Moved by Lord Kamall That the Regulations laid before the House on
29 November be approved. Relevant documents: 22nd Report from the
Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet
reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and
Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con) My Lords, in moving these
regulations, I will also speak to the Health Protection
(Coronavirus, Restrictions)...Request free trial
Moved by
That the Regulations laid before the House on 29 November be
approved.
Relevant documents: 22nd Report from the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint
Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health
and Social Care () (Con)
My Lords, in moving these regulations, I will also speak to the
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation)
(England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021.
We have always known that a worrying new variant could pose a
threat to the progress that we have made as a nation. On Friday
26 November, the World Health Organization designated variant
B.1.1.529, now known as omicron, as a variant of concern. I thank
the Government of South Africa for their rapid identification of
this variant and exemplary transparency in alerting the world.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State spoke with Minister Phaahla to
convey this unanimous message from G7 Health Ministers and
reaffirm our commitment to working together to address the global
impact of the omicron variant.
Some 22 cases have been confirmed in England and Scotland, but we
expect that number to rise over the coming days. Omicron has been
spreading across numerous countries. Early indications show that
it may be more transmissible than the delta variant, and that
current vaccines may be less effective against it. It may also
have an impact on the effectiveness of one of our major
treatments, Ronapreve. We are therefore concerned that omicron
may pose a substantial risk to public health. That is why we are
taking decisive action against it to buy ourselves time and
strengthen our defences while our world-leading scientists learn
more about this potential threat.
Our test, trace and self-isolate system continues to be one of
the key ways in which we can manage and contain the virus and
protect the nation. The self-isolation regulations that we are
debating today were introduced to provide a legal requirement to
self-isolate for individuals who have been notified that they
have tested positive for Covid-19 or are a close contact of a
positive case. On 16 August, thanks to the success of the vaccine
rollout, we were able to introduce a number of exemptions to
self-isolation for close contacts, including for those who are
fully vaccinated or under the age of 18.
Given the greater threat that may be posed by the omicron
variant, we have reviewed the application of these exemptions.
This latest amendment to the self-isolation regulations is
targeted at helping to slow its spread. Since 4 am yesterday, all
individuals notified by NHS Test and Trace or a public health
official that they are a close contact of a confirmed or
suspected case of the Covid-19 omicron variant will be legally
required to self-isolate, regardless of their age or vaccination
status. Anyone who has been notified as testing positive for
Covid-19, regardless of the variant, will continue to be legally
required to self-isolate.
We have also reintroduced the requirement to wear face coverings
in shops, including supermarkets, banks, and close contact
services such as hairdressers, on public transport, and in
transport hubs. Some noble Lords may ask why face coverings are
not required in hospitality venues such as cafes and pubs. I
would respond that this is part of a targeted and proportionate
intervention. We recognise that not everyone is able to wear a
face covering. That is why health and disability exemptions will
continue to apply. However, those who are able to must continue
to follow the rules so that we might slow the spread of this new
variant.
I stress that these measures are temporary and precautionary, and
will be reviewed in three weeks, which is the period scientists
say is required before it is known how the variant impacts on the
effectiveness of vaccines. Ultimately, the vaccination programme,
and the test, trace and isolate system continue to be our most
effective way of reducing transmission, along with continuing to
practise good hygiene, keeping spaces well ventilated, and
wearing a face covering in enclosed or crowded spaces.
(Con)
Would my noble friend give way?
(Con)
No, let the Minister finish first.
(Con)
The UK Health Security Agency continues to monitor the situation
closely in partnership with scientific and public health
organisations across the world. Covid-19 is not going away and so
we are likely to keep seeing new variants emerge. If we want to
learn to live with the virus, we must follow the scientific
evidence and advice and act in a proportionate and responsible
way if a variant has the potential to thwart our progress. As we
do this, we are taking a well-rounded view, looking not just at
the impact of these measures on the virus, but on the economy,
education, and non-Covid health, especially mental health. I am
confident that the responses we set out today are balanced and
responsible steps that are proportionate to the threat we
face.
The Deputy Speaker () (Con)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. No? I call the noble
Baroness, Lady Thornton.
(Lab)
I was happy to wait for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to
speak before me. I thank the Minister for introducing and
explaining the content of these statutory instruments. As we
discussed on Monday, the omicron variant is a sobering reminder
that this pandemic is not over. I think we all agree that we need
to act with speed to bolster our defences to keep the new variant
at bay and to keep each other safe through the difficult winter
period.
We on these Benches were critical of the Government’s slow
response to the delta variant—slow to protect our borders, slow
to act to reduce transmission in the community—so we welcome
swifter action regarding this variant. It is right to be acting
urgently given the seriousness of the threat. While it is sad to
be debating these statutory instruments after the fact again, it
is definitely an improvement on discussing them after Christmas
or weeks later.
Turning to the regulations and starting with the Health
Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England)
Regulations 2021—I still have a problem with all the numbers on
these, but this is number 1340—as I said on Monday, it is right
to reintroduce masks on public transport, in shops and other
settings including banks, hairdressers and post offices for those
who are not exempt. However, we believe this measure should never
have been abandoned. While mask wearing in public spaces forms
part of the Government’s plan B, as far as we are concerned it
should have been part of plan A rather than an emergency measure,
as should encouraging working from home.
Now we have the issue of building confidence for compliance in
the new law. The guidance will be important. When will the
guidance about wearing of face masks be issued? USDAW, for
example, the shopworkers union —in fact, the union I was a member
of when I worked for the Co-op—said:
“Shopworkers aren’t police officers and shouldn’t be expected to
act like them. They’re key workers who have kept our country
going during these tough times. They deserve our respect.”
I also congratulate my friend and Co-operative colleague Paul
Gerrard, who was on “Good Morning Britain” yesterday. He said on
Twitter:
“We’ll make sure customers know rules & we’ll help them to
follow them but we won’t put colleagues at risk”.
The Co-op is a responsible retailer, as are most of our
retailers, but they all need the Government’s support. Have the
guidelines been issued yet and what are the Government’s plans to
support retailers?
As I said, we think these regulations are too modest and will not
provide the protection the Government have described. For
example, you will wear your mask to go into the off-licence to
get some booze, and then you will go to a party indoors where no
one will be wearing a mask. If you attend the theatre, you may
get a taxi to the theatre and will wear your mask, and in the
theatre some of the people in the audience may be wearing a mask
but some will not. Will the Minister explain the scientific
justification for those differences?
17:30:00
Anyone who has taken a journey on public transport in recent
months will have seen at first hand the lack of compliance—I do
not mean just the Prime Minister. From what all of us have seen
on the Tube and elsewhere in our commute, it looks as if there
has been an increase in compliance in the last 24 hours or so,
but on Monday morning it was depressing to see how few people on
the Tube were wearing masks. I am very pleased to say that the
statutory instruments committee has been busy and has issued its
report this afternoon. It says there is a long list of places
where people must wear face coverings, as well as on public
transport. It also remarks on the doubling of the fixed penalty,
and says:
“The House may wish to ask the Minister to explain why some
places were chosen and not others, and, because the list is
complex, how members of the public will be able to understand
where and when a mask must be worn.”
As the Minister said, it goes on to state:
“These Regulations are due to expire at the end of 20 December
2021 which falls into the period of parliamentary recess”,
so, as I said on Monday, we might need to ask the Minister how he
will
“ensure that any decision to extend these Regulations is
announced before the House rises.”
Will that be possible?
Why do the Government not specify ventilation in these
regulations? Throughout the pandemic, these Benches have called
for a radical upgrade of the ventilation of public buildings,
particularly schools. We know that is not something that can be
done just by clicking your fingers. It is expensive and time
consuming, and possibly harder to do than asking people to wear a
mask, but it is a very effective intervention. Some 18 months
into this pandemic, how many public buildings now have proper
ventilation systems as a result of decisions taken during the
pandemic?
I turn to statutory instrument 1338 regarding self-isolation. The
regulations introduce new rules for self-isolation after contact
with a person who is suspected to have contracted the omicron
variant of the virus. The issue is, how is it suspected? It begs
the question of how on earth one will know. I am keen to hear
from the Minister how the decision to introduce only two-day
testing and not to reintroduce pre-departure tests, which I
understand the United States of America has just announced, was
reached. I am keen to know the scientific basis behind that. We
have heard many reports of private tests not being followed up,
perhaps especially by those offering tests at the cheapest
prices. What are the Government going to do to enforce this and
to ensure that bringing back two-day PCR tests will be effective?
We saw in the summer how frustrating they were for people who
would otherwise have been able to avoid self-isolation by being
vaccinated. They will now have to stay at home for the full
period. However, as we now wait to see how our vaccines and
antivirals respond to the new variant, it is right that we
prioritise caution and seek to limit community transmission as
much as possible.
Perhaps the Minister can clarify why the Government have flatly
contradicted the Covid guidance from one of their most senior
health officials that people should not socialise before
Christmas unless it is necessary. Dr Jenny Harries, chief
executive of the UK Health Security Agency, said during an
interview with the BBC on Tuesday morning—I heard it on the
radio—that unnecessary gatherings in the festive period should
not go ahead. She said that people can do their bit to halt the
spread of Covid in the next few weeks by reducing social contact.
She warned that omicron is “more highly transmissible” and could
have
“a significant impact on our hospitals … our behaviours in winter
and particularly around Christmas we tend to socialise more so I
think all of those will need to be taken into account.”
When asked if Dr Harries’s view was shared by , the PM’s spokesman told
reporters:
“No. Our advice to the public is as set out at the weekend. We
have put advice out on face coverings and on inward travellers
... Beyond that we haven’t set out any further guidance to the
public.”
Asked if people should follow what he was saying or what Dr
Harries was saying, the spokesman said:
“The public should follow the guidance as set out by the
Government and indeed the Prime Minister at the weekend.”
The least I can say about that is that it is confusing. I would
like to have the Minister’s view.
Finally, I shall say something about people who are very
vulnerable. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raises this time
and again, and the Government need to take it very seriously.
Even before the discovery of the new variant, people with
underlying health conditions were being widely ignored, despite
the fact that their case numbers remained high. Months after the
official shielding programme ended, the Office for National
Statistics figures from October showed that almost one in four
clinically extremely vulnerable people were still shielding and
that 68% were leaving the house but taking extreme extra
precautions. Ministers have only made matters worse with this.
Over the last few months, the Government have removed many
measures that would have helped clinically vulnerable people. In
England, the legal requirement to wear a mask ended as far back
as July, apart from in healthcare settings and care homes, and
once furlough ended in October, clinically vulnerable people had
fewer options to shield themselves. Many were sent back to
offices or public-facing roles without the legal right to work
from home or to be paid if they could not. If the Minister cannot
answer the questions about the guidelines and what should happen
to clinically vulnerable people, I am very happy for him to write
to me and put the answer in the Library.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these two
statutory instruments retrospectively reintroducing face masks
and rules for self-isolation. From these Benches, we repeat our
thanks to the scientists in South Africa for their early-warning
system and their excellent genomic sequencing of omicron. I also
thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its swift
advice to your Lordships’ House.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings)
(England) Regulations 2021 set out clearly the doubling of fines
if somebody fails to comply without a reasonable excuse, up to a
maximum of £6,400. When these regulations were first introduced
last year, very few fines were issued. Face coverings are not
required everywhere, which makes it even harder for this to be
literally policed, as in the police intervening and issuing
fines. I repeat the questions that the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee asked: why were some places chosen and not
others and, because the list is complex, how on earth will
members of the public be able to understand where and when a mask
must be worn? We completely agree with the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee. The Minister knows that I have already raised
this with him this week, and I heard his attempt in Grand
Committee to defend the absolute nonsense about sitting in
theatres versus walking around a shop or even sitting in a café
in a shop, where one would, I presume, be required to wear a
mask.
I also raised with him the vexed issue of local government, where
since January councils have by law from central government had to
meet in person, although many of them would like to return to
virtual arrangements when there is a massive rise in cases. Cases
are surging in certain parts of the country, and it is just
extraordinary that the Government dictate to local government how
it can meet. I raised this with the Minister yesterday and was
grateful for his response, but I raise it again after a plea
overnight from a councillor in Devon, where cases are rising very
fast at the moment.
This regulation is due to expire on 20 December. Once again
today, we are seeing emergency legislation to protect the public
laid after it was enacted, but in this case understandably.
However, it is set to expire at a point when not only will we
have just risen for recess but the emerging facts of the omicron
variant are only just going to be understood. The scientists say
that they need a good three weeks to really understand this, so
why were these regulations not set for expiry after 60, or even
90, days? It is comparatively easy, as we saw yesterday in Grand
Committee, for your Lordships’ House to meet for early expiration
of a regulation. It is much harder to justify setting this one
for such a short period. It is treating Parliament with contempt
as well.
I am really sorry to hear that Co-operative stores and Iceland
have already made decisions not to follow the face mask guidance.
It points to a big hole in the system that we from these Benches
have repeatedly raised: which is how the regulations can be
policed. The real answer, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton,
outlined, remains front-line retail staff, often low paid, or
security staff, who do not have the authority of the police. The
Co-op has rightly said that it will not put its staff at risk of
attack from customers, which it says happens to tens of staff per
day across the country.
This regulation is the stick, but we need a carrot too. We need
to see on a daily basis senior Ministers wearing masks. I
understand that the Leader of the House of Commons was finally
seen wearing a mask in the Chamber today, so I presume fraternal
conviviality is no longer going to protect Members on the
Conservative Benches from Covid. But both his and the Prime
Minister’s frankly appalling record of not wearing masks has not
helped the wider public to be encouraged to take precautions
themselves. By the way, I note that the Government have today
confirmed that it is still essential for everyone to wear face
masks in hospitals, all the time.
It was concerning that yesterday in a No. 10 press conference
reference was made to a case of omicron in Croydon, but
unfortunately the director of public health and the local council
in Croydon had not been notified before it was made public. That
would have been helpful, because they had lots of inquiries about
what on earth was happening. When will this sort of information
be joined up? It is vital that the experts in each area are
informed before the wider public about what is going on, so that
they can set up systems to reassure and support their public.
I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I
also heard Jenny Harries on the “Today” programme yesterday, and
I thought she answered very sensibly. She has asked us repeatedly
over the past 20 months to consider risk when we go into any
environment. She was clear that, in winter and especially at
Christmas, moving into an environment, probably mostly inside and
cold, where people huddle together is not ideal and people need
to think about whether they go to their usual social events. How
extraordinary to have that flatly contradicted by the Prime
Minister. Perhaps he needs to get a grip. That is particularly
relevant in light of the other story today, about the Christmas
parties at No. 10 last year after London had been asked to go
into tier 3—effective lockdown.
I also ask the Minister about air filtration units for
schools—and I do mean air filtration units and not CO2 monitors.
This is in light of an innovative air cleaning device developed
by Cambridge University and Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge.
When they placed the relatively inexpensive air filtration
machine in Covid-19 wards, it removed almost all traces of
airborne SARS-CoV-2. It is a very interesting article.
On the self-isolation regulations, from these Benches we just
repeat our regular plea. This Government have chosen not to pay
low-paid workers a proper rate when they are asked to
self-isolate. Those people are doing a public duty. They may be
required by law to do it, but to offer them sick pay for that
period does not reflect the duty they are doing. We know that it
really matters for some people on zero-hours contracts, and that
some people have not been coming forward even for tests when they
suspect they have Covid because they do not know how they would
put food on the table if they had to isolate for 10 days.
We are glad that the vaccination rate paid to GPs has been
increased after their pleadings, but how on earth does this
reduce the other pressures on primary care? I note that NHS
leaders have today called for support from the military on
vaccines. Running in parallel with all this is the phenomenal
pressure that other NHS services are under, from the crisis in
ambulance services and A&E that we discussed earlier in your
Lordships’ House to delayed discharges. As the Minister knows—I
am really grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady
Thornton—people who are clinically extremely vulnerable,
especially the severely clinically extremely vulnerable and their
families, were already worried about this winter, but they have
been shaken further by the uncertainty surrounding the new
variant.
17:45:00
Earlier in the year, on 15 September, the Government ended the
shielding programme, as it was believed that it was no longer
necessary. However, according to the Office for National
Statistics, as many as one in five of those previously shielding
have continued to do so. Many feel that, after this date, they
were left without any support and guidance, and many—perhaps a
quarter —of the clinically extremely vulnerable who were eligible
for it have still not had their third primary dose because of the
confusion that persists around the third primary dose and the
booster jabs. So I repeat my request to the Minister—which he
agreed to, but I have heard nothing—to confirm when we can meet
to discuss this with Blood Cancer UK and the Anthony Nolan trust,
because this is now an emergency. If the noble Baroness, Lady
Thornton, would like to join the meeting, I would be delighted if
she were able to do so.
Everything is set for three weeks’ time. Christmas is coming
towards us. I am really concerned that the tone from Ministers in
the last 24 hours is that everything is going to be lifted again
for Christmas, when we need to wait for the scientific advice. So
can the Minister please send the message back that we should be
cautious until we actually know and understand what omicron does
and how dangerous it is?
(Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and a surprise, as we are discussing
an SI, to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady
Brinton. Although I do not agree with much, I do agree that it is
very helpful that we are discussing these SIs so quickly, so I
thank my noble friend the Minister. I also agree that we must not
put retail workers at risk, as we are in the process of
discussing in our debates on the police Bill, and that air
filtration systems can be valuable in many settings.
The background to this debate is that we have taken major steps
to limit the impact of Covid-19, with 115 million vaccine doses
now injected in arms across the country. The more vulnerable and
elderly have received boosters now totalling over 18 million, and
the race is on to double this quickly. This has been well done
and we must all be grateful.
We now face the challenge of the omicron—I am told that is
stressed like omega, if you studied Greek, which I did not—and I
rise to offer modest support for, but also some concerns about,
the new regulations on masks. In particular, I agree that it is
right to limit their compulsory scope to transport, shops and
services such as hairdressers and banks. I am less happy with the
regulation on self-isolation, which is potentially much more
onerous and lasts, as we have heard, not for three weeks but
until 24 March. I have some questions for my noble friend the
Minister.
First, how will all this end? What virulence criteria in relation
to omicron will lead to the removal of the restrictions? Can this
be done at speed like their imposition or, as we have seen
before, will such regulations linger on?
Second—and I have a family interest here—can there be an opt-out
from travel quarantine testing for those who have recently
recovered from Covid and registered as such? This is very
important for children at school, where the virus continues to
spread fast. I know that the travel PCR requirements are not
covered in these regulations, but I hope that the Minister will
answer anyway and make sure that further regulations are clear.
There is so much confusion.
I would like to record my belief that both sets of regulatory
proposals have a serious defect: we do not have the benefit of an
impact assessment or anything like it. It may be technically true
that there is an exemption for rules lasting less than a year,
but it is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. An assessment
of the cost and economic impact of such measures is essential to
good government and the future well-being of our country, and
should inform all decisions such as these. Take the first
instrument on masks; the analysis in Paragraph 12 of the
Explanatory Memorandum is embarrassingly inadequate and does not
even mention small business. What studies have the Government
conducted into children wearing masks, the negative and the
positive? What is the evidence that they will help with the
infectious omicron variant?
Let us consider the second set of regulations. The new
self-isolation controls will have a huge impact on work, schools,
health, social care and other services, as case numbers rise and
the “pingdemic” of last summer returns. They also deal a body
blow to the already struggling transport industry, with billions
wiped off its value since last week. Do the Government prepare
proper assessments to inform their actions? I hope they do; they
should summarise or publish them for debates such as these. Doing
so would serve to limit overreaction. The last couple of days
have been full of rumours of possible overreactions, such as
masks being required in theatres and restaurants, and school
plays and Christmas parties cancelled. Government spokesmen
should be calming matters, not encouraging people to close things
down.
We have been partly saved by vaccination, but we have encountered
needless damage across the economy and society over the last two
years, because of our lack of attention to economics. Saturday’s
BBC coverage helped me to understand why. At his press
conference, the Prime Minister was sensible and serious, but the
lead commentary afterwards came from a member of one of the SAGE
committees, Susan Michie. She is a professor of health psychology
at UCL and a well-known communist, and she wanted to go much
further. Why are there a number of psychologists on SAGE and not
economists—although I think there is a leading statistician?
Indeed, you might ask why communists are involved at all.
On my final point, perhaps my noble friend could say whether he
and the Secretary of State, both of whom are more aware than
their predecessors of the importance of growth and economics to
the well-being of everyone in the country, might look at the
composition of SAGE and add an economist or two, now it looks as
though, sadly, Covid is continuing to be more extensive than we
all hoped.
(Con)
My Lords, I first support what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe
said about impact assessments. In fact, I have tabled a Motion on
a later coronavirus order regretting the lack of impact
statements, which I look forward to debating with the Minister in
due course.
I start by recording what Reuters reported today from a World
Health Organization official. He said that, to date, most omicron
cases have been “mild” and that there is no evidence yet of
reduced vaccine effectiveness. On that basis, we may find that
these orders have been overhasty and that we do not see an
extension of them.
I will concentrate my remarks on the mask-wearing order, because
I continue to believe that there is insufficient scientific
evidence on which to base requirements for people to wear masks.
Much attention was paid, a week or so ago, to a meta-analysis
that was published in the British Medical Journal. Its headline
was that masks showed a 53% cut in the transmission of infection.
When one looks at the detail of that meta-analysis, the case
falls apart. Of the large number of studies included, only six
related to mask wearing, of which two had a critical and four had
a moderate element of bias. Of those four, only one was a
properly randomised trial and its results were inconclusive.
There is no evidence that scientifically supports the wearing of
masks.
I will not oppose this order and I hope it runs out in a few
weeks’ time, but I hope that the Minister ensures that the right
messaging is put out. I have heard that the noble Baronesses,
Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, want it extended, including to
theatres. They may like to know that this is already happening. I
reveal one of my hobbies by saying that, yesterday, I received
emails from both the English National Opera and the Royal Opera
House telling me that, as of yesterday, they were mandating
masks. I have to put up with a mask for the sake of listening to
Wagner, this weekend, but the messaging that this order relates
only to shops, transport and the close personal services that
were referred to earlier is not out there.
In addition, when I got back to my apartment block last night,
the management company had splattered the place with “Masks now
required”. I challenged that today and of course there is no
legal basis for that prohibition, so I have asked it to remove or
alter the messaging. Unless the Government give clear messages to
the public at large that this is a very limited measure for very
good reason, and there is no need for it to be extended further,
it will carry on spreading like some kind of virus throughout all
social activity. We must not let that happen.
(Con)
My Lords, I would like to add to the words of my noble friends
Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe. I am afraid the Government
have got themselves in a muddle over this. This is a “worrying
new variant”, as the Minister rightly said, and I think he quotes
from the WHO. But while sitting here, I got an alert from the
news that said exactly as my noble friend Lady Noakes just
said:
“Most Omicron cases are ‘mild’ and there's no evidence to suggest
vaccines may be less effective against the variant, says WHO
official”,
speaking on behalf of the organisation. He specifically said that
people should
“apply an evidence-informed and risk-based approach”
to travel measures and that
“Blanket travel bans will not prevent the … spread”
of the new omicron Covid variant.
We should look at the evidence, not opinions. What is the number
of deaths that this or Covid are causing? I am going to yet
another memorial service tomorrow for a Member of this House who
died of cancer, not Covid. I think I have been to six memorial
services so far this year of people who have died from
cancer—nobody from Covid. All Peers should ask themselves how
many people they know who have died from Covid under the age of
85.
We need to show some understanding of risk and should not be
scaring people. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, we are just
scaring people into running around like headless chickens,
worried about what on earth this variant means. I regret to say
that I think the Government are trying to look decisive after
what has not been an extremely good month or so for them. They
are responding to the accusations of the Opposition that they
must be more decisive and take firm action. We are keeping people
scared, not keeping them safe. We are damaging children’s
education and hugely damaging the economy, and cancer waiting
lists are stretching. I heard today that waiting lists for
hospital treatment may extend to 12 million by the end of next
year. This is shocking.
My noble friend Lady Noakes asked to see the proof about face
coverings, because we do not actually know if they work. Of
course surgical masks work, but these flimsy paper or cardboard
things we are all wearing are not effective. Since, according to
the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we have to wait for the
scientific advice, let us listen to the advice that Jenny Harries
gave us in March last year that, in fact, if you wear a face mask
you are more likely to increase the severity of any Covid you
have, because you would trap all the germs and keep them there.
As late as August last year, she was saying that she did not
think there was any point in us wearing face masks.
18:00:00
I urge the Government not to listen to those, particularly from
the Opposition, who want an authoritarian crackdown and would
lock down society for ever, as far as I can work out, making for
a docile and compliant population. We heard from the noble
Baroness, Lady Brinton, that she wants everybody fined and that
it was terribly good news that we are going to double the amount
of fines. I think that most fines imposed during this pandemic
have actually been overturned. We need to treat the people of the
United Kingdom with respect, realise that they are capable of
making their own decisions and not treat them with contempt.
Lastly, after 18 months-plus of restrictions, I ask everybody in
this Chamber, and the Minister in particular: have the
restrictions worked? In May of last year, there had allegedly
been 250,000 cases; there have now been some 10 million. What did
the restrictions achieve? The vaccines have been fantastic but
the restrictions have not achieved very much, except perhaps
occasionally to slow down the spread. On that note I will sit
down, except to say to my noble friend: this is not a good
policy.
(Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I like to spend
an evening at the Royal Opera House. In fact, I have been a
couple of times in the past three weeks and noticed from where I
was sitting that enormous numbers of people were wearing
masks—including one John Major, sitting just in front of me. I
cannot see that there is any problem with sitting in the Royal
Opera House and wearing a mask. In the area where I sat, there
was very high compliance. It is not even just that there have
been these announcements. The fact is that there was an
announcement from Antonio Pappano every evening before the
performance, encouraging people to wear masks. My own view is
that it would have been much better if we had never stopped
people wearing masks. We would not then have to start every time
from a lower base to encourage people to take it up. The noble
Lord, , said that it may have
stopped transmission on some occasions. Is that not good? That is
what we want to happen.
My second point is about schools. The fact is that schools are
not generally well-ventilated buildings. My daughter is a year 4
primary schoolteacher and, for the whole of last year, she had to
teach with the windows open. This year, they have come back and
again had to do so. It is not easy for a child to learn in a very
cold classroom where they have to wear their coats, hats and
gloves. It would be so much better if we had managed to get in a
programme to bring in ventilation or some kind of air filtration
scheme. Although there was a big concern about whether young
people would be oppositional to the idea of wearing masks, people
I know who are teachers—I do know a great many of them—have found
that when you have the discussion with young people, they
absolutely understand why it is important to wear masks: it is
about protecting themselves, each other and their grandparents,
who they may see out of school.
While a great number of things have been done too slowly, the
reinstitution of wearing masks has been done in a speedy way. I
hope it will continue beyond 20 December.
(Con)
My Lords, on a personal level, I do not have a problem with
wearing a mask. I understand that the Government are in a
difficult position, because they are almost damned if they do and
damned if they do not on issues of this nature. My concern is
that we started off following the science but now seem to be
anticipating what the science might show, in the absence of
evidence that this omicron variant is any more deadly than
previous variants. We seem to be ignoring the fact that, unlike
when delta started, so much of the population is now vaccinated;
they are therefore protected. The Government should be given
enormous credit for the vaccination programme and the booster
programme.
Looking at the evidence from the delta variant, as the virus
progressed it became much more contagious, as all viruses tend
to, but it was much less deadly. The people for whom it was
particularly dangerous were those who were unvaccinated. Since we
have given everybody who could have an opportunity to be
vaccinated the chance to do so, and that some people have—for
reasons that they know best—refused to accept the vaccine, it
seems there are implications for the wider public in continuing
to try to protect those people. I recognise that there are
clinically vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated, which is
an issue in itself. But I am seriously concerned about wider
society, particularly as the self-isolation rules will not run
out until next March and have a psychologically damaging impact
on society. They frighten the public and could cause, I believe,
significantly higher numbers of deaths from loneliness, mental
ill-health and illnesses such as cancer, which the public may be
too frightened to see their doctor about, or for which GPs may
now again say that they cannot see people face to face, and
therefore miss the symptoms.
I hope that this mask-wearing SI will be lifted at the end of the
three weeks. We need to trust the public. I agree that we need to
help people understand the risks and that they need to consider
them, but it is perfectly valid for people to decide that they do
not consider the risks too large to stop them seeing friends and
family. I have significant concerns about mandating and fining
them for not doing things, when we do not have evidence to
suggest those are as damaging to the public as we previously
considered them to be.
(LD)
My Lords, I would like to make a few comments about the
mask-wearing regulations, which I strongly support while feeling
that wearing masks should never have been abandoned in England.
It is with great sadness that I have to tell the noble Lord,
, that at exactly this time
last year I attended the funeral of a friend of mine, the exact
same age as me, who died from Covid. I wonder what the families
of the over 1,000 people dying from Covid each week would think
if they were listening to our debate now.
The questions I would like to ask the Minister are primarily
about compliance and enforcement. When I got on the Tube
yesterday, it was clear to me that the message had not got across
to quite a few people. I was concerned that there was no one
standing at the Tube station to point out to people that it was
now a legal requirement and that there were no notices making it
clear that that was so, rather than a condition of passage. Those
things are different. Can the Minister please explain the
responsibilities for enforcement, particularly on public
transport, as between, for example, Transport for London staff
and the police or transport police?
It is going to be hard to get the messaging back on track after
people have been told that they did not need to wear masks; now
they are being told they need to again. There is a good reason
for it but the bit I have not heard so far in the debate today is
that mask-wearing is primarily about protecting other people.
Yes, I believe scientific evidence says that it confers a degree
of protection on the wearer but it is primarily about protecting
others—and we do not know the medical vulnerabilities and risks
of the people we sit next to, be it in this Chamber or on public
transport. That is the main reason I feel mask-wearing should
never have been abandoned.
I also want to ask the Minister about people who genuinely have
medical exemptions. Clearly, there are people who do. Yesterday
on the Tube, I was standing next to a lady who was wearing a
green lanyard and a badge; personally, I found that very helpful.
She was making it clear that she was exempt. To help with the
compliance issue at the moment, what plans might the Government
have to encourage people who are genuinely medically exempt to
have badges, lanyards or exemption cards, or something like that?
However, it was clear to me that a number of people not wearing
masks on the Tube, yesterday and today, were certainly not
genuinely exempt.
(Con)
My Lords, I will intervene briefly. I do not like retrospective
legislation, and even though these regulations have been
introduced much more quickly than some previous ones, we should
have brought them in a couple of days ago. Parliament should
approve regulations before they are issued. I do not take exactly
the same line as my noble friend Lady Altmann, although I
generally find myself in great sympathy and agreement with her,
because I think we are all tackling the unknown. Nobody knows
just how severe this new variant is or how effective the
vaccines—I am triple-jabbed—will be. We must bear that in
mind.
I make a suggestion which I made a year or more ago, which I
think has some merit. Your Lordships’ House and the other place
have found our agenda dominated to a large degree by Covid and
the various regulations that have been brought in to try to deal
with it. I suggested then, and repeat now, that we must accept
that we will be living with Covid for a very long time. I have
accepted it by coming to your Lordships’ House in person almost
throughout the whole pandemic, partly because I hate dealing with
Zoom and Microsoft Teams, but also because I like the human
contact here. I also believe that, if we are Members, we have a
certain duty to be here.
It would help enormously if we could have a Joint Committee of
both Houses sitting in almost continuous session, where we could
discuss proposals, assess evidence and not disrupt the ordinary
and important business of the House. There is a parallel, in a
way, with how waiting lists have been added to in the National
Health Service and people have been put under enormous strain
because of Covid. We would be well advised to try to have
continuous parliamentary supervision and monitoring of what the
Government propose in the light of all developments. I put that
suggestion forward once again.
I have another specific question which I would be grateful if my
noble friend would answer. I was contacted a few days ago by
someone living in south-west London who is unable to have a
vaccine for medical reasons. There are such people. He went to
inquire of his general practitioner about the medicine that is
now being developed—I am terribly sorry; I am having a senior
moment and its name escapes me as I stand before your Lordships.
My noble friend referred to it and will know what I am talking
about. The general practitioner in question had no knowledge of
it, or of where my friend could get it.
I would like an assurance from my noble friend that there is a
proper dissemination of information so that doctors who are
approached by those who cannot have the vaccine for genuine
medical reasons can be informed. I mean genuine medical reasons,
as I was one of those, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton,
knows, who called time and again for compulsory vaccination of
those working in care homes. She is kindly nodding approval. I
felt the same about those working in the National Health Service.
Those who are in contact with the most vulnerable should be
obliged to have protection.
18:15:00
We must all be understanding of the repeated dilemmas facing the
Government. We all have cause to be enormously grateful and
appreciative for the rollout of the vaccine. It is very important
that we heed the words of and do all we can to get the
vaccine around the world, because in protecting others we are
protecting ourselves. I would value my noble friend’s reaction to
or consideration of the creation of some form of continuous
parliamentary monitor. It is not just retrospective legislation
that concerns me, but the fact that on 21 December both Houses
will have risen and the Government will make an arbitrary
decision. I would rather they had this particular protection in
force until we come back. Something must be done to ensure that
the Government are more answerable to Parliament than they have
been.
(GP)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, importantly said
that the pandemic is not over. I think sometimes, listening to
your Lordships’ House, that some people have not accepted that.
Your Lordships’ House, based on its loudest voices, also appeared
to have decided to act as though it has not in the procedural
decision we made earlier.
On the mask-wearing regulations, I go back to Monday’s repeated
Statement on Covid. At the time, on Twitter the hashtag
“COVIDisAirborne” was trending. As far as I could trace through
the mysteries of Twitter, one of its origins was Dr Kimberly
Prather, chair of atmospheric chemistry at the National Academy
of Sciences in the US. I would like an assurance from the
Minister that the Government understand that fact, as expressed
by that hashtag. A number of contributors to these debates have
indicated this, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and
others addressing ventilation in schools, and both Front-Bench
speakers.
Why does the mask mandate not cover cinemas and theatres? In his
response on Monday’s Statement, the Minister said that it does
not apply in hospitality venues, restaurants and pubs because
people eat and drink there, so they are taking their masks on and
off. That surely does not apply to cinemas and theatres. I still
do not believe we have heard from the Minister the reason why it
does not apply to those two places, with their obvious general
lack of ventilation and the fact that people sit together for
hours. Maybe they are spaced out; I have heard Members of your
Lordships’ House make the point that, “It’s all right, I am
sitting away from people”. Covid is airborne. It circulates in
the air. I would love the Minister to clearly acknowledge that
fact, because I do not think the Government are acting as if they
do.
Also on these regulations, why do we not have a “work from home
if possible” ruling in the current state of considerable
uncertainty? Many have been doing it over many months; they are
set up for it; it is perfectly possible; it reduces the risk and
danger at a point when we really do not know how great it might
be.
Finally, there have been many points in this debate I might have
liked to respond to, but I will pick up just one. I ask the
Minister to acknowledge how much we now rely on medical and
social science experts, many of whom have worked for many hours
and months above and beyond the call of duty. Will he join me in
regretting that Members of your Lordships’ House should choose to
attack individual experts who choose to contribute to public life
and exercise their right to engage in political debate, and
acknowledge that that is not an appropriate way to treat people
contributing to public life?
Noble Lords
You’re on!
(Con)
I apologise to noble Lords— I was looking forward to so many more
contributions. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for enjoying
the debate rather too much. I apologise to my noble friend , who has been waiting for
ages, and to my noble friend behind me who says he has to go to
the theatre. I hope he will wear his mask when he goes to the
theatre.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s
debate. What is really important and what it shows is that we are
still debating issues and contesting the science. Clearly there
is a range of views across the House on the issues raised. There
is no consensus on this. That is really interesting in the way it
shows that we can debate these issues and question the
statistics. I will turn to some of the points noble Lords made,
particularly about some of the statistics but also on the
regulations.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not answer every
single question and refer to every single noble Lord who asked
them—unless noble Lords want to stay here a bit longer and my
noble friend can go and have another
teacake or something while he is waiting.
(Con)
That’s a bit much!
(Con)
Sorry, was that offensive? I apologise for any offence caused to
my noble friend. I just assumed that because I like teacakes, my
noble friend also does.
I will start with some of the questions. On the question of how
many people have been helped by some of these financial services,
as of 17 November 2021, local authorities have reported 362,573
successful claims since the start of the scheme, totalling £181
million in test and trace support systems.
Despite the easing of the restrictions at step 4 of the road map,
the Government have continued to recommend that face coverings
are worn in crowded and enclosed spaces. We accept that there is
wide support for reintroducing mandatory face coverings, but we
have always tried to balance these issues. As I said in previous
debates, we look at a number of factors, not only medical but
economic and social. Also, within health itself, many mental
health experts are very concerned that we might go for more
lockdowns and about some of the measures that a number of noble
Lords have mentioned.
As we saw in the debate, there are noble Lords who believe that
we have gone too far and noble Lords who feel that we have not
gone far enough unless we effectively enter a second lockdown.
That shows the range of views here and the difficulty, as my
noble friend, Lady Altmann, said, that the Government are damned
if they do, damned if they do not, but we accept that.
So, do face masks actually work? This is where there is still a
debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for pointing out the
article by Professor Simon Wood, who is professor of statistics
at the University of Edinburgh, in which he analysed the BMJ
paper. It is in effect a meta-analysis. A number of newspapers
have taken a line saying that wearing a mask cuts Covid by 53%. I
encourage noble Lords to read the article, in which he takes
apart the statistics as a statistician and looks at, as those who
have done statistics will understand, whether we have a
significant number of samples to make it statistically sound. In
addition, Professor Naismith of Oxford University has been quoted
as saying that
“the Scottish and English approach to masking, although formally
different since July, has made no meaningful difference to
delta.”
Once again we see that there is a whole range of views, but we
have listened to those views. Because we do not yet know enough
about this variant, we will continue to review the data. For
example, some say that it is very mild in South Africa so we
should not be overly concerned about it, but we also have to
remember that South Africa has a different demographic in terms
of younger people. We know that when the virus first struck it
disproportionately affected older people—as my noble friend
said, people aged over 85. On
the balance of the data at the moment, we believe that wearing
face masks works but we have always been very careful to make
sure that it is proportionate where we do it.
On the expiry of some of these measures, as the Prime Minister
said on Saturday, all the provisions that have been voted on will
be reviewed in three weeks. They are necessary and proportionate
while we learn more. I refer to the economics Nobel laureate
Friedrich Hayek, who talked about humans having limited
knowledge. He talked about the conceit of knowledge. The way to
understand a lot of complex problems is to allow the discovery
process to take hold and to look at what we can learn from that
process. We should be very careful not to imagine that we have
total knowledge. What we have to do is assess it
proportionately.
It is our hope that these regulations will no longer be necessary
in three weeks’ time and that we can return to the system that we
lived under last week, but in the event that we need more time to
understand the effect of the variant, or that the data shows that
we need to take a different approach that requires new
regulations, the House will return to Parliament ahead of the
Christmas Recess for a debate and vote on the regulations ahead
of their coming into force.
On regulations expiring, the international travel regulations
will expire at the end of 16 May 2022. The face covering
regulations will expire, unless extended, at the end of 20
December 2021. The self-isolation regulations at the moment
expire at the end of 24 March 2022, but we will continue to
review the data. Almost daily the data is being reviewed and
conversations are going on. We will also continue to review the
data on the new variant and we hope to update Parliament on the
review in the week commencing 13 December.
A number of noble Lords asked about facilities. We are told that
setting up dedicated testing facilities at border entry points
such as airports is logistically difficult at the moment, and
risks delays to passenger journeys and operations. Given the
turnaround for a PCR test, passengers would still have to travel
to their home or the place they are staying and isolate there
before receiving a result. The Government are taking a measured
and proportionate response. We want to try to protect the UK from
omicron while allowing continued safe travel.
A number of references were made to points made by Dr Jenny
Harries. As the Prime Minster said, the guidance remains the same
as the measures that were in place to fight delta. We have now
brought in tougher measures, but we continue to take advice from
a number of experts. Individual experts are free to give their
viewpoint but we look at the balance—some of it medical, some of
it clinical, but also economic and social factors—and getting
that proportionate.
(Lab)
I need to ask the Minister about the fact that our most senior
adviser on these matters gave advice that was then completely
denied by No. 10 and the Government. That will at least cause
confusion. It is not a question of balancing this and that; Jenny
Harries was very clear in her advice about what she thought
should happen. It was quite the opposite to what the Prime
Minister said should happen. The Minister needs to acknowledge
that that will cause confusion.
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising the point, but it depends
on how it is reported. The real issue here is that a number of
different experts are advising. Of course, you can pick and
choose which expert you decide to listen to. A few weeks ago,
noble Lords were picking up on comments made by the NHS
Confederation. That is not a scientific body, but noble Lords
claimed that it showed that we need to lock down. It is very easy
to pick and choose your experts, but we continue to listen to a
wide range of experts.
One of the great things about science that we should remember is
that there is no such thing as “the science says”. Science should
remain contestable. Can you imagine if science was not
contestable? We would still be saying, “You can’t challenge the
notion that the solar system revolves around the earth.”
Scientists challenged that, and that is how we advance knowledge.
It is really important that we continue to contest. Scepticism is
one of the most important factors in science to make sure we make
progress. We will listen to a range of experts.
I ask those noble Lords who really want to lock down more, and
who say that we not only have not done enough but should do more
and lock people down, to look at the impact that has on people’s
mental health and on our economy. I ask them to think about the
wider impact and to remember that we are not in the same place we
were a year ago. We have been absolutely clear that vaccines work
and that the best thing we can do to get through this is to get
vaccinated. It is not too late to get your first or second
vaccine. I am grateful to noble Lords who have asked
questions—
(Lab)
The Minister is now saying that there is absolutely no doubt
about the science behind vaccinations. That is not a matter of
opinion; there is no doubt about the need for vaccinations. He is
straying into dangerous territory when he says that there is
science on this side and science on that, because the Government
have rightly said that vaccination is the way forward.
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for agreeing with the Government’s
line that vaccination is the most important way forward.
18:30:00
(Lab)
The Minister is being patronising. We have
always—always—supported the Government on vaccination; I am sorry
that the Minister feels he needs to be sarcastic about that.
(Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness if I came across as
sarcastic.
In terms of hospitality settings, quite rightly, as a number of
noble Lords have said, even though we have mandated it in certain
settings, it is being left to settings to decide. This is in line
with property rights, but also something that people have been
asking for—a number of noble Lords have asked “Why not just let
the establishments themselves decide, so people can make a
decision whether they go to somewhere where masks are mandated or
somewhere where they are not mandated?” We are looking really
hard at this and we want to make sure that we are proportionate.
It could be that we find out that omicron is not that dangerous,
but we have to make sure that we have the data and that we
sequence it all. It could be that it affects us more in the UK
that it would in South Africa because of the change in
demographics. That is a really important point.
In terms of who is responsible for enforcement, the police and
Transport for London officers have powers to issue fixed penalty
notices for non-compliance with the regulations. They are using
the four E’s in a proportionate way: engaging, explaining and
encouraging before enforcement, just to remind people, if they
can, to make sure that they wear a face mask.
The Health Secretary has also asked the JCVI to consider giving
boosters to as wide a range of people as possible. If you are
boosted, your response is likely to be stronger, so it is more
vital than ever that we get our jabs.
On helping the rest of the world, the UK remains committed to
donating 100 million doses by mid-2022. We are also extremely
grateful to the South African Government; we have been talking to
a number of partners, including South Africa directly, to make
sure that we do not disincentivise other countries for doing the
right thing by reporting the outbreak in the first place. We are
doing all that we can.
I am trying to make sure that I answer all the questions; I
apologise if I am not able to. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe
asked about exemptions for children under the age of 11 and those
unable to wear a face covering due to health, age, equality or
disability reasons. In terms of the impact to the economy, we do
not know the extent to which the variant escapes the vaccine, but
as soon as we do, we will be able to make a better measure. We do
not at the moment expect there to be significant economic
disruption. We have said that we believe face coverings are
effective at reducing transmission indoors. The recent UKHSA
study suggests that all types of face coverings are, to some
extent, effective, but we also welcome challenges to that data.
The advice remains the same: we believe that, on balance, it is
better to wear a face mask. Many noble Lords have agreed and
disagreed with that, but we have to balance these things.
Proportionate measures remain in place in schools. Face coverings
should now be worn in communal areas by older students and
teachers. The Department for Education is looking at how we make
sure that there are clear guidelines on that. We advise staff,
visitors and pupils to wear face coverings in communal areas.
I turn to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and that
very personal case; it highlights—this should sober us up—those
very powerful words that this is not over. We have said that
consistently. It is not over. If we believed it was over, we
would have removed all restrictions. It is highly likely, but not
definite, that we may have to continue to get boosters. Just as
we have an annual flu vaccine, we may in the future end up with
an annual Covid vaccine, including looking at other strains.
We have said who is responsible. In answer to a point made by my
noble friend , may I suggest that he takes
his point about continuous committees up with the Lord Speaker?
That is not really in my remit as Minister for Health. My initial
reaction is that it seems a good idea, but let us see what the
Lord Speaker says.
I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions and for
continuing to challenge. That is really important. I can assure
my noble friend that today I asked my
department for a list of potential or forthcoming regulations so
that we can lay them as early as possible, as my noble friend and
other noble Lords suggested. I am grateful for the
acknowledgement that we laid these regulations as quickly as we
could, and I pledge that we will try to improve that as much as
we can, I too, believe very strongly in procedure and the
Government and the Executive being held to account. It is really
important.
(Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, I thank him for mentioning the
economy. His assessment is that the impact on the economy should
not be great, but of course there has already been an impact on
the economy from this new strain. I think I mentioned in
particular the transport industry, which has been affected. Would
he be able to come back to me on this business of economic
assessment—in fact, not only economic, as I am also worried about
the impact of the measures being taken on things like cancer
deaths. There is no time to discuss that now, but I would really
like to have a further discussion, perhaps bilaterally. We will
of course have my noble friend Lady’s Noakes’s regret amendment
in due course, but that may be months away. It really is very
important to understand the implications of what we are doing. We
are doing it for the right reason, but it has a wider impact.
(Con)
My noble friend raises an important point. We also have to clear
about unintended consequences and the costs of what we have been
doing. I read an interesting article from the leading behavioural
economist Paul Ormerod, who asked where have all the economists
been when it came to this debate, as economics is about
considering trade-offs.
I again thank the Government of South Africa for their rapid
identification of the variant and their transparency in alerting
the global community. I commend our scientific and public health
experts who continue to monitor the situation closely alongside
our scientific and public health partnership organisations across
the world. We are continuing to collaborate in order to
understand the virus, including the data and the different
demographics that our countries have and whether a study in one
place is relevant to a study in another place.
I also thank the House for its valuable scrutiny today. The
Government hope that the temporary and precautionary measures
laid in these regulations will enable us to slow down the spread
of the omicron variant while we gather more information on how
best to deal with it and how infectious it is. The Secretary of
State assured Members in the other place that if it emerges that
the omicron variant is no more dangerous than the delta variant,
we will not keep these measures in place for a day longer than is
necessary. I hope that that is the case, but we must take
precautions and act decisively until we have a fuller
understanding of the omicron variant. I commend these regulations
to the House.
(GP)
Before the Minister sits down—
Noble Lords
He has sat down.
Motion agreed.
|
