The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) With permission, Mr Speaker, I
will make a statement on our strategy for living with covid. Before
I begin, I know the whole House will join me in sending our best
wishes to Her Majesty the Queen for a full and swift recovery. It
is a reminder that this virus has not gone away but, because of the
efforts we have made as a country over the past two years, we can
now deal with it in a very different way by moving from
Government...Request free trial
The Prime Minister ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on our
strategy for living with covid. Before I begin, I know the whole
House will join me in sending our best wishes to Her Majesty the
Queen for a full and swift recovery.
It is a reminder that this virus has not gone away but, because
of the efforts we have made as a country over the past two years,
we can now deal with it in a very different way by moving from
Government restrictions to personal responsibility, so that we
protect ourselves without losing our liberties, and by
maintaining our contingency capabilities so that we can respond
rapidly to any new variant.
The UK was the first country in the world to administer an
approved vaccine, and the first European nation to protect half
its population with at least one dose. Having made the decision
to refocus our NHS this winter on the campaign to get boosted
now, we were the first major European nation to boost half our
population, too. And it is because of the extraordinary success
of this vaccination programme that we have been able to lift our
restrictions earlier than other comparable countries—opening up
last summer while others remained closed, and keeping things open
this winter when others shut down again—making us one of the most
open economies and societies in Europe, with the fastest growth
anywhere in the G7 last year.
While the pandemic is not over, we have now passed the peak of
the omicron wave, with cases falling, hospitalisations in England
now fewer than 10,000 and still falling, and the link between
infection and severe disease substantially weakened. Over 71% of
all adults in England are now boosted, including 93% of those
aged 70 or over. Together with the treatments and scientific
understanding of the virus we have built up, we now have
sufficient levels of immunity to complete the transition from
protecting people with Government interventions to relying on
vaccines and treatments as our first line of defence.
As we have throughout the past two years, we will continue to
work closely with the devolved Administrations as they decide how
to take forward their own plans. Today’s strategy shows how we
will structure our approach in England around four principles.
First, we will remove all remaining domestic restrictions in law.
From this Thursday, 24 February, we will end the legal
requirement to self-isolate following a positive test, and so we
will also end self-isolation support payments, although covid
provisions for statutory sick pay can still be claimed for a
further month. We will end routine contact tracing, and no longer
ask fully vaccinated close contacts and those under 18 to test
daily for seven days. We will also remove the legal requirement
for close contacts who are not fully vaccinated to self-isolate.
Until 1 April, we will still advise people who test positive to
stay at home, but after that we will encourage people with
covid-19 symptoms to exercise personal responsibility, just as we
encourage people who may have flu to be considerate to
others.
It is only because levels of immunity are so high and deaths are
now, if anything, below where we would normally expect for this
time of year that we can lift these restrictions. And it is only
because we know omicron is less severe that testing for omicron
on the colossal scale we have been doing is much less important
and much less valuable in preventing serious illness. We should
be proud that the UK has established the biggest testing
programme per person of any large country in the world. This came
at vast cost. The testing, tracing and isolation budget in
2020-21 exceeded the entire budget of the Home Office; it cost a
further £15.7 billion in this financial year, and £2 billion in
January alone, at the height of the omicron wave. We must now
scale this back.
From today, we are removing the guidance for staff and students
in most education and childcare settings to undertake
twice-weekly asymptomatic testing. And from 1 April, when winter
is over and the virus will spread less easily, we will end free
symptomatic and asymptomatic testing for the general public. We
will continue to provide free symptomatic tests to the oldest age
groups and those most vulnerable to covid. And in line with the
practice in many other countries, we are working with retailers
to ensure that everyone who wants to can buy a test. From 1
April, we will also no longer recommend the use of voluntary
covid-status certification, although the NHS app will continue to
allow people to indicate their vaccination status for
international travel. The Government will also expire all
temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020. Of the original
40, 20 have already expired and 16 will expire on 24 March. The
last four, relating to innovations in public service, will expire
six months later, after we have made those improvements permanent
via other means.
Secondly, we will continue to protect the most vulnerable with
targeted vaccines and treatments. The UK Government have procured
enough doses of vaccine to anticipate a wide range of possible
Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommendations.
Today, we are taking further action to guard against a possible
resurgence of the virus, accepting JCVI advice for a new spring
booster offered to those aged 75 and over, to older care home
residents, and to those over 12 who are immunosuppressed. The UK
is also leading the way on antivirals and therapeutics, with our
Antivirals Taskforce securing a supply of almost 5 million, which
is more per head than any other country in Europe.
Thirdly, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies advises
that there is considerable uncertainty about the future path of
the pandemic, and there may of course be significant resurgences.
SAGE is certain that there will be new variants, and it is very
possible that those will be worse than omicron. So we will
maintain our resilience to manage and respond to those risks,
including our world-leading Office for National Statistics
survey, which will allow us to continue tracking the virus in
granular detail, with regional and age breakdowns helping us to
spot surges as and where they happen. And our laboratory networks
will help us understand the evolution of the virus and identify
any changes in characteristics.
We will prepare and maintain our capabilities to ramp up testing.
We will continue to support other countries in developing their
own surveillance capabilities, because a new variant can emerge
anywhere. We will meet our commitment to donate 100 million
vaccine doses by June, as our part of the agreement at the UK’s
G7 summit to provide a billion doses to vaccinate the world over
the next year. In all circumstances, our aim will be to manage
and respond to future risks through more routine public health
interventions, with pharmaceutical interventions as the first
line of defence.
Fourthly, we will build on the innovation that has defined the
best of our response to the pandemic. The vaccines taskforce will
continue to ensure that the UK has access to effective vaccines
as they become available, and has already secured contracts with
manufacturers trialling bi-valent vaccines, which would provide
protection against covid variants. The therapeutics taskforce
will continue to support seven national priority clinical trial
platforms focused on prevention, novel treatments and treatments
for long-covid. We are refreshing our biosecurity strategy to
protect the UK against natural zoonosis and accidental laboratory
leaks, as well as the potential for biological threats emanating
from state and non-state actors.
Building on the five-point plan that I set out at the UN and the
agreements reached at the UK’s G7 last year, we are working with
our international partners on future pandemic preparedness,
including through a new pandemic treaty; an effective early
warning system or global pandemic radar; and a mission to make
safe and effective diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines
available within the first 100 days of a future pandemic threat
being identified. We will host a global pandemic preparedness
summit next month.
Covid will not suddenly disappear, so those who would wait for a
total end to this war before lifting the remaining regulations
would be restricting the liberties of the British people for a
long time to come. This Government do not believe that that is
right or necessary. Restrictions take a heavy toll on our
economy, our society, our mental wellbeing and the life chances
of our children, and we do not need to pay that cost any longer.
We have a population that is protected by the biggest vaccination
programme in our history; we have the antivirals, the treatments
and the scientific understanding of this virus; and we have the
capabilities to respond rapidly to any resurgence or new
variant.
It is time that we got our confidence back. We do not need laws
to compel people to be considerate to others. We can rely on our
sense of responsibility towards one another, providing practical
advice in the knowledge that people will follow it to avoid
infecting loved ones and others. So let us learn to live with
this virus and continue protecting ourselves without restricting
our freedoms. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the
House.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
indicated dissent.
[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Mr Sheerman, please!
The statement was important and the Prime Minister ran over time,
so I am more than happy for the Opposition leaders to run over as
well.
4.48pm
(Holborn and St Pancras)
(Lab)
May I start by sending my condolences to the family of ? Christopher was a
dedicated servant of the people of South Belfast and his loss
will be deeply felt.
I also send our best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen; as the
Prime Minister said, the whole House wishes her a speedy
recovery.
I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of his statement
and for the briefing earlier this afternoon.
Huge efforts have been made over the past two years and we would
not be where we are today without the heroism of our NHS and key
workers, without those who pioneered and rolled out the vaccines
and without the sacrifices that people made every day to follow
the rules and protect our public health. We must honour the
collective sacrifices of the British people and do everything
possible to prevent a return to the loss and lockdowns that we
have seen over the past two years.
The Prime Minister promised to present a plan for living with
covid, but all we have today is yet more chaos and disarray: not
enough to prepare us for the new variants that may yet develop
and an approach that seems to think that living with covid means
simply ignoring it. This morning, he could not even persuade his
own Health Secretary to agree to the plan, so what confidence can
the public have that this is the right approach?
Let me be clear: the Labour party does not want to see
restrictions in place for a moment longer than
necessary—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, we have to take the public
with us, and that requires clarity—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I call on Members to show some respect. Just as I expect
the Prime Minister to be heard in silence, so, too, should the
Leader of the Opposition. If you do not wish to be in here, there
is plenty of room outside this Chamber. I suggest that you start
using it, and I will be helping you on your way. Let us have
silence.
We have to take the public with us, and that requires clarity
about why decisions are being made. Will the Prime Minister
publish the scientific evidence behind his decision to remove the
legal requirement to self-isolate, including the impact on the
clinically extremely vulnerable for whom lockdown has never
ended?
Having come this far, I know that the British people will
continue to act responsibly and that they will do the right
thing: testing and then isolating if positive. What I cannot
understand is why the Prime Minister is taking away the tools
that will help them to do that. Free tests cannot continue
forever, but if you are 2-1 up with 10 minutes to go, you do not
sub off one of your best defenders.
The Prime Minister is also removing self-isolation support
payments, which allow many people to isolate, and weakening sick
pay. These are decisions that will hit the lowest paid and the
most insecure workers the hardest, including care workers, who
got us through the toughest parts of the pandemic. It is all very
well advising workers to self-isolate, but that will not work
unless all workers have the security of knowing that they can
afford to do so.
The Prime Minister mentioned surveillance and the ONS infection
survey. This is crucial to ensuring that we can ramp up testing
and vaccination if the virus returns, so can the Prime Minister
confirm that he has put the funding in place to ensure that the
ONS infection survey will not see reduced capacity and that it
will be able to track the virus with the same degree of detail as
it can today? We cannot turn off Britain’s radar before the war
is won. “Ignorance is bliss” is not a responsible approach to a
deadly virus. It actually risks undoing all the hard-won progress
that the British people have achieved over the last two
years.
The Labour party has published a comprehensive plan for living
well with covid. Our plan would see us learn the lessons of the
past two years and be prepared for new variants. The Prime
Minister’s approach will leave us vulnerable. Where is the plan
to secure the UK’s supply of testing? Why are schools still not
properly ventilated? There is no doubt that, as a nation, we need
to move on from covid. People need to know that their liberties
are returning and returning for good, but this is a half-baked
announcement from a Government paralysed by chaos and
incompetence. It is not a plan to live well with covid.
The Prime Minister
I really thought that this would be the moment when the Leader of
the Opposition ended his run of making the wrong call on every
single one of the big decisions. Time and again, he has had the
chance to back the Government on the big decisions, but, I am
afraid, he has got it wrong.
Let me turn to some of the points that the Leader of the
Opposition has made. The scientific evidence for what we are
doing today is amply there in the figures for the rates of
infection that I have outlined today and in all the data that is
freely available to Members of the House. Members can see what is
happening with infection rates, with mortality and with what
omicron is doing across the country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the clinically
extremely vulnerable, which is, of course, an entirely reasonable
question. What we will do is make sure that they continue to be
protected with priority access to therapeutics and to
vaccines.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asks about testing,
which is absolutely satirical because week after week, month
after month, I have listened to the Labour party complaining
about NHS test and trace, denouncing the cost—did you not hear
them, Mr Speaker?—of NHS test and trace. Now they want to
continue with it when we do not need to go on with it in the way
we currently are.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about our domestic
ability to manufacture tests, as though he does not know that we
have in this country now one of the biggest manufacturers of
lateral flow tests in Europe. This is a Leader of the Opposition
who, as I say, has shown an absolutely ferocious grip of the
wrong end of the stick. He never ceases to amaze. He was totally
wrong on 19 July, when he said we should not open up on 19 July.
The Labour party said we needed a roadmap back into lockdown
during December. The Labour party wanted—the right hon. and
learned Gentleman voted for it several times—to stay in the
European Medicines Agency. Contrary to his denials in this House,
he voted several times to do so. He has been consistently wrong
on all the big calls. He was wrong then; he is wrong now. We are
moving forward in a balanced, sensible and proportionate way,
moving away from legal compulsion in a way that I think the
British people understand, and trusting in them and in their
great sense of personal responsibility.
(South West Surrey) (Con)
I support today’s announcement, which is a tribute to British
science and to the Government’s leadership in the vaccine
programme. Does the Prime Minister agree that when it comes to
future pandemics, the real danger zone is those early months when
we do not have a vaccine against a new virus and that, in that
context, it is about not just whether the NHS can cope, but
whether the NHS can cope without switching off other vital,
life-saving treatments? If he does agree, it is not enough just
to say that we have more doctors and nurses than we had before;
we must also ensure we have enough doctors for the future. If he
has plans for that, will he please tell the House how he will
make sure that we are training enough of them?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend returns to a theme he has mentioned several
times. We have a vast plan to recruit more nurses and more
doctors than ever before, and there already are more in the NHS
than at any time in our history. We have 45,000 more healthcare
professionals this year than there were last year, and we will
continue to fund them.
(Ross, Skye and Lochaber)
(SNP)
This statement was billed as the Prime Minister’s moment of
pride, but it is clear that this morning was a moment of panic
for this Government. Disagreement across Whitehall and the lack
of any serious engagement with the devolved nations show that
these decisions are bereft of science or consultation. It appears
that these dangerous choices are purely political and have been
made up on the hoof—another symptom of a Government in
turmoil.
The illogical reality of UK finance means that these decisions,
made for England by a failing Prime Minister, affect the money
the devolved nations have to provide testing. It is unacceptable
that the ability to protect—[Interruption.] I hear “Money!”, but
we are talking about protecting the people of Scotland, something
that this Prime Minister is turning his back on. It is
unacceptable that the ability to protect our population can be
imperilled on the basis of a political decision taken by a Prime
Minister in crisis. His decisions directly affect whether
Scotland has the funding required to keep its people safe. That
is the ridiculous reality of devolution, but it is a reality that
must be addressed.
Will the Prime Minister now confirm what the residual funding for
testing will be, to enable the Scottish Government to pick up the
pieces of this chaotic withdrawal of support? It makes the case
for Scotland to take the necessary measures to keep our people
safe. We need the financial ability to make our own choices, and
that only comes with independence. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I will also hear the right hon. Gentleman in silence. I do not
need the barracking. He certainly does not need it and I do not
need it.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
PCR testing, the legal requirement to self-isolate and access to
lateral flow testing have been instrumental in containing the
virus. As we move forward to live with covid, these are the very
safeguards that support a return to normal life. These
short-sighted decisions have long-term implications. They also
hamper vital surveillance efforts and impede the ability to
respond to new variants. The reality is that we have a Prime
Minister beset by chaos and mired in a police investigation for
breaking his own covid laws.
The Prime Minister
indicated dissent.
He can shake his head, but that is the reality—a Prime Minister
who has no moral authority to lead and is desperately seeking to
appease his Back Benchers. We know that this reckless statement
flies in the face of advice from scientists at the World Health
Organisation. That is because this statement is not about
protecting the public; it is about the Prime Minister scrambling
to save his own skin.
The Prime Minister
Well, you would not believe it from what the right hon. Gentleman
has just said, but the co-operation between the UK Government and
the Scottish authorities has been outstanding and will continue
to be outstanding. He asked about free tests and how they are to
be paid for. This is very important. The free tests will of
course continue until the beginning of April. Of course, if
people want to, they can continue beyond then. I have set out for
the House the reasons why we think it is much more sensible to
focus on surveillance and spotting new variants, and to put our
investment into that rather than mass testing. He has access to
the £41 billion record settlement that he has under Barnett. He
also has access to hundreds of millions from the health and care
levy—the only astonishing thing is that he voted against it.
(Altrincham and Sale West)
(Con)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. He will be aware
of growing international evidence that lockdowns have been
largely ineffective in preventing covid mortality, and we are
acutely aware of the massive damage that lockdowns have done
economically and to the non-covid health of people. Will he
review pandemic planning for the future to make sure that these
crucial lessons are learned?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to all sorts of
studies about the efficacy of lockdowns. We will look at all the
evidence. I happen to think that the collective actions of the
British public were indispensable in saving many, many thousands
of lives. But I am sure that all the evidence will be looked at
in the course of the inquiry.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
New antiviral drugs have made a huge difference to the treatment
of covid—they are indeed, as the Prime Minister says, the first
line of defence—but they work best when given early. At the
moment, one of the requirements in order to qualify to get an
antiviral drug is that the person has tested positive for covid.
If he is going to get rid of free lateral flow tests, how are
people going to get access to those medicines?
The Prime Minister
With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, people who are
symptomatic will of course continue to have access to
testing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Let us have birthday person .
(Hyndburn) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Our historic vaccine programme is the reason that we are in this
position today. I want to take this opportunity to thank
everybody involved in Hyndburn and Haslingden for the roll-out of
the vaccination programme, and those who have had to deal with
the restrictions for longer than most. Does the Prime Minister
agree that this is exactly why we must learn to live with the
virus, because of how damaging restrictions can be to mental
health and wellbeing?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to set all these
things—the cost of lockdowns, and the cost in terms of people’s
mental health and wellbeing—against the difficult decisions we
have to make about opening up our society, and I think the House
understands that this is a balanced decision that is entirely
right.
I should just clarify to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central
() that those who are vulnerable
who are symptomatic will of course continue to have access to
testing. I should have said that in my answer to his
question.
(Worsley and Eccles South)
(Lab)
In a recent survey, a majority of NHS leaders agreed that it was
not the right time to end free testing for the public. Why does
the Prime Minister disagree with them, and what scientific advice
has he considered to come to this decision, which could have a
real impact on the NHS elective recovery plan?
The Prime Minister
I hear the anxieties of people, but I have to say that I think
this is the balanced and the right decision. On testing, I just
remind the hon. Lady of what those on the Opposition Benches have
previously said about the cost of testing. We now think that the
best thing, given the severity of omicron, is to focus on
surveillance and to use the huge funds that we are currently
dedicating to mass testing on electives and all the other things
that we need to do.
(Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Sir Andrew Pollard of the Oxford Vaccine Group said this morning
that it does not make a big difference whether the decision to
lift these restrictions is taken now or in a few weeks’ time. It
is therefore not clear what the purpose of waiting any longer
would be. However, one of the things we do know is that we
sometimes did not have the necessary testing capacity when we
needed it most acutely. If the ongoing surveillance were to throw
up a variant that was more dangerous than omicron, how quickly
could we stand up and deploy mass testing again?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly the right question. That is why we are putting so
much emphasis on surveillance—on the Office for National
Statistics, with its amazing granular ability to detect what is
going on in local areas, as well as other forms of surveillance.
We want to spot the new variant of concern as soon as we can, and
then we want to surge our testing capacity in the way we did
before—indeed much faster, since it is all ready to go. We will
have stockpiles, we will keep our labs in readiness and we will
be able to surge when necessary. But from April it will not be
the right time to continue with mass testing in the way we
have.
(Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in sending our very best wishes to Her
Majesty the Queen and in hoping that she gets well soon.
Millions of family carers across our country are taking regular
lateral flow tests to ensure that they do not pass covid to their
vulnerable loved ones. The Prime Minister now says that these
family carers must pay for covid tests out of their own pocket,
even though many of them can hardly make ends meet at the moment.
Is he really telling people that they must choose between money
for the weekly shop or a test so that they do not accidentally
take this contagious virus into their loved ones’ homes? Surely
such a tax on caring would be unfair and unjust?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need
to protect care homes and those who work in care homes. He should
wait until March, when we will be setting out in more detail
those who will continue to be entitled to free tests.
Mr Speaker
The man for the rules—Matt Hancock.
(West Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Almost two years ago now this
House voted unanimously on the statutory measures necessary to
keep people safe during the pandemic. I agree with the Prime
Minister that, thanks to the vaccines, those measures are no
longer necessary and we are the first major country in the world
to be past the pandemic. However, is it not extraordinary that,
despite the consensus on restrictions back then, the consensus on
giving people back their freedom, which is often so much harder,
and on trusting in personal responsibility appears to exist only
on the Government side of the House?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and it is a great shame that the Opposition cannot find it
in themselves to support what I think is a balanced and
proportionate approach that recognises that covid has not gone
away and that we cannot throw caution to the winds.
(Exeter) (Lab)
Given everything else the Prime Minister has said this afternoon,
why is he keeping the bureaucratic and irritating passenger
locator form when the rest of Europe can already travel freely by
showing a vaccine certificate?
The Prime Minister
That is a welcome call for liberty from the Opposition Benches. I
can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we already have one of the
most open travel systems in the world. I understand his grievance
against the passenger locator form, and we will certainly review
it by Easter.
(Wokingham) (Con)
It is great news that our freedoms are being restored, so will
the Prime Minister now bring the same focus and Government
innovation shown on this topic to vanquish the cost of living
crisis so that more people have enough money to enjoy the
freedoms?
The Prime Minister
You bet!
(Lewisham, Deptford)
(Lab)
We do not know how well the vaccine works on immuno-compromised
people, and they and their loved ones will rightly be extremely
worried. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central
() said, delays in getting test
results are delaying access to lifesaving antivirals, so can we
allow the immunocompromised to have a supply of antivirals at
home? If pharmaceutical interventions save lives, let us ensure
that people can access them as soon as possible.
The Prime Minister
We have already secured more antivirals and therapeutics per head
than any other country in Europe. We need to ensure that the
clinically extremely vulnerable have access to them, and 1.3
million of them have already been sent tests.
(Scunthorpe) (Con)
While the threat from covid has changed—thanks in no small part
to the outstanding vaccination efforts led by my right hon.
Friend the Prime Minister—he will know that the effects on local
hospitals will last for years to come. Does he agree that now is
the right time to invest in upgrades to hospitals such as
Scunthorpe’s?
The Prime Minister
Now is exactly the right time to invest in hospitals such as
Scunthorpe’s and across the country. I cannot commit to the
particular project that my hon. Friend describes, but that is the
kind of project, 48 of which we are progressing across the
country.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the lifting of restrictions and hope that the Prime
Minister will engage with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland
to ensure that the same measures are exercised there. The Prime
Minister said that it is important that we get our confidence
back, but we have lived through two years of fear being instilled
in the population. What nudge tactics does the Prime Minister now
intend to use to ensure that confidence is restored and that
people can get back to work, back into shops and restaurants, and
back doing the things that make life enjoyable?
The Prime Minister
I begin by echoing the condolences for the DUP MLA .
I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. We do
need people to get their confidence back, as I said the other
day. People can set an example—[Interruption.] The Opposition
Front Bench should wait and see. People can set an example by
going to work.
(Haltemprice and Howden)
(Con)
May I cheer up the Prime Minister by welcoming what he has to say
today? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The Leader of the
Opposition’s comment that the Government had no plan to deal with
this was destroyed by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central
(), who pointed out that
antiviral therapeutics are incredibly effective—95%
effective—against this disease. Can the Prime Minister confirm
that we already have 2.75 million courses of such therapeutics
available to us?
The Prime Minister
No, I cannot confirm that, but I can tell my right hon. Friend
that we have twice that amount. We have 4.9 million doses.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
Living with covid does not mean ignoring it, and the Prime
Minister will be aware that lifting restrictions today flies in
the face of advice from many NHS leaders and health experts,
including the British Medical Association and the World Health
Organisation. Saying that everyone should take personal
responsibility, while at the same time taking away their means of
taking that personal responsibility, is utterly perverse. What
would he say to those of my constituents who are clinically
extremely vulnerable, for whom his freedom day is a day of
profound fear and loss of freedom? Will he clarify his response
to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (), because the issue is free testing for not just people
in care homes, but, at the very least, the almost 7 million
carers up and down the country?
The Prime Minister
On that, the hon. Member should wait, as I said to the right hon.
Member for Kingston and Surbiton (). On the clinically extremely vulnerable, I think it is
very important to remember that we will continue—as we have done
throughout the pandemic—to look after them with all the
therapeutics that we can offer, and with vaccines where that is
appropriate. As the House knows, the shielding programme ended in
September. What people need to recognise with the CEV—the
clinically extremely vulnerable—is that we should treat them with
caution, just as anybody with any respiratory disease should
treat the clinically extremely vulnerable with caution, respect
them and act with responsibility.
(Eddisbury) (Con)
I fully endorse the Prime Minister’s statement, which is a
significant step forward. However, while we want to get more
confidence back into the country, people will also want
consistency, so that they can plan ahead. To that end, will he
look at what we do with schools, and education more generally? In
particular, will he look at making them an essential part of our
national infrastructure, so that on future occasions when we
consider restrictions across the country, schools, nurseries,
colleges and universities are at the very back of the queue, and
we make sure that what happened during this pandemic—the lost
learning—does not happen again?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and that is why we are
ensuring that schools are as covid-secure as possible. We are
sending out 350,000 CO2 monitors and 9,000 air cleaning units;
those are among the steps that we are taking to protect schools.
It is very important that we should get the message over to
everybody that schools are safe—one of the many things that the
Leader of the Opposition got wrong.
(Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Prime Minister, in outlining his reckless plan for living
with covid, announced that he is relying on the British public to
apply personal responsibility when it comes to the virus. Does
this also apply to the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member says it is a “reckless” plan; that is exactly the
word that the right hon. and learned Leader of the Opposition
used to describe the 19 July openings. I wonder whether she still
believes that.
(Forest of Dean) (Con)
I will take the Prime Minister’s statement, if I may, as his
application to join the Covid Recovery Group. He is very welcome
indeed; I only wish it had been made sooner. All the lockdowns
and the serious restrictions were implemented using the Public
Health Act (Control of Disease) 1984. Some of those restrictions
were made by ministerial decree, and were approved by Parliament
only retrospectively. If we are to believe that next time will be
different, why does this plan not include proposals to change the
Act now, in order to make Ministers more accountable to
Parliament, rather than our kicking this into the long grass and
waiting for the results of the covid public inquiry?
The Prime Minister
I know that my right hon. Friend is a staunch Thatcherite; he
will recall that it was Margaret Thatcher who promulgated the
public health Act in 1984, and it has served this country well
for a long time. I will consider the point that he makes—it is a
valuable one—but I think it may also be something that the
inquiry will want to consider itself.
(Central Ayrshire)
(SNP)
With 38,000 new covid cases today, can the Prime Minister explain
which public health experts advised abandoning testing and
isolation, and when will that advice be published?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member very much. As she knows, cases are
falling, hospitalisations are falling, and the number of excess
deaths from omicron is actually in negative territory. We consult
a wide range of scientific opinion, including the Scientific
Advisory Group for Emergencies and, clearly, the chief scientific
adviser and the chief medical officer, but the decisions are for
Ministers, and we take them.
(Ashfield) (Con)
Unlike the Opposition, the Prime Minister got all the big
decisions right throughout the pandemic. Does he agree that we
should never return to a full lockdown, and that any isolation
should be targeted: it should be the clinically vulnerable, the
elderly, and the Labour Front Bench?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has put it brilliantly and succinctly, and I have
nothing to add.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
Liberty is always better than the alternative, as long as
everybody can share in that liberty equally, so the anxiety for
some of us, especially those who represent very poor communities,
is that if free testing is ended, those who are symptomatic may
end up having to pay £59 or £119 for a PCR test. On top of that,
they may be in a job where, if they do the responsible thing and
stay away from work, they do not get any money at all, or get
pathetic sick pay. If we are to make sure that everybody shares
in this liberty equally, must not the poorest in Britain get a
better deal?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but first, statutory
sick pay will be available, and secondly, if I may say so, I
think he underestimates people’s sense of responsibility and
willingness to do the right thing by others.
(Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I welcome what the Prime Minister has set out, and especially his
commitment to Scunny hospital. I also welcome his continuation of
the Office for National Statistics survey study, not least
because my mam and dad have been taking part in it, and it has
given them something to do throughout the course of covid other
than text me constantly. On NHS testing, as the Prime Minister
knows, I work in the NHS and I like getting my test before I book
on duty; it makes me feel safe when I go into care homes or
elsewhere to attend patients. When he sets out how testing will
continue in March, will he clearly set out the situation for
testing NHS workers?
The Prime Minister
First, may I thank my hon. Friend very much for his service in
the NHS throughout the pandemic? I have seen him in action. On
his point about the NHS, that will be for the NHS itself to
determine.
(Vauxhall)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister mentioned that this is about personal
responsibility, and it is. It is about our personal
responsibility not to inadvertently pass on the virus to someone
who is vulnerable; it is about our personal responsibility to do
the right thing if we have symptoms, or have covid; and it is
about our personal responsibility to think about our neighbours,
our friends, our carers—the people who need those restrictions to
be lifted. What does the Prime Minister have to say to my
vulnerable constituents in Vauxhall who are concerned that this
personal responsibility that the Prime Minister wants us to take
might inadvertently lead to their catching covid?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to focus on personal responsibility, but
the other part of the strategy is the vaccinations. This is a
vaccine-led strategy, and that is what enables us now to rely on
people’s personal responsibility as well.
(Gillingham and Rainham)
(Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and the way he set out
the argument on living with covid in terms of respecting and
restoring people’s freedoms while protecting public health. The
key advance we have for the future is the mapping exercise, and
vaccination centres are already in place, including in Medway.
Will the Prime Minister thank the excellent volunteers and NHS
staff in Medway, and look at the bid for a new Medway hospital in
my constituency?
The Prime Minister
I had better be careful what I say about more hospitals; we want
to build as many hospitals as we possibly can, but we will have
to look at my hon. Friend’s plan. I do want to thank the Medway
volunteers; I want to thank everybody still involved in the
vaccination campaign. There are still millions of people who have
not yet had their booster, and I urge them to get it.
(Hornsey and Wood Green)
(Lab)
It is lovely to have the Prime Minister with us today, and that
he is not filling in his questionnaires or busy having his
meetings with the police. Can he confirm or deny the reports of a
sell-off plan for the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation
Centre, which was founded on the values and mission of people
like Dr Sarah Gilbert, who invented the AstraZeneca vaccine?
There are rumours going about that this public-private enterprise
will be sold off to the private sector. Will the Prime Minister
confirm or deny that that is the Government’s intention? The
essence of the reason why we were ahead with the vaccine was the
excellence and values of those wonderful British scientists who
worked their socks off for this. Don’t just sell it off.
The Prime Minister
I might add that one of the most important factors in the success
of the vaccine roll-out was the private sector. It was private
sector investment that led to the AstraZeneca vaccine and the
Pfizer vaccine. We will work with the private sector to continue
to develop the country’s native, indigenous ability to
manufacture mRNA and other types of vaccines.
(Stroud) (Con)
Keeping healthy people at home in isolation has had a devastating
impact on lives, businesses and important life events such as
weddings. I therefore welcome these changes, and the move to
trust the British people and allow people to plan with
confidence. Yet we all have constituents who are
immunocompromised and vulnerable, such as the woman who wrote to
me this morning. We care about these people; despite what
Opposition Members say, they do not have a monopoly on
compassion. Will my right hon. Friend reassure us again that
those people will get the support that they need, that the timing
is right, and that there is no point in waiting to make these
changes?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will ensure that
those people get not just the antivirals but the tests that they
need.
(Bristol South) (Lab)
That is the point on which I would like clarification from the
Prime Minister. We learned today that 7 million carers will not
get tests, and that money for tests for NHS and care staff will
have to be found from within existing budgets, which makes
waiting lists even more precarious. Will he confirm that those
eligible for antivirals—for which they will have to pay—are those
who are over 12, at high risk, and have symptoms or test positive
for covid-19? I see the Health Secretary helping him out.
Clarification on that would be really helpful.
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady waits a little longer, she will get a breakdown
of how we propose to support the most vulnerable. We will support
them, as we have done throughout the pandemic.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
Experts will argue for years about whether we made the right
choices. Some of us, for what it is worth, would have liked a
lighter touch. However, one thing is certain, and we know this
from independent testimony that has emerged from a former adviser
to the Prime Minister: but for the Prime Minister’s
freedom-loving, libertarian instincts, these lockdowns would have
been much longer and much worse, with incalculable consequences
for the young and for people’s mental health. Can we rely on him
to rule out any more lockdowns in the coming decade as he remains
Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
What you can certainly rely on, Mr Speaker, is the Government
taking the tough decisions to protect the British people. We will
have a vaccine and science-led approach to dealing with the
pandemic.
(Feltham and Heston)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has come to the House unable to state whether
carers in our communities, visiting home after home in one
day—often the homes of older people and the clinically extremely
vulnerable—will still have access to free tests to keep
themselves and their patients and clients safe. He said that
testing for NHS staff will be a matter for the NHS. Surely he can
do better than that. The NHS and carers need to plan ahead. Will
he come clean with the House about his intentions?
The Prime Minister
What we are doing is moving away from systematic mass testing of
large numbers of people, which is no longer the right way to deal
with omicron, to a surveillance-led approach. Of course, we will
continue to look after the most vulnerable and those who need
it.
(Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I welcome the path to freedom that the Prime Minister has set
out. I am sure that, like the Leader of the Opposition, the Welsh
First Minister will condemn the plan today, but will in about two
weeks present this same plan as his own. Will the Prime Minister
reach out to the Labour First Minister and the other devolved
Administrations—we have worked well with them, when ugly
nationalism is put aside—to get those freedoms for residents in
Montgomeryshire as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. Indeed, as I extend the hand of
co-operation to our friends in the Scottish Administration, I
hope the Welsh Administration in Cardiff will see the way
forward. As I have said many times before, the similarities in
our approach greatly outweigh the differences.
(Eltham) (Lab)
It is hard to imagine that this is the Prime Minister who missed
five Cobra meetings at the start of the pandemic. My constituent
who spoke to me yesterday is immunosuppressed. She anticipated
the difficulties that the Prime Minister is having over testing
for people who are clinically vulnerable. She wanted to know
whether she would have ready access to free tests and anti-virals
should she test positive. What is the situation that those people
have been plunged into today?
The Prime Minister
The answer to those questions is yes and yes. The 1.3 million
clinically extremely vulnerable will of course be given access to
free testing. They will also have access to the largest quantity
of anti-virals and therapeutics per head of any European
population.
(South Leicestershire)
(Con)
With a world-leading successful vaccination programme, the
fastest growth rate in the G7, and in my constituency some of the
highest employment we have seen in generations, does that not
demonstrate that when it comes to the big decisions during the
covid pandemic this Prime Minister and the Government he leads
have got them right?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I have to say. I am casting modesty, if not caution, to the
winds. Yes, we have got it right, although there have been some
very difficult decisions. It would have been nice today, finally,
to have had the support of the Opposition.
(Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to my
constituent, Jamal Edwards, a musical pioneer taken from us way
too young yesterday.
The Prime Minister justifies this crowd-pleaser for his own MPs
by warning us about damage to the economy. The Office for
National Statistics says that 1.3 million of our fellow citizens
are suffering from the debilitating condition of long covid,
which has rendered 396,000 people economically inactive. It
causes dysfunctionality and ages people by 10 years. What is the
Prime Minister doing to advance research and treatment into this
condition? How does today’s exercise help those people?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the problem of long
covid. We have invested £224 million in expanding NHS treatment
of long covid and we are putting another £50 million into
researching that syndrome.
(Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today: a
return to liberty, so we can further grow our economy and tackle
other health conditions. Can he say a little more about what
targeted support will be provided to those who are
immunosuppressed and immune-compromised, such as those with blood
cancer?
The Prime Minister
As I told the House, we have secured supplies of monoclonal
antibodies in record numbers. We will also ensure that those who
are immunosuppressed have access to testing to see whether they
need the therapeutics.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
The deep irony of this Prime Minister lecturing us on personal
responsibility will not be lost on the public watching at home.
To misquote Kevin Bridges, personal responsibility won’t pay the
bills.
The Prime Minister called for a four nations approach time and
time again, bemoaning any deviation in approach from Cardiff,
Belfast or Edinburgh. Now he is recklessly and dangerously
dropping all restrictions in England and ending community testing
without consultation or consideration of devolved needs, and
flying in the face of the scientific advice he has been given.
That just proves that his four nations approach has simply meant
“Follow Westminster’s direction, no matter how rash.”
The Prime Minister
First of all, we are not dropping the testing until the beginning
of April, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is thanks only to the
massive financial firepower of the UK that we have been able to
run the biggest testing operation in Europe plus the fastest
vaccination roll-out.
(Lichfield) (Con)
Let me ask my right hon. Friend to cast his mind back to January
last year, when said that there will come a
time when covid will be the same as flu, from which there are
7,000 to 20,000 deaths each year. At that time, there was no
comment against him from either the Labour party or the Scottish
National party. Now that we have excess deaths at minus 9% of
what is normal at this time, is my right hon. Friend as baffled
as I am about the attitude that Labour Front Benchers now
take?
The Prime Minister
Yes, actually, I am. I am genuinely surprised by the approach
that the Opposition have taken today; I think that it is wrong.
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the comparison
with flu, because it is very important that people with any
respiratory disease think about those who are clinically
vulnerable and behave in a responsible and considerate way.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
This is a plan for living with covid that does not provide for
older and extremely vulnerable people and which does not include
schoolchildren, sick pay for working people or testing. Is this
not a plan only in the same sense that the Prime Minister’s
birthday was not a party?
The Prime Minister
No. This is a plan that addresses every single one of those
priorities: sick pay, schools, the vulnerable—this plan deals
with all of them. It is the right way forward and, actually, the
hon. Lady should support it.
(Bexleyheath and Crayford)
(Con)
I strongly welcome and endorse my right hon. Friend’s statement
today on restoring our freedoms. Does he agree that the
restrictions, although necessary, have taken a very heavy toll on
businesses and our society and that we have to live with the
virus in the future? However, we Government Members passionately
believe in trusting the people to take personal
responsibility.
The Prime Minister
Beautifully put.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
Are the 100 million vaccine doses that are being donated as part
of the global response counted towards or in addition to the
Government’s 0.5% official development target? And when will they
stop blocking agreement on a TRIPS—trade-related aspects of
intellectual property rights—waiver so that developing countries
can take vaccine response into their own hands?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is raising a very important but very difficult
issue. In answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green
(), I mentioned the importance
of the private sector. We need to ensure that the pharmaceutical
companies have the wherewithal to make these colossal investments
that offer hope for humanity.
(Heywood and Middleton)
(Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his forbearance, because
across from the Government Dispatch Box he was faced first by the
vacillations of General Indecision and then by the rank
opportunism of Captain Hindsight. Does he agree that if he had
listened to Lieutenant Lockdown, instead of being the first major
economy to unlock and having a world-leading vaccine programme,
we would now be facing a Major Catastrophe?
The Prime Minister
Yes. The most important thing is that if we had taken those steps
and remained in lockdown, we would not have the financial
wherewithal—the firepower, the money—to pay for all the things
that people now need support for, not least clearing the covid
backlogs.
(Swansea West)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister says that this is a scientific decision, so
will he remind the House what the current R rate or infection
rate is; what it is projected to be by the start of May; and at
what R rate he is willing to reintroduce testing and
self-isolation? Or is it not a scientific decision?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, the rate of infections is falling and so are
hospitalisations.
(Chipping Barnet)
(Con)
One of the cruellest aspects of the pandemic has been that many
people have been unable to visit their sick or even dying
relatives in hospital. Visiting has still been very difficult
even with the improvement in the covid situation. Will the Prime
Minister make sure that this is the day when NHS visiting
requirements in our hospitals go back to normal? That is the
humane and compassionate thing to do.
The Prime Minister
I know that my right hon. Friend speaks for millions of people
around the country. I can tell her that many, many restrictions
have already been lifted, and they will continue to be
lifted.
(East Ham) (Lab)
Three years ago, the Government consulted on much-needed reforms
to statutory sick pay, rightly recognising that the current
system is inflexible and does not reflect modern working life.
Those reforms were postponed when the pandemic hit, and day one
access to statutory sick pay was introduced instead. I think the
Prime Minister has just announced that day one access to
statutory sick pay will be withdrawn in a month’s time. Will he
now bring forward the much-needed and long-delayed reforms to
statutory sick pay?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, statutory sick pay is only a
part of what many employees already receive as part of their sick
pay.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
I just want to remind people that the Prime Minister was right
last July when we came out of lockdown with the sensible steps
that we took. He was also proved right that we were absolutely
doing the right thing when we went against the grain of many
other nations and ended up riding out the situation that we had
at Christmas, so I entirely endorse what we are seeing today.
There have been a number of good questions about the
immunosuppressed. Could I ask a slightly different one? Rather
than having people wait for assessments from GPs or consultants,
who are after all very busy and are not working 24/7 all the
time, could we consider a 24-hour immunosuppressed hotline for
advice? That would help these anxious people and give direct
support as they learn to live with covid.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely interesting idea, which
my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary may wish to discuss
with him.
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
I am not sure that the Prime Minister understands that supporting
people to self-isolate is not a restriction on their freedom; it
is actually what a responsible Government do. He will know that
millions of people do not qualify for SSP at the moment and that
without financial support they cannot self-isolate. Does he
understand the invidious position that he is putting some people
in?
The Prime Minister
Of course I understand the difficult position that some people
may find themselves in, but I hope that everybody will also
understand that it is our job to be responsible towards others
and to avoid spreading the disease.
(Wolverhampton North East)
(Con)
One of the biggest tragedies of the pandemic has been the
isolation and desperation of those living in care homes and of
their families at home, many of whom joined groups such as Rights
for Residents. Can the Prime Minister assure them that they will
now be able to visit their loved ones in care homes, with the use
of testing and other measures to keep them safe?
The Prime Minister
Yes.
(Lewisham East) (Lab)
When people attend our wonderful Lewisham Hospital accident and
emergency department for treatment and have a blood test, they
are automatically tested for HIV unless they opt out. The oldest
person to discover that she had HIV was 75 years old. I raise
that point with the Prime Minister because many people still have
weakened immunity and do not know it. Lifting covid restrictions
further exposes people with weakened immunity to the virus. Can
the Prime Minister say how he intends to protect those
people?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the immunosuppressed
and those who are particularly vulnerable. They will continue to
have access to free testing, plus the therapeutics that I have
described.
(Calder Valley) (Con)
The British sequencing regime is one of the best in the world,
with more than 13% of all tests sequenced here in this country.
Can my right hon. Friend say what steps are being taken to ensure
that despite reductions in testing, our sequencing capacity in
this country will stay one of the best in the world?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we will retain that
capacity.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
In order to have good surveillance, the Prime Minister will need
data; in order to get that data, he will need testing,
particularly for looking at future variants of the virus. Can he
explain where he will get that data to trace the future mutations
of covid?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly what the ONS survey does.
(Boston and Skegness)
(Con)
It is the vaccination programme led by this Prime Minister that
got us to the position we are in now, and it is the vaccination
programme that will keep us out of lockdown, but what we know
from the pandemic is that online misinformation about the
vaccines costs lives. The Prime Minister took a very strong line
on this early in the pandemic. As we continue to rely on
vaccines, can he reassure me that we will not suffer online
misinformation about vaccines that will continue to save
lives?
The Prime Minister
Yes. One of the things that the online harms Bill does is try to
tackle that kind of pernicious online disinformation.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Unless the Prime Minister publishes the full advice which says
that this decision was science-led, it will confirm what we have
long suspected: that he is prepared to sacrifice anything and
anyone to save his own skin. He just claimed that he had been
working closely with the devolved Governments on this issue, so
why are the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government saying
that the first they heard of this “plan” was his throwaway line
during Prime Minister’s questions just 10 days ago?
The Prime Minister
I should have thought that 10 days was quite a lot of notice.
(Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I agree with the Prime Minister that now is the right time to
make these changes, so may I ask him how retaining the passenger
locator form can be justified, and may I ask him for a commitment
to end it by Easter? That would give the travel industry a
much-needed shot in the arm.
The Prime Minister
I hear my hon. Friend loud and clear. I have already heard
several pleas on that matter today, and I repeat that we will be
looking into it before Easter.
(Putney) (Lab)
Covid case numbers are rising in Wandsworth, and people are very
concerned about this plan. They have had to choose between eating
and heating, and now they will have to choose between heating,
eating and testing. There has been a flurry of reports in the
media about a paralysed Cabinet arguing over what to announce
here, at the eleventh hour. The Prime Minister is asking us to
have confidence in a plan in which health leaders do not have
confidence. Can he assure the House today that all members of the
Cabinet—the full Cabinet—have confidence in this plan?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course they do, and this plan is completely
scientifically attested to. It is the right thing to do.
(Newark) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his important statement, and for
the reassurance that he provided in it for the clinically
extremely vulnerable. The Government took huge steps to support
those individuals by, for instance, creating the shielding
programme that delivered millions of food boxes to people’s doors
within a matter of weeks. It is absolutely right that we continue
to stand by and support those people into the future with testing
and with antivirals, as my right hon. Friend has already said
today.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is quite right in what he says about the
plan, and I thank him for his outstanding work, when he was
responsible for local government, in helping to deliver those
parcels and helping to support people in the way that he did.
(Gordon) (SNP)
I am sure that the Prime Minister has consulted the chief medical
officer and the chief scientific officer for England, but
consulting them is not quite the same as taking their advice. Can
he confirm that he has taken their advice on the issue of ending
mandatory self-isolation periods and ending testing?
The Prime Minister
I have not only consulted them for their opinions, but have taken
their advice. I hope very much that after these exchanges, the
hon. Member will be able to see a press conference involving both
those gentlemen, and hear the questions that will no doubt be put
to them as well.
(South Dorset) (Con)
To lead is to be in a lonely place. I have seen courage today,
and I want to thank my right hon. Friend for the statement that
he has made. He may recall that we were not on the same side when
it came to lockdown. In that context, may I gently suggest to him
that were a pandemic to strike again, the Government should
advise and counsel, and should not curb our freedoms?
The Prime Minister
It is fair to say that I think everyone will want to learn all
the lessons from this pandemic and make sure that we take the
best steps should a new variant strike us, but I have great
confidence in vaccines.
(Luton South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is now focused on a vaccine strategy as our
first line of defence. Will he assure me that he will take
personal responsibility for areas such as mine that have a
booster rate of only 39%, to ensure continued vaccination in our
community so that my constituents are not left behind in this
rush to freedom?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes a good point and I will do anything I can to
help her. The national average for adult boosters is now about
71%, so that figure is low and we will do what we can to
help.
(Broadland) (Con)
The data has proven that Labour and the naysayers were wrong
about omicron. How important was the decision not to lock down at
Christmas, building resilience in our communities and our
economy, to our ability to lift restrictions today?
The Prime Minister
We have to be humble in the face of this disease. It remains a
dangerous disease and we must continue to be cautious, but we
also have to take balanced decisions that are right for the
country. It is clear now that the 19 July decision and the
decision on Christmas and the new year were correct.
(Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Is it not the case that the decision being taken here today has
nothing to do with protecting public health and everything to do
with protecting this Prime Minister from his own Back
Benchers?
The Prime Minister
No, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong.
(Don Valley) (Con)
The businesses in the market town of Thorne in my constituency
are failing to benefit from the UK’s fantastic growth due to the
main car park being used by a covid testing facility. With
today’s announcement, can the Prime Minister confirm that these
facilities will now be vastly reduced or removed so that towns
such as Thorne can get back to their bustling pre-pandemic
norm?
The Prime Minister
I know exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about, and I am
sure he speaks for many. That facility has done fantastic work,
but it will be decommissioned shortly.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for the covid-19 vaccination
programmes that all the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland have benefited from. I am broadly in
agreement that we need to move safely forward, but will he
outline whether the plans will include free lateral flow tests
for the army of unpaid carers who have kept society ticking over?
The indication is that one in seven of our unpaid carers in
Northern Ireland need to test before they provide care for the
vulnerable and for their elderly loved ones. They must therefore
have access to free testing if they are to continue to provide
this often overlooked but very necessary care.
The Prime Minister
I want to repeat to the House, because it is incredibly important
that people understand, that the strategy for containing omicron
is not to test everybody or large numbers of people; it is
surveillance. We will be bringing forward particular groups to
whom we want to continue to offer free tests, such as the
clinically extremely vulnerable, and there will be more on that
in the next few weeks.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
The prize for patience and perseverance goes to .
(Buckingham) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I warmly welcome my right hon.
Friend’s statement this afternoon. He is making the right call.
Freedom works. Indeed, we should always cherish freedom, but as
we have seen in the past when restrictions have been lifted, some
bodies, particularly those with a union hand hovering over them,
have continued with restrictions regardless. So, as we rightly
lift these restrictions and allow others to lapse, can my right
hon. Friend give a clear message that the turn towards personal
responsibility is not a licence for those bodies to carry on with
the restrictions regardless?
The Prime Minister
If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he is referring to
devolved Administrations—[Interruption.] I think that is what he
was saying. The instinct for liberty burns just as brightly in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I think the people of
the whole United Kingdom will understand that we want a sensible,
balanced and proportionate approach that moves away from legal
compulsion—something that has been quite extraordinary for these
times—and in favour of people being considerate towards others
and taking personal responsibility.
|
