to the universities that have introduced testing for all students, asymptomatic or not, because they want to protect their local communities, given what we know from America—from Chapel Hill, for example—about the absolutely devastating effect that university populations can have?

Covid-19: Local Restrictions

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that local support, trust and collaboration between actors from all political parties are essential to fighting Covid effectively. I pay tribute to the very large number of dialogues and collaborative interventions we have had across the country with local actors from all political parties. Yes, local lockdown decisions are not always popular. They are tough choices and elected representatives find them difficult, but we have found that politics does not play a part in those decisions and we stick to that.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it seems to have been decided that areas of low infection do not need the same degree of access to testing as the known hotspots. Indeed, there are accounts of people in London being directed to Wales because there is not sufficient testing capacity. Is this not exactly the way in which to miss the next hotspots and possibly the trigger of a national spike? Is it not another stable door that is left open? On what scientific evidence was this decision made and will it be published?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that testing capacity is naturally prioritised to those areas with a major outbreak and that, when supply is constrained, some of the recommendations for travelling, particularly later in the day and in the afternoon, can involve long distances. Our objective is to put in place massive testing capacity right across the country in all areas, whether high or low in infection prevalence. That is our ambition.

Covid-19

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I take the Minister back to airports. I have three questions. First, what is the science telling us about the likely impact—I know that this is a difficult question—of people coming off planes from highly affected countries? Have we done any research on that? Secondly, the Minister said that it is very difficult to test when people come off aircraft because the disease may be inhabiting them but not presenting. Other countries, however, are testing at five-day and even 10-day intervals: have we considered that? Thirdly, if our only strategy is quarantining, are we collecting data on how people are conforming? Are they staying in isolation? How do we know that? Can the science and the data be made available to us? If there is an unknown or even a known loophole, how do we fill that if quarantining is our only strategy?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The noble Baroness asks three extremely perceptive questions. With regard to the science of testing at airports, a huge amount of work is being done on this, and I pay tribute to the work of the scientists at SAGE, who have, I think, published several papers on this matter.

The number that sticks in my mind is SAGE’s estimate that of those infected who pass through an airport only 7% would be captured by what is called day zero testing—a tiny proportion. That uncomfortable and inconvenient statistic holds us back from doing what we would love to do—it just does not work. We are looking at seven-day testing, eight-day testing and 10-day testing. This is a lot about risk management: there is a risk curve. I would be happy to share a copy of the SAGE report, which is public, that shows that curve.

The noble Baroness is right to raise quarantine implementation: it is a cause of concern. Quarantine is critical to the effective implementation of our epidemic management. It is a trust-based system. Anyone who has read the papers will know that that trust-based system is under pressure. We are keeping it under review and will be looking at whether it needs to be updated.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness and to pledge our support—I feel sure of that in this House—for what she is trying to achieve, in the light of what she has achieved so far. We all look forward to what the Minister will say in response to her plea.

This is a Bill that we can and should welcome, in many respects. For example, I share many of the ambitions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, when he spoke. It sets out a necessary regulatory framework; my concern is that it comes with unnecessary risks as well. It spans the range of human and veterinary medicine. It includes clinical trials and the ability to prescribe. It addresses some of the abuses raised by the noble Baroness in her report, and it raises fundamental questions about capacity and professional standards. That means it is important, not least for the reasons which the noble Baroness has just explained in her example, that the balance between powers and accountability—between patient safety and risk—is got absolutely right. We will obviously probe this in detail as the Bill goes through the House.

I have two concerns. One is how patient safety can be protected within the context of creating an attractive environment, whatever that means. The other is the speed, direction and potential impact of the cumulative divergence from the stability and standards of inherited EU law. The Bill is designed to achieve just that and to accelerate it. Our task in this House is how to anticipate impacts and correct for perverse consequences. That is why I feel that the better purposes of the Bill are undermined by the fact that it is a skeleton Bill. We are not surprised, of course; this is what we have come to expect. Skeleton Bills have become not the exceptional position, as urged by the Constitution Committee, but the default position of this Government, who are so committed to accelerating deregulation and for whom, frankly, Brexit provides the obvious opportunity.

The first 15 clauses of the Bill consist entirely of powers to make provisions by regulations about human and veterinary medicine and medical devices. I hope that the House will challenge in particular the provocative powers of delegation in Clauses 1, 8 and 12, not least given the chaotic conditions that we seem to be approaching with no deal at the end of this year. However, it is the fundamental disregard for Parliament which explains the exasperation expressed by the Constitution Committee and the DPRRC in its report on the Bill, the latter in particular towards the flimsy and, frankly, disingenuous justifications that were offered for the use of powers.

Noble Lords will also find if they read the whole report that there is more than a disregard for the job of Parliament. In some cases, the suggestion is that the new powers offer the same restraints as the existing ones. They do not. This is why the Bill presents such a risk. The anticipated divergence is away from a stable regulatory framework into an unknown environment in ways that cannot be tested in this House because the design, as well as the delivery, is in secondary legislation. The Bill is divergence by delegation.

The Secretary of State has made no bones about this. At Second Reading in the other place he spoke of the Bill giving

“the means to depart from EU rules and regulations in future, moving at a faster pace … it ensures that we can easily amend regulation through secondary legislation without having to bring a new Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/20; col. 659.]

The DPRRC has replied that the Secretary of State has taken upon himself

“very wide powers to almost completely re-write the existing regulatory regimes for human and veterinary medicines and medical devices.”

In the strongest language that I can remember, it describes the powers taken to allow regulations for making the disapplication of legislation subject to conditions set out in a protocol—whatever that might mean—as

“yet another example of ‘camouflaging legislation’.”

This is Parliament; this is our job: to expose legislation, not camouflage it. Will the Minister assure us that he will listen and respond positively to the call for restraints and the removal of those powers in the Bill that have been so insufficiently explained by the Government so far? He will save himself a lot of grief if he does.

Covid-19: Response

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Monday 27th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell [V]]

The noble Baroness raises an incredibly important issue and I pay tribute to Kate Bingham, who is running the Vaccine Taskforce. She is tackling exactly the issue that the noble Baroness raised. GPs are right to be concerned about capacity, which is why we are looking at ways of massively increasing the capacity to deliver such a vaccine. We will definitely look at resources such as returnees, pharmacists and other sources of people power to deliver the vaccine into the arms of the nation. On the anti-vaxxer groups, the fake news and wrong stories around vaccines are an area of deep concern. We are working with faith groups and other civic leaders to put right the arguments for a vaccine because, at the end of the day, any vaccine requires the participation of a large proportion of the country in order for it to be truly effective. It will cause huge disruption and personal suffering if trust is not maintained in the efficacy of such a vaccine.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]]

Where does the Minister think the greatest risks of a second wave of Covid-19 now lie? What specifically needs to be achieved by early autumn to prevent that, and what extra support will be provided specifically for care homes?

[Lord Bethell [V]]

The noble Baroness invites speculation; I wish that I knew the precise answer to that key question. We are extremely vigilant in a large number of areas, including the measures to release a degree of social distancing and on foreign travel, as she knows. We know that if the country remains committed to the basic principles—hand washing and hygiene; social distance; and isolation when necessary—those three principal pillars will be the ones that defend us from the spread of the disease. We are doing everything we can to shore up those pillars, and that is particularly true in social care, where we have massively boosted testing for both staff and patients and brought in hygiene control, particularly around PPE. We will continue to support the sector financially to ensure that agency workers can be used as little as possible.

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

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Friday 24th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, these regulations expose both the way the management of the pandemic is being improvised day in, day out and the failure to provide Parliament with proper time to scrutinise. Inconvenience is hardly an excuse.

We are also debating them in the knowledge that, such is the loss of trust in this Government’s ability to plan safely, people are deciding for themselves not to take risks. Our streets are still silent, shops and restaurants are still empty and people do not feel safe returning to work. The wider and fundamental failure behind these regulations was, amazingly, not including the economic fallout in the risk scenario planning.

Finally, these regulations are being introduced without certainty as to how social behaviour has already been affected by the relaxation of controls to date or whether risk is increasing. Indeed, where is the R number in all this? What will the Government be guided by in their decisions on review? At what point does the science kick in again? What would count as success on 31 July? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

Covid-19: Personal Protective Equipment

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Andrews]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of personal protective equipment for (1) hospitals, and (2) care homes, in the event of a second wave of cases of COVID-19.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we have made our supply chains more resilient by massively expanding both our supply from overseas and our domestic manufacturing capability. We are now confident in our supply of PPE to meet the needs of health and social care over the next seven-day and 90-day horizons and are looking further ahead. We continue to model future demand from health and care services to cover the approach of winter and bring resilience to the supply chain.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Government are being warned, urgently, on all sides to prepare for a second wave of Covid this winter. I hear what the Minister has said but last week, the Public Accounts Committee found that the Government are still not treating the supply of PPE with similar urgency. Will the Minister now commit to publishing a detailed plan by September, as the committee has asked for, explaining what exactly will be different, so that mistakes are not repeated and health and care workers are better protected?

Covid-19: Care Home Deaths

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Baroness is entirely right. This is an evil disease which strikes the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions the worst, and those who live in care homes are the most vulnerable. The Government have sought to put a ring of steel in place. We have resourced care homes enormously. Testing is now being focused on care homes to try to reduce the prevalence of the disease, and we will continue to focus on protecting our care homes.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My question is about the information we have on the deaths of care workers in care homes. Given that so many of our care homes are extensively staffed by BAME workers, and we are incredibly grateful, can the Minister say whether we are likely to have figures for the proportion of BAME staff in those homes who have died? On that point, and in the context of the review, which we welcome, into the disproportionate numbers of BAME workers generally in the health service who have been affected, can the Minister tell us when it will start, who will lead that inquiry and what timetable the Government will be working to?

[Lord Bethell]

I echo the noble Baroness’s timely comments on the role of BAME workers, many of whom have provided an amazing service and put themselves in harm’s way to care for those who are vulnerable. The idea that they are being disproportionately hit by this disease is extremely distressing. The numbers are not to hand so I cannot share precise numbers at the moment, but we are looking into this at speed and trying to understand the causes and the impact of this awful phenomenon. I commit to bring those numbers to the House as soon as they are available.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself entirely with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. We have been here before. We went through these issues many times last year, when a number of us spoke about constitutional issues. I want to concentrate my remarks there today. Before doing so, I add my welcome to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I am sure that she will have a distinguished career in your Lordships’ House. I was extremely sorry to miss her Second Reading speech but I was recovering from surgery, so I could not be present and take part as I would have otherwise sought to do.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, are members of a group that I have the privilege of chairing: the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. I want to reflect on those words for a few moments. You can have a truly effective second Chamber in a Parliament, or indeed an effective first Chamber, only if you do not have an overbearing Executive. Everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, have said underlines the fact that we are in extremely dangerous territory.

Of course, as they have done, I entirely absolve my noble friend on the Front Bench. She has been given a poisoned chalice and she will handle it with dexterity and finesse, but whatever she does, she will not be able to remove the hemlock and replace it with quaffable wine because this really is a very dangerous Bill. The name of Henry VIII has already been quoted a number of times—and even Henry XVI, although I am not quite sure what he will be up to. But I prefer to call this Bill a carte blanche Bill because what we are being asked to do is to give the Executive a totally blank cheque. That is inimical to constitutional parliamentary democracy. There has been a great deal of talk recently, and there will be more next week, about the role of Parliament vis-à-vis the Executive. We have to have a proper balance, but we do not have a proper balance if we have an Executive invested with so much power that Parliament really counts for nothing.

Of course, I know why we are going to have to give this Bill a speedy passage, but I deeply regret it. It goes against the parliamentary grain as far as I am concerned. In the almost 49 years that I have been in one House or the other, I have seen what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to as the steady accretion of power to the Executive branch. No lip service to the power of Parliament paid by the setting up of Back-Bench committees and all the rest of it has really disguised that. It is one of the reasons why colleagues in another place have recently been flexing their muscles in seeking to wrest back power from the Executive to Parliament. I will not pursue that argument now because, frankly, in a Committee stage it would be straying out of order. But what I will say to your Lordships is that if we give this Bill its passage, as I suppose we must, it is crucial that we redouble our resolve to ensure that this sort of thing happens less frequently in the future.

In a parliamentary democracy there has to be a true balance of power and a responsibility to scrutinise legislation, but how can you scrutinise legislation which is so open-ended that it gives unbridled power for years to come? The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, referred to that. I do not want to trespass on the private grief of friends opposite—and I do regard them as friends—but do I really want powers like these to be exercised by Mr McDonnell or Mr Corbyn? No, I do not, and I suspect that there are very few, if any, in your Lordships’ House who do.

I therefore put down a marker in total support of the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and say that when we have got over the next few traumatic weeks, if we get over them—I suppose we will—we must send an emphatic message to the Executive that this sort of sharp practice is something up with which we will not put.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I welcome the Minister. I will not add to her burdens by trying to find another metaphor for the difficult position she is in. We have had poisoned chalices and hand grenades, but I am sure she would be more than capable of dealing with all that. I am sure she will already have picked up some of the deep frustrations in the Committee about the position we find ourselves in—having to deal with legislation that is, frankly, rather surreal. We are trying to deal with the worst possible scenarios just in time, just in case we should need to be as draconian as necessary in the most extreme emergency situations. We are focusing on the exercise of powers that may never need to be used but which we may have to reach for in the most ghastly circumstances—so we are over a barrel. This is an essential Bill. We have to protect UK citizens from the worst that could happen to them, having sadly neglected to do what we could have done at the very beginning of this two-year process and given them assurances and the sort of security—as we would have been expected to be able to offer EU citizens in this country—that many in this House tried to achieve.

My speech in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend will be much shorter, because I can do hardly anything other than compliment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on his most forensic and splendid interpretation of what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said, and my colleague on that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. The one thing on which I might take issue with him is that in that committee we have not, in fact, become habituated to the ways in which government departments always try to take more power. We are not naive but we deeply resent the ways in which government departments have tried to accumulate powers over the past few years and to sneak it under our noses.

Coming down the track we have Bills—the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has already referred to them—with swathes of inappropriate delegation cultivated by civil servants and Ministers, for whom, frankly, this is Christmas. They have wanted to acquire these sorts of powers for years and have tried on many different occasions. They have been stopped in Bill after Bill and sent back. But now they have the power of post-Brexit uncertainty to aid them. It is extremely difficult to know where our vocabulary might lead us next. It is a fabulous opportunity, because for years they have chafed against the boring predictability of our scrutiny committees telling them to go away and think again. They come back with excuses about urgency, technicalities and flexibilities, yet when we expose these for what they are, they tend to try to do it again in another form.

One of the most disappointing things is that this was our second report; our first was blunt enough. We thought that between November and now the department and Ministers would respond more sensitively—perhaps more in the spirit of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, with our agonised discussions over the fine-tuning of appropriateness and necessity—but we received not a word; not a blink. I am sad to say that what the department came back with—I know the Minister was not responsible—was another 43 paragraphs about all manner of explanations, most of which were not relevant. They did not address the fundamental question that the Committee is raising this afternoon: why are these powers necessary? What is it that only these powers will be able to achieve? The Minister was very flattering to the scrutiny committees at Second Reading; she called our powers “forensic”. There is nothing that needs forensic scrutiny here. You could take a spade to this Bill; it is that blunt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

That is a separate issue. As I said at the beginning, the issue here is actually in two parts. The first is whether we ought to use the new legislation to strike deals with a subset of countries, those with which we already have reciprocal deals through our membership of the EU, or to strike broader ones. The secondary question is: what ought to be the correct process for Parliament to provide scrutiny of the kind of deals that are set up, either to provide continuity with the ones that we have under the EU or with new partners? Those are different questions. It is up to this Committee to make its decision about what it feels is the appropriate route to go forward, but it is important to expose that those are different and separate questions and we ought to consider them as such.

Perhaps I may respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and others about trade. It is absolutely not the case that this is some Trojan horse for privatisation of the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, or anything else. My noble friend the Minister made that completely clear in her letter, as I used to in the letters that I once sent the noble Lord as well. Consider this: one of the reasons that we have deep reciprocal healthcare agreements with EU countries is due to the fact that we are part of a large trading bloc called the European Union. It is perfectly normal for partners engaged in economic, social, cultural, scientific and other activities to have these kind of agreements, partly because they facilitate the movement of people from one to another, whether on holiday or for work and other things.

I would hope, regardless of whether we were leaving the European Union or not, that we would want to have these kind of agreements with our partner countries throughout the world. Regardless of one’s views on Brexit, we ought to want to do that. It is not something that we have the legal basis to do at the moment and the Bill gives us that. I want to correct the impression given by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, which I do not think is fair, that this is somehow a Trojan horse for some sort of nefarious agenda. That is absolutely not the case; it is about taking a broader view of the kind of relationships that we currently enjoy with the EU and want to enjoy with other countries, whether they are Commonwealth partners or the overseas territories and Crown dependencies noted by my noble friend Lord Ribeiro.

I hope that I have described clearly what I believe the intent is in this regard. It is absolutely noble and will facilitate the broader movement of people throughout the world.

[Baroness Andrews]

I take the noble Lord’s personal assurances on that. Who could disagree with what he has just said about the need to have these sorts of vigorous, expansive and generous trading arrangements, which we hope will involve skills, health and knowledge? My question is really: why are these powers in this Bill? If they are necessary and within our reach, why can we not have them in an appropriate Bill with appropriate powers, which we can all be certain will not be exploited and lead to perverse consequences?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I take the noble Baroness’s point but the critical thing here is that the powers set out in the Bill are constrained by giving effect to healthcare agreements, which themselves sit under the aegis of the creation of international agreements. My noble friend’s letter set out how the entire so-called CRaG arrangements govern how they ought to be approved. To satisfy my noble friend Lord Cormack’s concern, it is simply not the case that this Bill could be used unilaterally to fund the healthcare of the people of Venezuela, which might be a concern of the leaders of the Labour Party, as he pointed out.