House of Lords
Wednesday 14 October 2020
The House met in a hybrid proceeding.
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
Arrangement of Business
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please will those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points, and I ask that Ministers’ answers should also be brief.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they (1) have had, and (2) propose to have, with Rolls-Royce about that company’s plans to transfer the manufacture of wide-chord fan blades to Singapore; and what steps they are taking to ensure that that company maintains advanced manufacturing jobs in the United Kingdom.
My Lords, the Government are in regular dialogue with Rolls-Royce and will continue to engage to understand what more can be done to save jobs and capabilities across the United Kingdom. The Government are supporting the aviation and aerospace sectors with around £9.5 billion in grants, loans and export guarantees over the next three years, which will help to create new, well-paid jobs for decades to come.
Do the Government understand that this is a catastrophe for high-tech manufacturing in the UK; for the retention of a skilled workforce—some of whom went to Singapore to help set up there on the promise that it would not affect their own jobs; for the critical mass of the aerospace industry of east Lancashire, with some 22,000-plus workers and four to five times as many ancillary workers; and for the future of the small north-of-England town of Barnoldswick, which locals call Barlick, which was the birthplace of the jet engine and is a genuine centre of engineering excellence? Is it not time for the Government to take more action and to take back control?
I totally understand and sympathise with the points that the noble Lord is making, but Rolls-Royce is a global company and it is having to make some very difficult decisions about its footprint everywhere as demand for its products and services has fallen significantly in the current pandemic. As I said, we are offering significant support to it and other aerospace companies.
My Lords, as has already been said, the closure of the plant at Barnoldswick and the assignment of its activities to a factory in Singapore would devastate a highly skilled workforce. I fear that it would also pose a threat to the intellectual property of the company and the nation. Will the Government take steps to ensure that that does not happen? Will they also seek to sustain the company in the face of its financial difficulties by commissioning high-tech projects that will assist the process of decarbonisation?
The noble Viscount makes a very good point. We are working closely with the company to ensure that the UK remains at the heart of its operations, and we are currently supporting the development of the next generation of engine through the ATI programme, as well as discussing longer-term possibilities around new, clean aviation technologies.
My Lords, in moving this vital skill to Singapore, Rolls-Royce was obviously responding to financial inducements. In his Answer to my noble friend, the Minister threw up his arms metaphorically and said “There’s nothing we can do. It’s the global market”. The Government had leverage and are giving support to the company. Why did the Government not tie that support to the retention of these jobs and skills in this country?
The noble Lord needs to understand the difficult environment in which Rolls-Royce is operating. Its revenues have fallen off a cliff, and we all know what has happened to the passenger jet market. It has to consolidate its operations across two sites, and that was the commercial decision it took. As I said, we are offering it extensive support and we are in regular and ongoing dialogue.
Will the Minister include trade union representation in any discussions and acknowledge the hard work put in by the two trade unions at Rolls-Royce to maintain in the UK jobs which are vital to keeping a skilled workforce and helping us to build back better?
I know my noble friend feels strongly about these matters. The unions are involved in the aerospace growth partnership, which is our main method of engaging with the UK aerospace industry, and we continue to have regular dialogues with Unite and other unions.
In the aggregated context of the retention of advanced manufacturing jobs, the pursuit of clean energy, sustainability targets, the Government’s future energy White Paper and the expertise of Rolls-Royce in small modular nuclear reactors, what plans do the Government have to help Rolls-Royce realise its potential as a key contributor to our future national energy requirements?
The noble Lord has correctly predicted that the energy White Paper will be out shortly to provide more details on these schemes. We are extensively supporting Rolls-Royce. It has received £300 million from the Covid corporate financing facility, it has made extensive use of the job retention scheme for almost 5,000 employees, and we are providing it with large amounts in R&D support from the £26.8 million in grant funding for research activities. We think Rolls-Royce is a key company for the future of the UK, and we are supporting it extensively.
My Lords, Rolls-Royce is one of the world’s premier engineering companies. Despite substantial government support, the Barnoldswick site’s workforce has been slashed from nearly 1,000 two years ago to half that today. Now, 350 more jobs are on the line, threatening the future of not just the site itself but local communities, given the impact it will have. Once highly skilled jobs are gone, they are gone. What is the Minister doing to protect those important jobs, not just for the current workforce but as an investment for the workers of the future?
As I said in previous answers, we are supporting Rolls-Royce extensively, but Covid-19 has had a devastating impact on the aerospace industry globally—Airbus and Boeing, the two largest companies, have reduced production by around 40%. We are doing all that we can to help companies such as Rolls-Royce at this difficult time—as its chief executive, to be fair, made clear when making this announcement.
My Lords, this pre-Covid decision by Rolls-Royce has an appalling effect upon the skilled workers in that company and, at the same time, on those workers who are to follow. Advanced manufacturing technology is an important part of the apprenticeship programme and apprenticeship numbers are tumbling. How are the Government going to rectify that matter and put back into place the sort of advanced manufacturing skills which the apprenticeship scheme should provide but is failing to do?
We are providing extensive support for training opportunities. I have already outlined the enormous support that we are giving to Rolls-Royce and other high-tech manufacturing facilities. I agree with the noble Lord that we need to do more in this field; we need to get more people online and more jobs in these sectors.
My Lords, the loss of these jobs to Singapore is short-sighted and a disaster for that town, the local region and the UK economy. This decision reflects the crisis facing Britain: a pandemic and an economic collapse, made worse by uncertainty over a trade deal with the European Union. Can the Minister explain further to the House what the Government’s strategy is for getting such decisions reversed, and outline how they will stop further jobs in manufacturing being lost to companies moving their operations abroad?
My Lords, when companies announce these decisions it is, of course, a difficult time for all concerned. We are in extensive dialogue with Rolls-Royce and other high-technology companies to do whatever we can, within the limits of what is possible, to retain those jobs in the United Kingdom. I have already outlined the massive and enormous support that we are giving to Rolls-Royce at this difficult time.
My Lords, in August, Rolls-Royce reported a first-quarter underlying operating loss of £1.7 billion, £1.2 billion of which was to do with civil aerospace and is Covid related. That is presumably why it has broken an agreement it had with the UK Government and moved work promised to UK workers to Singapore. Rolls-Royce is well placed, looking ahead, to provide low-carbon power solutions with the support of the UK Government—and that government support should depend on its benefit to highly-skilled UK workers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will prioritise the work by the UK small reactor consortium—building on Rolls-Royce’s long history of providing nuclear reactors to the Royal Navy—thereby ensuring affordable nuclear power operations, and that this work will take place in the United Kingdom?
I congratulate the noble Lord on getting the Royal Navy, a matter close to his heart, into his question again. But to be serious, I agree that we need to develop the next generation of small modular reactors, and we are providing support to enable that to happen.
My Lords, I declare my interest as in the register. The East Midlands, where Rolls-Royce has its headquarters, has the lowest public sector research and development spend in the UK, at £83 per head. R&D and the skilled jobs that it generates are essential to the levelling-up agenda. What plans do the Government have to increase R&D spend in the Midlands, making the most of its strengths in the rail, aerospace, nuclear and other vital sectors?
My Lords, I was working for my noble friend Lord Mandelson in 2009 during a similar economic crisis when, as Secretary of State for Business, he secured assurances from Rolls-Royce that the establishment of the plant in Singapore would not lead to closure of the UK plant at Barlick or severe job losses. Given the crucial importance of Rolls-Royce to the British economy and the financial links between the Government and the company, why has the Secretary of State not made a personal intervention to save the Barlick plant?
The plant is not closing. Rolls-Royce has made it clear that it sees it having a long-term future and will continue to invest in it. However, we have to understand the context: the Covid-19 pandemic has dealt it a devastating blow. In its first half-yearly results, Rolls-Royce announced that the company’s revenue fell by 24% to £5.6 billion, while for civil aerospace, the area in which it operates, revenue fell by 37%. This is a devastating time for many companies, including Rolls-Royce. We are doing all that we can to ensure that it survives the pandemic and can go on to generate secure, well-paid jobs in the future.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by the Police Foundation and The People’s Pension Protecting People’s Pensions: Understanding and Preventing Scams, published on 7 September, what action they are taking to protect people from pension scams.
The Government are committed to safeguarding consumer savings. We have introduced measures that assist all pension savers to understand their choices and alert them to possible risks through advice and guidance. To help protect people from scams, the Government have banned cold calling and tightened the tax registration procedures, and, via the Pension Schemes Bill, are limiting the statutory right to transfer. We also continue to raise awareness of scams through ongoing communications directly from the DWP and through other organisations.
That reply was encouraging—I thank the Minister. However, I hope that we can persuade the Government of how vital it is that even more specific actions are taken. Tragically, some scams make the victim complicit in the crime, so they lose all their money to the scammer and are pursued by HMRC for tax payments for pension liberation which they cannot meet. The police described HMRC’s approach as “unrelenting and uncompromising”. What action will the Government take to give some relief to these victims?
I am sure that everybody feels sympathy for an individual placed in this position. HMRC collects the taxes that Parliament decides are due and seeks to treat each case sympathetically and on its own facts. I have talked to the Minister for Pensions about this issue and he is quite happy to meet the noble Baroness to talk further about it.
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. I know that my noble friend is sympathetic on this issue. Will the Government consider establishing a central intelligence database to offer providers an early warning system for scams and help potential scam victims? Can my noble friend comment on any plans to centralise the confusing array of bodies for protecting consumers, including ScamSmart, Action Fraud, the police, regulators and Project Bloom?
I assure my noble friend, and indeed the whole House, that this issue is very high on the Government’s agenda. It is what we would call work in progress. We have established Project Bloom, which brings together all finance organisations, the regulator and pension providers to see what can be done and to work collaboratively. The Minister for Pensions met representatives to hear their thoughts on what the industry and Government can do. I would say, “Watch this space”.
My Lords, I welcome this timely report by the Police Foundation and The People’s Pension. The scale of loss is staggering, as bogus companies can set up to instigate the frauds and are often closed quickly to avoid detection. What are the Government doing to strengthen checks on company registration so that only genuine companies are able to trade?
My Lords, even where a key risk to their savings is identified and information and red-flag warnings are given to the individual, they can still transfer their pension, and too many do, regardless. Pension providers and trustees have few, if any, powers to stop this. Will the Government extend the powers of the regulator to allow an override of the individual’s statutory right to transfer in the event of a suspected scam, thereby safeguarding their savings and future well-being?
I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness that the Minister for Pensions has written to the chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee about this—I will place a copy of his letter in the House of Lords Library—and I can confirm that the Government are already taking further legislative action through the Pension Schemes Bill. I say again that the Minister for Pensions is quite prepared to meet noble Lords to discuss this issue.
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the Members’ register. Having heard my noble friend’s answer a moment ago to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, I would nevertheless like to pursue the matter of the responsibilities of trustees and pension administrators. We are very sympathetic to beneficiaries who are subject to scams, but would it not be a good idea to oblige beneficiaries who wish to transfer pension pots to be in interpersonal contact with their administrators before that is permitted? Much of the paperwork at the moment is part of the scam itself, and trustees and administrators need some further protection from their liabilities.
I take my noble friend’s point. The contribution that he has made just heightens the need for us to have more dialogue on this with the Minister for Pensions. However, as I have already said, the Government are taking further legislative action through the Pension Schemes Bill to enable regulations to be made prescribing conditions that, if not met, will limit an individual’s statutory right to transfer.
My Lords, the FCA acknowledges the increasing role of online platforms, including social media, in promoting harmful information to consumers, including from pension scammers. However, the cold-calling ban that came into effect last year does not cover online activity, and scammers can get around the ban by first building relationships with consumers so that they then consent to a cold call. How will the Government update the law to keep pace with this very fast-moving digital environment, since it is clearly increasing consumer vulnerability to scams?
I can confirm that the Government are well aware of this issue. I referred earlier to Project Bloom, which brings together government departments, regulators, enforcement agencies and industry representatives to share information and co-ordinate actions that will deal with situations such as this. I can confirm that we, particularly the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, are already engaging with technology companies.
My Lords, this study report is most welcome but there is an area that needs looking at for the future. Ethnic minority pensioners are said to be 24% worse off than white pensioners; indeed, the average total pension of BAME women is 51% less than that of white men. This pension inequality will become starker as the growing BAME population reaches retirement age, which may make BAME pensioners even more vulnerable to scams. Does the Minister agree that the Government also need to look into these related and relevant BAME pension issues?
My Lords, most of the people who I meet who have suffered badly from these scams are, surprisingly, older people who have always been efficient and capable at dealing with their own affairs. Is there any way that the Government can keep these people up to date so that they know to avoid the scams that are currently around?
It is a great tragedy that these scammers are so clever and such ruthless people. The Government passed legislation in 2015 making it a requirement that all people take advice, and we have banned cold calling, but there is a recognised need for more action to address this issue. It is important that people take advice from the Money and Pensions Service but I am sure that in the Project Bloom activity more communication will come out to people. I hope that this will help.
I referred earlier to tax and the issues that people face as a result of scams. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the Minister for Pensions is quite prepared to meet on this and other issues, and I will extend that invitation to the noble Baroness so she may raise her point.
Burning of Peat Moorlands
My Lords, the Government have always been clear on the need to phase out the rotational burning of protected blanket bog to conserve these vulnerable habitats, and we are looking at how legislation could achieve that. However, real progress is being made in promoting sustainable alternatives. We have urged landowners to adopt those alternatives and to continue to work with us constructively.
I thank my noble friend for his Answer and draw attention to my environmental entries in the register. I recognise that there is no consensus about this issue, so can my noble friend tell us what the scientific advice from his department is about this matter?
My noble friend is right that there is much debate around the issue. That debate has prompted a great deal of research, particularly over the last decade. The Government have kept abreast of all the latest scientific evidence to inform our policy approach. However, overall, the evidence shows that the burning on blanket bog is detrimental as it moves the bog away from its original wet state and risks vulnerable peat bogs being converted to drier heathland habitat. Defra’s view is therefore that ending burning on protected deep peat is the best approach for achieving habitat restoration and maximising the full suite of ecosystem benefits that would arise.
I draw attention to my interests in the register. The Government hoped for a voluntary surrender of burning consents but no one volunteered and burning has increased. The heather and moorland burning regulations are 13 years out of date and do not meet the Government’s commitments to net zero, to biodiversity or to air and water quality. I understand that a draft of proposed new legislation has been prepared, so what conceivable legitimate excuse can the Minister give us for delaying any further the legislation that the Government promised to end the rotational burning of blanket bog by October 2019?
We are currently engaging with stakeholders on the content of the England peat strategy and we expect it to be published later this year, but, as I said earlier, the Government are committed to phasing out rotational burning. We are considering all the evidence to ensure that any legislation actually works. It is undoubtedly a complex issue and it is important that we take the right steps to restore and protect this valuable habitat.
My Lords, I refer the Minister to page 95 of the report, where the independent committee says:
“Burning … is highly damaging to the peat, and to the range of environmental benefits that well-functioning peat can deliver”.
It goes on to say:
“A voluntary cessation of this activity … has not produced the desired outcome so the practice should be banned across the UK with immediate effect.”
Does the Minister fully accept and endorse those words? If so, why in his initial Answer did he use the words “phase out” and refer to “real progress” from voluntary efforts, which contradicts what the report says?
As I have said, the Government are committed to ending this practice. We are looking actively at what the best legislative solution would be. We recognise, as does the noble Baroness, that the voluntary approach has not worked, so in that regard, yes, I agree with the statement that she made.
My Lords, we have debated our tree-planting strategy in reducing our carbon footprint many times in the House. Today’s Question brings to the fore just how important our peatlands are. Does my noble friend the Minister have the latest figures on how many managed estates have agreed to give up their consent to burn and, in turn, are managing alternatives?
My Lords, this is an issue that polarises opinion. Considerable damage was caused by the peat fires on Saddleworth Moor, the result of arson, and the wildfire on Scotland’s Flow Country. These fires were not the result of rotational heather burning, which has many benefits. Before we throw the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater, it is important to note that, despite what the Minister says about the scientific evidence, that evidence is out of date. Does the Minister agree that it would be better to update the scientific evidence before we decide about rotational heather burning on peat moorlands?
The science continues to evolve; it is not a matter of it being out of date. The Government are well aware of the wildfire risk presented by dry conditions on moorlands. Natural England has carried out a review of the causes, the severity and the management practices best placed to mitigate that risk, and we are considering that alongside other evidence. Some of the clearest evidence that we have is that ensuring that peatlands are wet and in a natural state is the best way to minimise wildfire risk. It also tells us that managed burning results in an increase in vegetation types, such as heather, which have a higher fuel load as compared with natural blanket bog vegetation.
The noble Lord raises an important point. There is no doubt that burning has an impact. If the department has precise data as to the extent of that effect, I am afraid I have not seen it. Again, I will have to get back to the noble Lord with that answer.
Does the Minister think it wise to allow heather to grow tall and become an unbroken fire hazard in dry summers? Summer hill fires can burn for months and destroy millions of tonnes of our peat. Does he also think it wise to curtail the rotational management of heather, which provides seeds and green shoots for our highly threatened curlews, lapwings, merlin, plover and dunlin et cetera? While burning heather in March, when the peat is sodden from winter rains and therefore completely safe from harm, may not be perfect, would it not be wise to find an alternative form of heather management before doing away with the tried-and-tested system we have?
I refer the noble Lord to an earlier answer I gave on wildfire risk, which he has raised again. I do not think anyone is proposing simply allowing the heather to continue growing uncontrolled. The alternative to burning is obviously cutting. The department has been looking closely at what the additional burden would be on business were cutting to be generalised. The total figure that the department has come up with is £500,000 per year for the sector. That is based on information provided to us by landowners and managers.
If the Government have not found a way to table their own legislation to ban the burning of peat by the end of the year, will the Minister agree to work with us on a cross-party basis to deliver a ban in the Environment Bill, which comes to the Lords in the new year?
I would be very happy to commit to discussing and sharing the evidence we have with the noble Baroness, and to hear whatever ideas she has on this issue, but we are determined as a Government to achieve a solution through legislation and other means. I would be very happy to have those discussions with her at any time.
My Lords, as the Minister will know, peatlands are one of the most important terrestrial carbon sinks that we have. Apart from burning, peat extraction is a major issue for the health of those peatlands. Will the Government, in their consideration of future peat management, also ban the use of peat for horticultural purposes and its import, as the climate change committee has recommended?
It is an extremely important point and an issue I have followed closely for some time. The noble Lord makes a compelling case. I shall take his remarks back to the department and share them with the Secretary of State.
On a related note, the main argument of the upland partnership, which does not favour a burning ban, is that burning sequesters carbon in the form of charcoal. That is an area of disputed science and there are strong opinions on both sides, but it does not alter our opinion that burning damages the blanket bog habitat. We think that the best way to meet our nature recovery and climate targets is through healthy habitats and well-functioning ecosystems.
My Lords, blanket bog, to which the Minister has referred on a number of occasions, is of course a great method of storing water and holding it back so that it does not go down into the valleys and flood towns and villages below. One consequence of draining sphagnum bog and turning it into heather moor or short grass is that people in the valleys suffer increased flood risk. Does the Minister have any figures to hand on the cost to this country of flood damage in the valleys to people and properties, as compared with the financial benefit of managing moorland by draining and having it as heather moor and short grass?
It is extremely difficult to attach a particular flooding event to a particular cause, because there are so many causes, but the noble Lord is absolutely right that damage to the natural environment exacerbates flood risk. That is why as part of our flood strategy, which is being developed, there is a significantly increased emphasis on nature-based solutions to flooding. Part of that is planting trees in the appropriate areas; part of it also is restoring peatlands.
English Football: Project Big Picture
My Lords, it is clear that this proposal has not been cleared with all those affected. We strongly urge the Premier League and the EFL to continue to work constructively to come up with a deal that provides a comprehensive package of support for the whole football family. The Government promised a fan-led review of football governance in their manifesto. Events of the past few weeks have made this look more essential than ever.
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on that reply, with the contents of which I completely agree. The overriding priority is to agree a rescue package for members of the English Football League, especially those in the lower level, which can generally be regarded as community clubs and are in the deepest trouble. I am sure that she agrees that it makes no sense to use the present emergency as cover for a power and money grab by the wealthiest, mostly foreign-owned, clubs in the Premier League. Can she say a bit more about the fan-led review of football governance to which she referred? Will that consider proposals for a national football board, charged with distributing the wealth in the game more fairly and evenly?
The noble Lord is right that this proposal risks conflating some of the governance issues with the immediate financial pressures that many in the football family are facing. The fan-led review that we have committed to will include consideration of the owners and directors tests but, more broadly, we are currently deciding on the scope and structure of the review and will liaise with football authorities while we do this.
I declare my interest as a director of Carlisle United Football Club. Prior to the pandemic, on a typical weekend, more spectators attended Football League matches than Premier League matches. How therefore can the hard-pressed lower-league clubs make up for that loss of income?
The Government absolutely recognise the financial pressure that the decision to delay the reopening of football has placed on lower-league clubs. The English Football League has reassured my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that no club will go bust, and we look forward to seeing the Premier League and the English Football League come up with a solution.
Would the Minister agree that, with the major financial challenges facing many teams as a result of the Covid restrictions and the need to fund grass-roots football, the game clearly needs restructuring from top to bottom? But this should not be driven by foreign owners who march to the drum of private equity and profit. Leadership should come from the Premier League itself, which has the national game at heart. Who is going to be that leader?
The noble Lord asks a very good question. As I am sure he knows, the structure of the Premier League requires a two-thirds majority for any decision. We have been clear about the importance of the fan-led review of the governance and structural issues that football faces, and we have provided reassurance recently to the national league that support from the Government will be forthcoming.
My Lords, it has long been clear that there is a problem with the financing and governance of English football, which Covid has exacerbated and the absence of fans has really highlighted. When will the Government bring forward their much-promised fan-led review, so that we can meaningfully address the structural challenges ahead? What plans do the Government have to ensure that there is a fair distribution of funding throughout the entire football pyramid—otherwise clubs such as Macclesfield will go bust, and the guarantees that the league has given that other clubs will not go bust will count for very little?
I am not sure whether the noble Lord heard my right honourable friend the Secretary of State before the Select Committee this morning, but he was clear about the priority that he places on the fan-led review. We are clear that there is a short-term financial issue facing the football family, which the Premier League and the English Football League need to get together to sort out. Longer term, the fan-led review will be a crucial part of addressing some of the other structural issues to which the noble Lord referred.
My Lords, would the Minister agree that one important factor in the current structure of English football is the possibility of promotion to the top table—or rather the “vague possibility”, in certain cases? Will the Government preserve that at all costs, because the ultimate capitalistic model of the sport is of a closed league, where you have guaranteed fixtures and a guaranteed income from television revenue, and I do not think that we want that?
I would guess that the prospects for promotion depend a little on who you support—but I leave it to each noble Lord individually to decide on that. We are clear that the principles of fair competition must prevail as we move forward with the review.
My Lords, the way in which the owners of the big six clubs are behaving is, frankly, a disgrace. They are exploiting the catastrophic impact of the pandemic on the Football League clubs to make a massive power grab. At no point have they consulted fans during this shocking episode, despite these proposals being three years in the making. The Government’s proposed supporter-led review of football governance is now urgently needed, as others have said. The Minister did not answer my noble friend Lord Bassam’s question as to when the Government will commence the review. Will she consult supporters’ groups now on the terms of reference and scope and structure that she mentioned earlier?
The noble Lord is right about the lack of inclusion of supporters’ groups in the proposal that has been discussed widely in the media. On timing, we do not have a firm date, but we are committed to consulting all stakeholders as we prepare that review and, clearly, fans are an important part of that.
My Lords, the Minister rightly described football clubs as being akin to a large family. The Premier League is awash with cash, and the wages of the top players are eye-watering, while those at the bottom are often living hand to mouth and relying on the turnstile each week to keep the club afloat. Any family worth its salt lends a helping hand to those family members falling on hard times. Does the Minister accept that, if no equitable agreement is reached, the Government have a duty on behalf of the fans to intervene to protect the seed corn of the beautiful game as we go forward?
Well, the noble Lord is right. So many football clubs do a huge amount within their communities beyond the game itself, but the Government’s role is to bring the two sides together. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport have met both sides and are clear that this needs to happen—and happen quickly. On the support we are providing, I have already said that the Government have provided reassurance for the national league clubs.
Does the Minister agree that one unfortunate characteristic of football in our country for many years has been the inexorable concentration of wealth and power among a small number of elite clubs? Is it not inevitable that the current plan will make a smaller Premier League harder to get into and, unless you are one of the privileged six, much easier to fall out of? Will not that further damage the game by increasing even more the gulf between the elite and everyone else?
Does the Minister agree with the view of the combined fan groups of the big six that, while reform may be needed, it must be done in consultation with fans, power must not be concentrated in the hands of six billionaire owners, and there should be no departure from the one-club, one-vote and collective ethos of the Premier League?
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 12 October.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on our continuing fight against coronavirus and how we intend to fulfil our simultaneous objectives of saving lives and protecting the NHS while keeping our children in school and our economy running, thus protecting jobs and livelihoods.
This morning, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer set out the stark reality of the second wave of the virus. The number of cases has quadrupled in the last three weeks. There are now more people in hospital with Covid than when we went into lockdown on 23 March, and deaths are already rising. Of course, there are those who say that on that logic, we should go back into a full national lockdown of indefinite duration, closing schools and businesses, telling people again to stay at home as we did in March, and once again shattering our lives and our society. I do not believe that would be the right course. We would not only deprive our children of their education but we would do such damage to our economy as to erode our long-time ability to fund the NHS and other crucial public services.
On the other side of the argument, there are those who think that the patience of the public is now exhausted, that we should abandon the fight against Covid, stand aside, let nature take her course and call a halt to these repressions of liberty. Of course, I understand those emotions. I understand the frustration of those who have been chafing under the restrictions and the sacrifices they have made. But if we were to follow that course and let the virus rip, the bleak mathematics dictate that we would suffer not only an intolerable death toll but put such a huge strain on our NHS, with an uncontrolled second spike, that our doctors and nurses would be simply unable to devote themselves to other treatments for cancer, heart disease and hundreds more illnesses that have already been delayed and would be delayed again, with serious long-term damage to the health of the nation.
I am afraid that it is no answer to say that we could let the virus take hold among the young and fit while shielding the elderly and vulnerable, because the virus would then spread with such velocity in the general population that there would be no way of stopping it spreading among the elderly. Even if the virus is less lethal for the under-60s, there will still be many younger people for whom, alas, it remains lethal.
We do not want to go back to another national lockdown; we cannot let the virus rip, so since June, we have followed a balanced approach, with the support of many Members across the House, to keep the R rate down while keeping schools and the economy going, and controlling the virus by changing our behaviour to restrict its spread. That is why we have the rule of six and restrictions such as the 10 pm closing time on our hospitality sector.
I take no pleasure whatever in imposing restrictions on those businesses, many of which have gone to great lengths to reopen as safely as possible. Nor do I want to stop people enjoying themselves. But we must act to save lives and the evidence shows that in changing our behaviour to restrict transmission between us, our actions are saving lives. Left unchecked, each person with the virus will infect an average of between 2.7 and three others, but the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies assesses that the current R nationally is between 1.2 and 1.5. So we are already suppressing that R to well below its natural level, which is why the virus is not spreading as quickly as it did in March, but we need to go further. In recent months we have worked with local leaders to counter local spikes with targeted restrictions. This local approach has inevitably produced different sets of rules in different parts of the country, which are now complex to understand and to enforce. So just as we simplified our national rules with the rule of six, we will now simplify and standardise our local rules by introducing a three-tiered system of local Covid alert levels in England, set at medium, high and very high.
The medium alert level, which will cover most of the country, will consist of the current national measures. This includes the rule of six and the closure of hospitality at 10 pm.
The high alert level reflects the interventions in many local areas at the moment. This primarily aims to reduce household-to-household transmission, by preventing all mixing between different households or support bubbles indoors. In these areas, the rule of six will continue to apply outdoors, where it is harder for the virus to spread, in public spaces as well as private gardens. Most areas which are already subject to local restrictions will automatically move into the high alert level. As a result of rising infection rates, Nottinghamshire, east and west Cheshire and a small area of High Peak will also move into the high alert level.
The very high alert level will apply where transmission rates are rising most rapidly and where the NHS could soon be under unbearable pressure without further restrictions. In these areas the Government will set a baseline of prohibiting social mixing indoors and in private gardens, and, I am sorry to say, closing pubs and bars. We want to create the maximum possible local consensus behind this more severe local action, so in each area we will work with local government leaders on the additional measures which should be taken. This could lead to further restrictions on the hospitality, leisure, entertainment or personal care sectors, but retail, schools and universities will remain open.
As my right honourable friend the Chancellor has set out, the Government will expand their unprecedented economic support to assist those affected by these decisions, extending our Job Support Scheme to cover two-thirds of the wages of those in any business that is required to close, and providing those businesses with a cash grant of up to £3,000 a month, instead of £1,500 every three weeks. We will also provide local authorities across England with around £1 billion of new financial support, on top of our £3.6 billion towns fund. And for ‘very high’ areas, we will give further financial support for local test and trace and local enforcement, and assistance from the Armed Forces—not for enforcement, but rather to support local services, if desired in the local area.
I can report that we have been able to reach agreement with leaders in Merseyside. Local authorities in the Liverpool city region will move into the very high alert level from Wednesday. In addition to the baseline I have outlined—this is as well as pubs and bars—in Merseyside gyms and leisure centres, betting shops, adult gaming centres and casinos will also close. I would like to put on record my thanks to Steve Rotheram and his colleagues for their co-operation in very difficult circumstances.
Engagement with other leaders in the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber is continuing. I know how difficult this is—they, like us, like everyone in this House, are grappling with very real dilemmas—but we cannot let the NHS fall over when lives are at stake. Let me repeat the offer that we are making to those local authorities: work with us on these difficult but necessary measures in the areas that are rated very high, in return for more support for local test and trace, more funding for local enforcement, the offer of help from the armed services, and the Job Support Scheme, as announced by the Chancellor.
I believe not to act would be unforgivable, so I hope that rapid progress can be made in the coming days. Regulations for all three Covid local alert levels are being laid today. They will be debated and voted on tomorrow, before coming into force on Wednesday.
We will also keep these measures under constant review, including a four-week sunset clause for interventions in very high areas. A postcode search on GOV.UK, as well as the NHS Covid-19 app, will show which local alert level applies in each area. We are also publishing updated guidance to explain what the Covid alert levels mean for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable. While these levels specifically apply to England, we continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to tackle this virus across the whole United Kingdom.
This is not how we want to live our lives, but this is the narrow path we have to tread between the social and economic trauma of a full lockdown and the massive human and, indeed, economic cost of an uncontained epidemic. With local, regional and national government coming together in a shared responsibility and a shared effort to deliver ever-better testing and tracing and ever-more efficient enforcement of rules; with ever-improving therapies and the mountains of personal protective equipment and the ventilators that we have stockpiled; and with all the lessons we have learned in the last few months, we are becoming better and better at fighting this virus.
Though I must warn the House again that the weeks and months ahead will continue to be difficult and will test the mettle of this country, I have no doubt at all that, together, we will succeed, and I commend this Statement to the House.”
My Lords, I doubt that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, shares my admiration for Harold Wilson, but even he will recognise that his oft-quoted comment that a week is a long time in politics is very relevant today. With the pace of events over the last couple of days they must have felt like at least a week. I expect that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal might be relieved not to be repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the Chamber today.
The Statement on Monday, announcing a three-tier system of restrictions, is already wilting under close examination and the publication of the scientific advice received by the Prime Minister. In the Statement, the Prime Minister said that we needed to “go further” than the existing restrictions. He is right to consider and announce further actions, but the scale and rate of infections is increasing. There are now more people in hospital, including ICU, than there were in March when we went into lockdown. On the positive side, our knowledge and ability to treat have improved, but we have a clearer understanding of how devastating this illness is for so many.
The Prime Minister referenced the Government’s advisory body SAGE in his announcement, but if you go back and read it again there is a very serious omission. This was clearly no accident; it was calculated and deliberate. Unlike earlier Statements from the Prime Minister and members of his Government, this one makes no reference to following the scientific evidence or to evidence-based policy-making. We now know why. The minutes of the SAGE meeting of 21 September, published after the Prime Minister’s Statement on Monday, are very clear about the scale of the challenge and the action needed—not suggested—to tackle it. Its warnings are stark:
“not acting now … will result in … catastrophic consequences in terms of direct COVID related deaths and the ability of the health service to meet needs.”
The report then lists a range of short-term measures to be considered for “immediate introduction”. That was on 21 September, three weeks ago, and it said “immediate”: not next week or next month.
Since then, the Prime Minister has made two announcements of new restrictions but has failed to act on, or share with Parliament or the public, the advice that his Government have received. Let us be clear: any restrictions are difficult; none is pain free. But surely the worst kind of restrictive measures are those that are piecemeal. They fall short of what is required and, therefore, go on longer without the level of impact that is needed. The Prime Minister has, therefore, twice announced measures knowing that they fall short of what the scientific advice says is essential.
The seriousness of this cannot be overestimated. He knows that his measures are inadequate, as evidenced in an article in today’s Telegraph that says that the Government are now considering the circuit break that was recommended by SAGE three weeks ago and called for by my colleague and Leader of the Opposition yesterday. At the same time, the world-beating test, trace and isolate system that the nation was promised has failed to materialise. After the Government have spent £12 billion, SAGE has concluded that that is having “marginal impact”.
For those who are suffering lockdowns, desperately missing and worrying about loved ones, worried about their own and their families’ health; for the self-employed, the now unemployed and struggling businesses, to go through that pain without the gain, with the Government ignoring the scientific advice, is deeply shocking and unacceptable.
It has to change. The stop-start approach has failed; we have to break that cycle. It is so much harder to deal with the economic consequences unless there is public confidence in the Government’s ability to protect the nation’s health. I get upset and quite angry when it is suggested that this is a binary choice between our health and the economy. That is plain wrong. It is so evident that they are two sides of the same coin and totally interlinked.
Last night, having considered the scientific evidence and consulted widely, Keir Starmer called on the Government to reset their approach—to introduce that circuit breaker alongside the other measures deemed necessary by the scientific experts, along with the essential economic support, and to get a grip of the test, trace and isolate system. That is not a single measure; it is a complete package of health protection, economic support and future planning.
I have a couple of questions for the noble Baroness, who is a member of the Cabinet and of Cabinet committees. I appreciate that the details of Cabinet discussions are not published, but can she confirm that members of the Cabinet were informed of the SAGE advice of 21 September? Following that, can she explain the rationale, which must surely have been discussed in Cabinet, in ignoring that advice?
Too often, the Government’s approach has been very centralised, and effectiveness has been lost through a failure to properly engage, consult and support local authorities. What action is being taken now to ensure local capacity, knowledge and experience is being effectively utilised, particularly in test, trace and isolate, with the necessary resources being provided for that? I refer to all local authorities, not just those in tiers 2 and 3, because this has to be a nationwide engagement.
The costs of tackling the crisis and preparing for the post-Covid future are huge. Obviously, we need to ensure such large amounts of money are used to the greatest effect. Many in your Lordships’ House have been in government or in positions of authority where difficult decisions have to be taken. No one is pretending this is easy, but it is even harder when members of your own party are pulling in different directions. There is only one thing to do in those circumstances; it is not possible to steer a middle course and try to placate different views. You just have to do what is right, because that is what true leadership is really about.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for responding to questions on the Prime Minister’s Statement. Although we are discussing a Statement barely 48 hours after it was made, things on the ground, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, have moved on apace since Monday. Infections have risen, deaths have risen rapidly, and people have become more confused and more worried.
In the Statement, the Prime Minister said the Government are seeking to balance the
“objectives of saving lives and protecting the NHS while keeping our children in school and … protecting jobs and livelihoods.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/20; col. 23.]
What he did not do was level with the British people about what his scientific advisers have been proposing. We now know that last month, SAGE urged an immediate circuit breaker of more restrictive measures, because, as the noble Baroness said, and in its words,
“not acting now … will result in a very large epidemic with catastrophic consequences.”
That was several weeks ago. No action was taken, and we do now have a “very large epidemic” on our hands. That is why my colleagues in the other place and those on these Benches support the leader of the Opposition’s proposal for a short circuit breaker, to give time to get firmly in place some measures to get the virus under control, in the hope that we might have some relaxation—albeit possibly temporarily—at Christmas. I have never seen the Prime Minister as one of nature’s Roundheads but as things stand, he looks set to succeed and follow Oliver Cromwell by cancelling Christmas as we know it.
The one welcome change in the Government’s position over recent days is that they have been willing, for the first time since March, to have a serious dialogue with civic leaders in those areas most heavily affected by the virus. This is extremely welcome but long overdue. However, it needs to go much further. The national test, track and trace system is failing, and failing badly. A large proportion of people who have been in contact with someone who has tested positive are still not being contacted. Some 27% of those asked to isolate do not do so. Will the Government now effect a step change in the role they give to all local directors of public health to implement the track, trace and isolate system in their areas? Will they do so across the country and not only, as currently envisaged, in very high-alert areas; and will they give them the resources they need to do the job properly? If they do not, I fear we are simply going to see a large increase in the number of areas requiring the highest level of restrictions.
The Prime Minister’s Statement seems to bring clarity to an extremely confused picture, but it simply does not. It is completely unclear, for example, on the criteria the Government will use to decide which areas fall into the “very high”, “high” and “medium” categories. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what those criteria are?
The Prime Minister said the measures announced on Monday could lead to additional measures if local government leaders agreed. What measures do the Government have in mind? What happens if the Government think additional measures are needed and local leaders do not? Equally, if local authority leaders think that more restrictive measures should be imposed in advance of any government initiative—as is now the case with Essex County Council, and which is, I believe, the policy of the Mayor London—what will the Government’s response be?
The Government have briefed that they are preparing to open some of the Nightingale hospitals. It is widely believed in Yorkshire that, as far as the Nightingale hospital in Harrogate is concerned, this will not happen, because the hospital simply does not have the staff available to allow it to operate safely. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that this is not the case?
The country is now at a very dangerous point. The Government are at odds with their own scientific advisers, many council leaders and many of their own Back-Benchers. Their rules are complex and, in some cases, perverse. Track and trace is a shambles: it has lost the confidence of the majority of the population. It is time for a reset.
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments and questions. First, they are right to point out some of the statistics to highlight the situation we are in. As the noble Baroness rightly said, there are now more people in hospital with Covid than when we went into lockdown on 23 March, and the number of people testing positive for Covid has quadrupled in the last three weeks, so we are very cognisant, as I know we all are in this House, of the issues that face us.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness referenced the need for action in September. We did take robust and proportionate action when introducing measures in England, including the rule of six and the 10 pm curfew, which we discussed in this House, as well as advising people to work from home when they can. Each of those was carefully judged to protect lives and reduce transmission, while minimising the impact on people’s livelihoods.
So, we did take robust action, but with the step change in cases, more action is needed, which is why we made the decision to move to the tiered approach. The reason we have gone for the tiered approach rather than the circuit breaker is that, as the Prime Minister said to the leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister’s Question Time today, the disease is appearing more strongly in some areas and regions than others, which is a different situation from March. That is why we are introducing this approach, which can be tailored more effectively to local situations. However, having said that, we regularly, and will regularly, keep measures under review to ensure that we are always taking the best action we can.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned evidence. Evidence is considered by SAGE and its advice is published regularly online when it is no longer under live consideration for policy decisions. That is exactly what happened in this case. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we will continue to take advice from a wide range of scientific and medical experts, as we have done throughout the pandemic, to inform our decisions. We are, as the noble Baroness rightly said, constantly having to evaluate the balance between protecting the NHS, saving lives, keeping our economy moving and keeping our children in school. These are very difficult issues to balance and I think the tone of the noble Lord’s and the noble Baroness’s questions, which I very much welcome, expresses the gravity of the situation and the difficult decisions that are being made.
I can assure the noble Baroness that as a member of Cabinet I have regular briefings, along with my Cabinet colleagues, from the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser about the latest data. As I have said, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have to take decisions based on the best available science, along with considerations of the economic, operational, social and policy implications that follow, and that is what we do.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both reiterated criticisms of the test and trace system. I remind noble Lords that our daily capacity for testing is now around 340,000, with the aim of reaching more than 500,000 by the end of October. We increased capacity by around 30% in September alone. We are testing at a higher rate than other European countries and we have assembled the largest testing network in our history, including 96 NHS labs, 151 walk-in sites, 258 mobile testing sites and 77 regional sites. We are also looking to combine, as effectively as possible, the national framework and local expertise, which is why, since August, NHS test and trace has provided local authorities with dedicated teams of contact tracers to work alongside local public health officials to provide a more specialist service. We have provided more than £300 million to local authorities to help with this and, across the country now, we have 95 local authority contact tracing teams that are live, and more are coming online in the coming weeks. We have been very cognisant of some of the criticisms and are improving the situation on the ground. More than 700,000 people have been contacted and advised to isolate through the system and the latest figures show that more than 82% of contacts were reached and asked to self-isolate where contact details were provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about moving between tiers. Decisions on which areas are in which tier are made on a number of factors, including the rate of transmission, how quickly it is increasing and the effectiveness of current interventions, as well as hospitalisations and hospital capacity. Of course, all is also done in line with work and conversations with local leaders to discuss all their evidence and what they are seeing on the ground. It is a collaborative effort, but a range of factors is taken into account.
The noble Lord also asked about the Harrogate Nightingale Hospital. I am not sure whether he is aware, but it is currently being used. CT scanners have been made available to provide people with safer and faster access for a range of conditions, including cancer. As he will be aware, there are two hospitals providing that kind of support, Harrogate and Exeter, and another three Nightingale hospitals in some of the areas with the highest rates have been put on standby in order that they can play their part, along with the rest of our fantastic NHS, as we deal with this crisis.
My Lords, I welcome the Statement made on Monday in the other place by the Prime Minister. However, I have received lots of correspondence from people who are confused, very angry and very concerned. This means that their mental health is actually off the scale. My concern, therefore, is that the area that I live in, in Liverpool, is in a high tier and everything has been shut down. One place that a lot of people like to go to is gyms, and while they appreciate that there has been recent overcrowding, these businesses have invested a lot of money to be Covid-friendly. This morning, the Northern Ireland Assembly has said that from Friday they will be in a four-week lockdown, but gyms are allowed to be open on a one-to-one basis. What conversations has the Prime Minister had with the mayors of Liverpool to discuss how we can keep certain businesses open, so that people have safe spaces for their anxiety and their mental health?
I thank my noble friend. Certainly, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Communities Minister have all had regular dialogues with the leaders of the Liverpool City Region over the last few days. She is absolutely right that within the very high tier there are certain baseline restrictions and then others that can be decided at a local level. She is right that in Liverpool, decisions have been made to close casinos, betting shops, indoor gyms, fitness and dance studios and sports facilities, although there are going to be exemptions for organised indoor team sports for disabled people and activities for under-18s, understanding some of the issues she raised. Obviously, she is absolutely right about mental health, which is why we have provided £9.2 million of additional funding for mental health charities.
My Lords, it is generally accepted that the test, track and isolation policy is important for suppression of the virus. Despite the large volume of tests that we carry out, as the noble Baroness stated, plus the increase in capacity, we have not seen any significant effect in suppression of the virus through this policy, so what more needs to be done to make our test, track and isolation policy more effective? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that any policy, suggested by some, of abandoning suppression of the virus and adopting a policy of herd immunity is morally, ethically and scientifically flawed?
On test and trace, I hope I outlined in my earlier answers the work that is going on to further improve national and local link-up. As I said, across the country there are now 95 local authority contact tracing teams—21 local teams in the east of England, for instance, 23 in the east Midlands and 21 in the north-west. Combined with the national system, they are helping to ensure that we have good data on the ground so that we are able more effectively to track what is happening and then, with the tiered approach, make sure that the interventions work on a regional or even more local level.
In welcoming the fact that places of worship have been allowed to continue to open—that is partly a recognition of their important place in the life of the nation—I note that the Prime Minister spoke still in the binaries of economic health and medical health that we have heard throughout the course of the pandemic. However, the nation’s health is more than this binary. The Government must surely no longer overlook the need to protect the nation’s social and spiritual health too. The Christian faith is clear that well-being is far more than being medically healthy or simply alive; rather, it involves social engagement, emotional nourishment, spiritual rest and love from good community. Will the Government acknowledge the nation’s need for social and spiritual health by including experts on social well-being in all future conversations around lockdown measures?
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that that is the dilemma being faced. As he rightly says, harm to health is harm to the economy and harm to the economy is harm to health: these things are all interlinked, which is why this is a very difficult situation and why difficult decisions are having to be made about how to balance them. I can assure him that that is at the forefront of our thoughts. As part of the ongoing discussions around decisions being made about national and local levels, I know that Cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister are talking to a huge range of people with different backgrounds to make sure that we get that right and get the country moving in the right direction.
Now that the Government are finally consulting metro mayors and local authorities, will they consider calling a jobs summit to discuss what can be done in the here and now to protect jobs, given the further restrictions that are coming in, and to create the kind of green future that we talk about so often?
I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that discussions are ongoing across government, including through the Treasury and the Business Secretary, with local leaders, local business leaders, unions and workers’ representatives. Of course, she will be aware that, as part of the announcements we have made, we have extended the job support scheme. She will also be aware that, since the beginning of the crisis, we have provided more than £200 billion of support to business. We completely understand, and by using these figures I am not trying to diminish the issues that people are facing in their daily lives, but I can reassure her that this is top of our agenda. I hope she will recognise that the Chancellor has been working fleet of foot so that he is able to bring forward support packages to help individuals and businesses through this difficult time.
My Lords, I spent quite a lot of time yesterday afternoon looking at the detailed infection figures for Covid for each Lancashire district on a daily basis over the last 10 weeks. It is absolutely clear that the first main surge of infections occurred during September, particularly around the middle of September. On 1 September the schools went back, and this seems to be the topic that we are not allowed to talk about. The Government have said they are not going to close schools under any circumstances. I am not saying that the statistical correlation—which is clearly there—is a causal one; I am saying it needs to be looked at hard and investigated. I notice that Northern Ireland is closing its schools for a fortnight. Will the Minister forecast how long it will be before schools in the most affected areas in England are closed?
Within the very high tier—the top level of the new interventions—non-essential retail, schools and universities will remain open. They remain open at all levels. As the noble Lord rightly said, we have prioritised keeping schools open as one of the key things we wish to do because, as we have heard in previous debates in your Lordships’ House, the disadvantage to young people when schools close is something that we really do not want to repeat, having seen what happened earlier in the year. I am afraid I will not make any apology for the fact that we have put that at the top of our priority list.
If saving lives is a key criteria, will my noble friend commit Her Majesty’s Government to ensuring that no hospital patients will be discharged to care and nursing homes unless they have had a negative Covid test? Furthermore, will she commit that no persons may enter those homes, including inspectors, unless they have had a recent Covid test? Finally, if any of these homes should be in considerable financial difficulty, will she commit that Her Majesty’s Treasury will support them until the pandemic is over?
My noble friend is absolutely right to talk about care homes, and I can certainly reassure him that no care homes should be forced to admit residents they do not feel they can provide appropriate care for. Also, all individuals must be tested before discharge from hospital into a care home. I hope I can reassure him by letting him know that we have provided over 208 million items of PPE and are giving every care home free PPE until at least the end of March. We are also piloting weekly testing for professionals who visit care homes regularly and come within one metre of residents when carrying out their roles, so that we can do everything we can to ensure that infection rates do not rise exponentially within that sector.
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House made reference to Nightingale hospitals. Is she in a position to advise your Lordships on what measures were taken and how the Nightingale hospitals have been prepared during the summer months, with specific reference to the provision of protective equipment, clinical equipment, advanced therapeutics and, most importantly, human resource staff, so that they are now immediately able to make a contribution to the management of this second wave of Covid-19? In particular, I ask if, and how, a clinical protocol has been established to ensure that the Nightingale hospitals can be deployed for the management of not only Covid-19 but other diseases, in such a way that the NHS can continue to deliver?
As I mentioned in reference to a comment by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, CT scanners have been made available—for instance, in Harrogate and Exeter—to provide safer, faster access for people with a range of conditions, including cancer, so that we can continue to try to ensure that routine appointments and operations can still take place. As I also mentioned, three other hospitals are now on alert in areas of high prevalence in order that they can come on stream. Obviously work is going on between the Department of Health and NHS England, but they will be staffed from the local area. We will of course keep all of this under review because we know that capacity is important, and the Nightingale hospitals will, I am sure, once again play an important part in our response as we go forward.
My Lords, given the threat to jobs from measures set out in the Statement, can the Leader of the House say what the Government intend to do to prevent higher levels of unemployment? In replying, can she tell the House what proportion of jobs will be supported by the Job Support Scheme, and who will still miss out in the extension of the Self-employment Income Support Scheme?
First of all, our Job Support Scheme is in line with those of other major European countries, including France, Germany, Ireland and Italy, in its proportion of wage support. We very much believe that this scheme can help the lowest paid in particular, who can benefit from the responsiveness of our welfare system. The dovetailing of those two things should actually mean that some of the poorest workers—or those on the lowest pay, I should say—could end up on around 88% of their original income, and so more than the two-thirds on which the scheme itself is based. Obviously, businesses are able to top up the two-thirds as they wish, as they did for the furlough scheme.
However, I think the Chancellor has been quite clear: unfortunately, we are not going to be able to save every job. We will do all we can to support businesses and individuals. That is why we are trying to look to the future with, for instance, the £2 billion Kickstart scheme, which will create thousands of subsidised jobs for young people; paying employers to hire apprentices; and doubling the number of work coaches. We are very cognisant of the issues in this area, and have a range of things—both trying to protect jobs at the moment and looking to the future—to make sure that everyone has an opportunity for employment going forward.
My Lords, it is now clear that lockdowns do not solve the problems posed by the virus. They merely delay them, at enormous cost in money, running into tens of billions; unhappiness, brought on by loneliness; and, indeed, lives lost, due to the consequent neglect of other medical conditions. We need to avoid another national lockdown at all costs. Instead, we need to deal with the virus regionally, as the Government are now doing. Will the Government ensure that any local controls are adapted very quickly to take account of developments? Speed is of the essence—I think everyone agrees about that—and we are not yet as quick as we need to be.
I entirely agree with my noble friend. That is the basis of the thinking behind the very high tier in particular, where restrictions can be dovetailed to the specific circumstances of the individual region. I can assure her that PHE, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and NHS Test and Trace are constantly monitoring levels of infection and data across different areas of the country, so we can do exactly as she suggests.
My Lords, a second national lockdown would be devastating for our economy, so it is right to prioritise bringing infections under control. As president of the CBI, I know that business supports the simplification of the Covid rules with three tiers of restrictions. But does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that the Government must show more of their evidence base for the new restrictions? This includes the 10 pm closing for restaurants, bars and pubs, where, I am led to believe, less than 5% of new infections come from. Why do we still need the 10 pm rule? Will they also keep financial support under review, in lock-step with the severity of the restrictions? The noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned testing. It is admirable that the testing has gone up from 2,000 to 350,000, and soon to 500,000, but she has not mentioned mass testing. Could she talk about mass testing—
Very quickly, analysis from PHE and NHS Test and Trace suggests that pubs, bars, restaurants and cafes account for the highest rates of common exposure for Covid, especially in those under-30. We will of course continue to keep an eye on financial support, which we have continued to do. I am afraid I did not hear the third part of the question.
My Lords, the House will have noted that the Leader of the House, in answering the questions put by my noble friend Lady Smith, did not answer the specific question of whether or not the Cabinet was aware of, or saw, the SAGE advice for 21 September before the decision was taken to have a lockdown. Perhaps the noble Baroness could answer that now. Perhaps she could also say why the Prime Minister, having relied so heavily on scientific advice, chose on this occasion to ignore it and to ignore the warnings about the catastrophic position if it were ignored.
I have never and will never comment on Cabinet meetings, so I have said as much as I can in answer to the noble Baroness. I also said, with regard to the decisions being made, that we will continue to take advice from a wide range of scientific and medical experts, but we will also have to look at the wide economic policy implications of decisions. That is why we believe that the tiered approach, which comes into effect only today, is correct at this time.
My Lords, the Prime Minister is right to have resisted the call by some for a return to a full lockdown, and I congratulate him on insisting on retaining a balanced approach. However, it is important to note that the death toll, while rising, is nowhere near the same percentage of known infections that it was in late March. That suggests that the mortality rate attributable to Covid alone is lower than we thought at that time. If the mortality rate remains at a relatively low level compared to infections, can my noble friend confirm that the Government will take early steps to lift restrictions on the hospitality and other affected sectors, providing a platform for economic recovery?
I can certainly assure my noble friend that our priority is to ensure that we bear down on this. As I said, the number of people testing positive for Covid has quadrupled in the last three weeks, there are more people in hospital with Covid now than there were when we went into lockdown and, worryingly, infections among older people are rising. However, of course, part of this tiered approach is very much also to ensure that businesses such as hospitality can function in areas where the disease is perhaps not as prevalent in the community.
My Lords, the Government’s overriding objective must be to reduce both the direct threat to life from Covid-19 and the indirect threat of an overwhelmed health service being unable to help those with other serious conditions. It is an affront to many that the risk to life and the hardship caused by pubs closing at 10 pm is talked about in the same breath. A short, sharp shock approach is clearly needed to reduce a rapidly rising reinfection rate to less than R1. Will the Government now urgently consider something like a two-week national lockdown to coincide with the half-term break?
The noble Lord will be aware that these new measures came into effect only today, and we believe that they will have an impact. As I said in my initial answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we have taken this approach because the disease is appearing at the moment more strongly in some areas and regions than others, which is a different situation from that we were in in March. That is why we have introduced this regional, tiered approach.
My Lords, the noble Baroness in her responses has not addressed the fact that, as SAGE put it so starkly, the centralised track and trace system is bringing only marginal benefit in stemming the pandemic in the regions. Despite all the statistics she has offered, is it not absolutely clear that local leaders are still therefore not getting what they have been asking for for months: full access, full support and all the resources they need to put them in the driving seat? When will that happen?
I am afraid that I do not agree with that assessment from the noble Baroness. As I said, local and national government are working together with resources and expertise, and 95 local authority contact tracing teams are now live, with more to come, and we will continue to increase that capacity. However, we are working together, because the only way we can combat this is by national and local government and local leaders working together.
Does my noble friend accept that conceding that a vaccine is a long way off changes the calculation? Mathematically, treating old and young by the same rules ensures that they have an equal probability of catching the disease, other things being equal, whereas a policy of voluntary focused protection would ensure that the elderly and vulnerable are less likely to catch it. Given that young people are very unlikely to die from this virus, does she agree that focused protection may now be the safest route to slowing the spread the virus through community immunity while not destroying young people’s livelihoods and mental health?
Unfortunately, as we have seen in the UK and other populations, a high infection rate among the young population is almost always followed by delayed infection rates in the older and vulnerable population, leading to more deaths. That is why we are not pursuing that approach.
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Wales large areas are closed down for all but essential travel, so that, for example, people along the north Wales coast between Wrexham, Rhyl and Bangor are banned from travelling to Anglesey for recreational purposes? Yet people from the areas of highest Covid incidence in England, such as Liverpool and Manchester, can travel with impunity to Anglesey as tourists. When will the UK Government start working in co-operation with the Welsh Government in this regard, instead of systematically undermining them?
Obviously, it is for each devolved Administration to make its decisions, although I know there has been a lot of discussion in this area. However, I reassure the noble Lord that, among the restrictions in areas of high incidence, it is very clear that people should avoid travelling in and out of such areas apart from for work, education, youth services and caring responsibilities, and that overnight stays in other areas of the UK as a whole should be avoided. That is quite clear guidance.
My Lords, I have lost count of the number of taxi drivers who have told me that the 10 pm curfew produces too many people on the streets at the same time. Could that be looked at? Will my noble friend also bear in mind that political acrimony does not help to create national unity? Would it not be a good idea if Sir Keir Starmer were invited to No. 10 to sit down with the Prime Minister and discuss all these complex matters?
I agree that we all want to work together to fight this terrible disease. Your Lordships’ House provides a very good model for how constructive discussions can happen. On my noble friend’s point about the 10 pm curfew, public health directors have reported that compliance with social distancing and enforcement of regulations becomes more challenging later in the evening, after people have been drinking. That is part of the reasoning behind the 10 pm curfew, so that drinking does not continue through the evening.
My Lords, the complexities of getting the balance right are immense. While I sympathise with a circuit-breaker strategy that pulls the nation together in regional endeavour and would resolve confusion, why not thereafter reduce risk by restricting or shutting down hospitality but funding it, keeping manufacturing and construction running as normal, and encouraging or even insisting on working from home?
My Lords, we have the highest rate of deaths in Europe and the third-highest in the world. The Government did not take the risks to people in care homes seriously until it was almost too late; they dithered for a couple of months about wearing masks. My question is on test and trace. There are too many examples of delays in getting test results and failure to collect samples from care homes until those samples have to be destroyed. The noble Baroness said that the largest number of people are now being tested. Can she say something about the poor quality control?
I can say to the noble Baroness that, in total, one in eight people in England have now been tested at least once. The average distance travelled for in-person tests is now 3.7 miles, and we continue to return the majority of in-person tests the following day.
My Lords, government Ministers, including the Prime Minister, like to characterise alternatives to their liberty and economy-destroying actions as “letting the virus rip”. Will my noble friend the Leader accept that that is a mischaracterisation of a sincerely held belief that there is a different way to arrive at a difficult balance between dealing with the virus while minimising the wider health, societal and economic impacts? That way has worked in Sweden without any letting rip. Why do the Government refuse to contemplate changing course?
I am happy to acknowledge that there are differing views on how to approach this issue. In fact, today’s discussion has shown that. I believe that everyone is taking their position for the right reasons and because they truly think that that is the best way. As I have said to all noble Lords, we are looking at the advice and are having to make very difficult judgments. The Prime Minister has that weight on his shoulders and it is a very difficult situation to have to manage.
My Lords, the Government have, quite rightly, encouraged the uptake of the flu jab to help to minimise the severity of Covid, but in this area—and in many others—it is impossible to get a flu jab. I realise that she may need to write to me but can the Leader tell me how the sourcing of flu jabs is going, because it is almost impossible to get one in many areas?
The issue is that the flu jab is released in batches so certain amounts are available per month. It is more about flow-through than the availability of the flu jab; that is because it is delivered in batches up to and past December.
My Lords, does the Leader agree that it is important to keep public opinion onside and that, if the public have lost faith in the Government’s policies, they will not respond in the way we want them to? Specifically, why has local government been virtually ignored over the whole period of the pandemic, as have the Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? Surely we must ensure that all local bodies, Governments and Administrations pull together so that the people of this country can have confidence that the Government are doing the right thing.
I assure the noble Lord that dialogue with local leaders at the local government level and between the devolved Administrations is ongoing. There is a lot of working together. Obviously, it is for the devolved Administrations to make judgments on their areas. The Chief Medical Officers also talk regularly, so we are working together closely.
I can also assure the noble Lord that there will be a significant communications campaign about the new tiers. Actually, if noble Lords go on to GOV.UK, there is a postcode checker and some very good, accessible information; we need to make sure that that is getting out to everyone because we need people to follow the rules so that we can hope to turn the tide on the virus.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
My Lords, this was the most telling comment from the SAGE meeting on 21 September:
“The more rapidly interventions are put in place, and the more stringent they are, the faster the reduction in incidence and prevalence, and the greater the reduction in COVID-related deaths”.
Do the Government not owe it to the public to spell out for them the consequences for health and deaths of the decision to reject the advice from SAGE?
As I have already said, we took a robust and proportionate approach in September, introducing the rule of six and the curfew. We have done the same again. As I said, our new tiered approach came into effect only today. We believe that it will be effective and we look forward to working with leaders across local government and the devolved Administrations to make sure that we get a grip on the virus and bring it down and ensure that we all follow the rules so that we go into winter in the best possible situation.
Arrangement of Business
The following proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the new guidance issued by the Procedure and Privileges Committee on Monday. When there are no counterpropositions, the only speakers are those listed—they may be in the Chamber or remote —and the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. When there are counterpropositions, their movers—who may be in the Chamber or remote—may also speak as listed.
Any other Member in the Chamber may also speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Anyone intending to do so should catch my eye or email the clerk. Members not intending to speak on a group should make room for Members who do. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard.
Other than the mover of a counterproposition or the Minister, Members may speak only once on the group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. Leave should be given to withdraw.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member speaking remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. Noble Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice—Content or Not Content—to the collection of voices by emailing the clerk from a parliamentary address during the debate. Members cannot vote by email; the way to vote will be via the remote voting system.
Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]
My Lords, before I turn to the Commons amendments, I will take a moment to remind us all what the Bill does. It gives our law enforcement officers the power to arrest individuals wanted by particular countries for serious crimes when they come across them at the border or on the streets of the United Kingdom. So, when the police come across an individual who they understand, on performing a simple database check, is wanted for a serious offence overseas, they can arrest them immediately without first applying to a judge for a UK arrest warrant. I know that noble Lords already agree that this is a sensible and necessary piece of legislation. I hope that we are now at the final stage of its passage.
Motion on Amendments 1 and 2
1: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert “, but paragraph 3A of the Schedule may not be commenced so as to come into force in relation to a territory before that territory is a category 2 territory for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003.”
2: Schedule, page 3, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 and insert— “(3A)
The “designated authority” is the National Crime Agency.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the meaning of “designated authority”.”
My Lords, if noble Lords are amenable, I will address Amendments 1, 2 and 5.
First, I reiterate that the Bill is designed to bring a wanted person into their extradition proceedings as soon as the police come across them without changing in any way the likelihood of their successful extradition to any country. Ongoing extradition proceedings remain the preserve of the UK’s independent courts and all the safeguards that currently exist will continue to apply. The judicial oversight afforded to every person who goes through extradition proceedings remains unchanged.
I wrote to noble Lords on 21 September. I repeat what I said then:
“a UK court has no obligation to extradite a suspect who has been arrested using this or any power and the protections for every person who faces extradition in the UK remain in place within the Extradition Act 2003. This Bill does not make any individual extradition any more or less likely. The Bill allows UK law enforcement officers to better protect the British public and get potentially dangerous offenders off UK streets. It does not provide any advantage for the countries that are listed in the Bill and, as now, it is a UK court who will determine whether the fugitive should be extradited, not a court overseas.”
Amendments 1 and 5 are a contingency to keep an important protection for the UK public in place after the end of the transition period, whatever the outcome of the current negotiations. As noble Lords are aware, the negotiated outcome that we seek with the EU would create a warrant-based system based on the EU’s surrender agreement with Norway and Iceland.
The purpose of amending the Bill in this way and at this time is to ensure the continuation of relevant arrest powers should it prove necessary; it will be commenced only if it is needed. If an agreement is reached, it will not need to come into effect. It is a contingency. Similarly, it provides a contingency in the event that we do not agree new extradition arrangements with Norway and Iceland to maintain the arrest power currently available by virtue of the EU’s Norway-Iceland surrender agreement.
Our current warrant-based extradition arrangements, in the form of the European arrest warrant, and the ones we seek to negotiate based on the agreement with Norway and Iceland, both allow for the immediate arrest of a fugitive wanted by a party to the agreement to take place. We are of course seeking to agree arrangements to keep our power of immediate arrest and retain an end-to-end extradition system with EU countries, Norway and Iceland. The Bill cannot and does not provide an end-to-end system, as is being discussed in the negotiations, but it would none the less maintain an important existing law-enforcement capability in respect of persons wanted by EU countries, Norway and Iceland. There is no alternative in UK law or within the European Convention on Extradition.
So, in the absence of the power being available, this important protection for UK citizens from potentially dangerous criminals wanted across Europe would be lost. Last year, nearly 1,100 wanted persons were arrested in the UK based on a European arrest warrant. Between 60% and 70% of these were as a result of chance encounters. It is these arrests that this amendment provides the contingency for. The Bill is about ensuring that UK law-enforcement officers can continue to arrest dangerous criminals in the UK as they do now. It has nothing to do with whether any UK extradition requests from other countries are successful.
If we fail to legislate in this way and do not secure new extradition arrangements with the EU, Norway and Iceland, if a UK police officer were to encounter a dangerous criminal that they knew to be wanted by the police in an EU member state, they would not have the power to arrest them then and there. The police officer would need to let the individual go, secure a UK arrest warrant from the courts and then attempt to track down the fugitive, possibly days later and of course leaving open the possibility that they might reoffend.
I repeat: the amendment will be commenced only if no warrant-based system is in place at the end of the transition period. It will not be commenced if an agreement is reached with the EU or, in respect of Norway and Iceland, with those territories. The drafting allows for commencement only in relation to EU member states and not Norway/Iceland or vice versa to accommodate the different possible negotiation outcomes. Noble Lords will note that the provision also contains a sunset clause, such that it expires at the end of 2021 to the extent that it has not been commenced. I ask noble Lords to support the Government in this responsible and necessary contingency planning and to support Amendments 1 and 5.
Amendment 2 specifies that the National Crime Agency is to be the designated authority for this legislation and provides a power to change the designated authority by regulations in the future. The designated authority is the agency that will have the task of “certifying” the international arrest alerts that conform to the criteria for carrying out the new power of provisional arrest. We have taken this approach as a direct alternative to using secondary legislation on this occasion. The amendment therefore represents a change of process, not policy, and noble Lords will recognise that it is being made in response to pressures on parliamentary time.
Throughout the passage of this Bill, the NCA, as the UK’s National Central Bureau for Interpol, has been identified as the designated authority and has the need for a regulation-making power to change that, if necessary, in the future. This ensures flexibility for changing circumstances or alterations to the functions or titles of law-enforcement bodies in the UK, such as the NCA in this context.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who laid a very similar amendment to this in Committee, for his contribution to the scrutiny of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this ensures the best use of parliamentary time, and the future-proofing of this legislation. I ask noble Lords to support the Motion on Amendments 1 and 2, and the Motion on Amendment 5.
My Lord, I welcome Commons Amendment 2, designating the NCA in statute for essentially the reasons that the Minister has just given. On Commons Amendments 1 and 5, as a practitioner with a particular interest in terrorism, I know how slow and imperfect the old extradition arrangements were within Europe and how much better things became with the advent of the European arrest warrant, not least by taking the sting out of our sometimes politically fraught extradition relationship with Ireland. That ship has sailed, so it seems that the best we can hope for now is an arrangement modelled on the Norway/Iceland relationship with the EU. These amendments acknowledge that even this modest goal may not be achievable. Their purpose, as I understand it from the Minister, is to offer a marginal improvement to the third-best solution with which we would then be left. So it is depressing that these amendments have been thought necessary, but prudent in the circumstances that they have been put forward. For that reason, not without sadness, I support them.
My Lords, I shall first acknowledge that the noble Baroness the Minister has a script that she is obliged to follow. As the Minister has said in her introduction, this Bill gives the police the power to arrest somebody who is wanted in another country, without the need to apply to a court for a domestic warrant before the arrest can be made, provided that it is a trusted country and the National Crime Agency has verified that the foreign request to make the arrest is necessary and proportionate.
Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Minister has maintained that it is not a replacement for the European arrest warrant, and I agree—but only to the extent that the Bill does not change the extradition process once the accused is before a court. This power to arrest those wanted by a foreign country without a domestic warrant is, of course, part of the European arrest warrant regime. If someone is wanted under an EAW, they could be arrested by the police in the UK without a domestic warrant. Despite what the Minister has said, there is every indication that the UK will no longer be part of the European arrest warrant at the end of the transition period, not least because the constitutions of some countries, such as Germany, do not allow their own nationals to be extradited to a non-EU country. The noble Baroness prayed in aid the EU agreement with Norway and Iceland, but that agreement took more than a decade to agree and implement, and it excludes the extradition of a country’s own nationals.
We were suspicious that this Bill was a replacement, or at least a partial replacement, for the European arrest warrant—and, indeed, we were at a loss if it was not. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, asked:
“Could the Minister explain why the existing powers of urgent arrest under Sections 73 and 74 of the Extradition Act 2003, before an extradition request has been submitted or certified, are not considered sufficient? ... My understanding is that a request from the issuing state for the accused’s provisional arrest can already be the subject of a provisional warrant application by the CPS to the court—an application which, in urgent cases, can be made out of hours to the relevant duty judge, if necessary by email.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1735.]
This sounds to me like a process that could be quicker than the one proposed by this Bill, where the NCA has to certify the request to make an arrest.
Also at Second Reading the Minister said:
“Several noble Lords have voiced concerns that this Bill is an attempt by the Government to replicate the capability of the EAW. As I hope I have explained, this is not the case.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1757.]
This prompted the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to ask:
“If it is not a replacement for the European arrest warrant, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not add the list of EU countries to the list we have already?”
The Minister replied:
“I said that it is not a replacement for the EAW, but of course the Government can make that request of Parliament.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1760.]
And lo and behold, government Amendment 5 adds the list of EU countries, plus Norway and Iceland, which have their own versions of the European arrest warrant, to the list we already have.
Perhaps the noble Minister will now accept that, if the Bill is not a complete replacement for the EAW, it is at least a partial replacement for the EAW, in that it restores arrests without warrant in the UK for those wanted by EU countries—a power that will be lost, along with the rest of the European arrest warrant regime, at the end of the transition period.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, just said, in effect, the fact remains that, even with the Bill, extradition of EU nationals will take longer and be more complex than under the European arrest warrant regime. There is no obligation on EU countries to reciprocate—that is, to immediately arrest and quickly extradite those wanted by the UK who are in EU countries —because the Bill is a partial but wholly inadequate replacement for the European arrest warrant. Perhaps this explains the Government’s sheepishness in trying to put distance between it and the EAW.
It is clear that we will all be less safe in the UK at the end of the transition period, when we lose access to the European arrest warrant, as a consequence of leaving the European Union. We do not oppose the government amendments in this group, but it would have been better if the Government had been more transparent from the outset.
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we do no oppose government Amendments 1, 2 and 5, as spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. I am particularly pleased to see Amendment 2. I very much agree with the comments of both the noble Lords who have spoken so far.
It is regrettable that we had a whole debate on the Bill and, consequently, were assured or told that it was not a replacement for the European arrest warrant. At the last possible moment, Amendment 5 goes down, adding all the European Union countries, plus Norway and Iceland. The Government should be more transparent about these things. I find it quite frustrating; I just do not know why the Government act like this.
When the history books are written and people look at this period, I have no doubt they will see what has gone on here as absolute nonsense. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says, we will be less safe. The only beneficiaries of this will be criminals, and that is a great regret. It is a bad place for us to be in. We had the Brexit referendum, fine, but I do not understand why the Government are pursuing this extreme version, so we end up with a situation like this. All we can do now is to agree these amendments, because they are the best we will get in the circumstances. As I said, we will support them, but with great regret. The only beneficiaries and the people laughing today are criminals.
I thank the noble Lords who spoke to this. I start with the analogy between this and the European arrest warrant, and the suggestion that this was our intention all along. The Bill is similar to the EAW only in so far as it provides an immediate power of arrest of those wanted by countries listed in the Bill. It does not change anything about the subsequent extradition hearing in court or consideration by the Home Secretary.
In the negotiations going forward, I reiterate that we will remain fully committed to reaching a balanced and reciprocal agreement with the EU on law enforcement and criminal justice. The safety and security of our citizens is our top priority, which is why we have said that the agreement with the EU should provide for a fast-track extradition arrangement, based on the EU’s arrangements with Norway and Iceland. An agreement with the EU that reflected either the UK or EU text would keep EU member states in Part 1 of the Act, where the power of immediate arrest already exists. The Bill is for specified Part 2 countries only, for which there is currently no power of immediate arrest.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his use of the word “prudent”. I know he is not entirely satisfied with this outcome and would have preferred the EAW, for all its shortcomings, but I hope that that explanation is reasonable to noble Lords, for now.
Motion on Amendment 3
3: Schedule, page 3, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 4
My Lords, I now address Amendments 3 and 4, made in the other place, to remove amendments made here at Third Reading. Amendment 3 commits to Parliament having the same opportunities to scrutinise this issue as it does now in the specification of territories under the Extradition Act 2003. The addition or removal of any territory is by the affirmative procedure and, as I have emphasised throughout the passage of the Bill, any statutory instruments laid before Parliament are accompanied by Explanatory Memorandums, which set out both the legislative context and policy rationale.
Throughout this process, relevant officials are engaged in regular discussions with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations and law enforcement agencies, which operate across the UK to ensure the effectiveness of our extradition system. This system, which gives Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise such proposals and accept or reject them, has been in place for over 15 years and has proved effective and fit for purpose. The amendment ensures legislative consistency between the Bill and its parent Act, the Extradition Act 2003. There is no need for alternative provisions, and I hope noble Lords will support the amendment, which the other place considered in detail and decided, on balance, to comprehensively support.
I will now address Amendment 4, made in the other place, to remove the amendment made here. This provides that the removal or addition of a country will take place under the existing process in the Extradition Act 2003, where multiple countries may be added or removed at once. The Bill is consistent with that legislation and any Government seeking to add countries in the future can do so only with the consent of Parliament.
Unnecessarily burdensome legislation is an inappropriate use of parliamentary time and resources, and the Government are under a duty to use proportionate systems to legislate. Any additions are dictated by the will of Parliament and, if Parliament does not agree that a country should be specified, the relevant regulations will be voted down in the normal way.
The Government are well aware of the importance of parliamentary support to continue or commence any extradition arrangements with new countries. Our arrangements with Hong Kong are a good recent example, and amendments tabled to the Bill in the other place demonstrated the strength of parliamentary feeling on the matter. Our extradition arrangements with Hong Kong have been suspended indefinitely and these events exemplify that this kind of parliamentary scrutiny is already highly effective. As with the previous amendment, we do not think there is any need for this provision in the Bill. I therefore ask noble Lords to support these amendments and I beg to move.
My Lords, I add my regret about the position on the European arrest warrant. Our post-Brexit arrangements in the realm of security and policing seem precarious or, at best, a poor substitute for what we have now.
When noble Lords debated what went to the Commons as new Section 74B(8)—the subject of Amendment 3 —the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that the conditions were a “reasonable and proportionate” process. I say they are more important than a process; they are about consultation, assessing the abuse of the Interpol Red Notices system, and trust in the system. The Government gave assurances then that they would not include countries likely to abuse the system and that the amendment would not conflict with how the Government plan to deal with the regulations.
I will focus on what was our amendment, which is currently the new Section 74B(9), which the Government seek to remove by Amendment 4. That provides for regulations to Schedule A1 that can add specified category 2 territories. That is jargon for something quite important.
The amendment has an impeccable pedigree. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Kennedy, supported it at previous stages—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will be speaking on it shortly. I can think of no reason for the Government resisting this provision other than “It is not how we do things”, or possibly “It was not invented here”. I took comfort that I was not on the wrong track by the support that I received from Cross-Benchers, eminent lawyers whose perspective could not be thought to be distorted by party-political considerations, although I do not think that this issue is party-political.
The provision that the Government seek to remove allows regulations to designate only one country at a time. There is a simple reason for that: to enable Parliament to play its proper part. We all know that such instruments cannot be amended, so if we are presented with a list of countries including one bad apple, in human rights terms, could we expect Parliament to agree to the bad apple to avoid losing the arrangements with all the others, or to reject them all when only one is an issue? I used the examples of an order applying to both the Netherlands and Turkey, or to Sweden and Venezuela. No two countries are quite alike. I could extend the first pairing to a trio, as someone said to me yesterday: France is quite different from Turkey, and Turkey is quite different from Syria.
At previous stages, noble Lords explained their concern that the Government’s judgment could be swayed by factors unconnected with the assessment of a country’s human rights record. Favours for trade concessions were mentioned. That has happened. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, put it neatly, saying that the time may come when another Government seek a favour from this country or we seek a favour from them. He gave an example: “Do you really want our safety equipment? Do you really want our artificial intelligence? Let’s have a mutual extradition arrangement.” He could also envision the possibility—not immediately, but not remotely either—of the Government of the day wishing to associate themselves with a country that shared their political views but was nevertheless not a desirable country with which to have these arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, described the provision as meeting the problem of a non-amendable instrument without insuperable difficulties for the Government.
The Government have argued that countries can be added in multiples under the parent Act and so there is no need to make a change, but should we not always be on the lookout for better ways of doing our job of scrutiny? They also said that the courts would throw it out if a country did not respect rule of law. However, the courts can only consider applications from individuals, case by case. They can only consider what the Government put in the regulations when those regulations are applied and the individual affected challenges the action.
The Minister has told the House that she would not present an SI that she knew would run into trouble. I say this so often that the Minister must think that I have got it in for her—I really have not, not personally—but we must depersonalise these things. She may be the Minister for longer than I am here, but she will not always be the Minister. There may be a Government whose judgment she questions. She says that the House could vote down an instrument. The House is responsible and would not want to because of one bad apple.
At Second Reading in the Commons, the Minister said that the Bill was not concerned with the UK’s extradition relationship with other countries, but it is. He said that when a fugitive is wanted for a serious offence by a trusted country, he is brought before a UK court, but that is not the issue. The Commons were told that the amendment is not required and is unnecessarily burdensome. It had not occurred to me but, as a Member put it, considering the Government’s vocal support for the Magnitsky Act to deter human rights abuses, it would be hypocritical to oppose an amendment that has the same purpose.
In Committee in the other place, the Minister, James Brokenshire, said:
“Any additions will be dictated by the will of Parliament”—
that is what this provision would put in place—
“not by an unusual process such that this would impose. If a country is proposed that Parliament does not agree should be specified, then the regulations will be voted down in the normal way. We judge that that remains the rightful process.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/20; col. 567.]
It may be an unusual process, but why is the process invariable? Voting down regulations listing 10 or 20 countries would cause a lot more nuisance for the Government than voting down regulations relating to a single country and there would be very little pressure on parliamentary time.
We are not challenging the premise of the Bill, but we are defending the sovereignty of Parliament, as distinct from the Executive. I still do not understand the technical, practical or political arguments. We would deal with a bundle of instruments, one after the other, which is a bit tedious, but does that matter? There is no delay, just a sensible opportunity for each House properly to give or withhold approval. I fail to see why the Government feel threatened by such a common-sense proposal. When the moment comes, I will seek the opinion of the House.
My Lords, the following Member in the Chamber has indicated their desire to speak, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
My Lords, I add my regrets to those expressed by other noble Lords on the loss to this country of the European arrest warrant. I was in the European Parliament when it was born, nearly two decades ago, and my last initiative as an MEP was to write a report on reform of the European arrest warrant, in which the former Home Secretary, Theresa May, expressed great interest before making some unilateral UK amendments about its implementation. It is not a perfect instrument, but it is a lot better than the alternatives, particularly the 1957 extradition convention.
I am focusing on Amendments 4 and 4A. In Committee, the Minister told us:
“The Government have no intention of specifying countries likely to abuse the system to political ends.”—[Official Report, 5/3/20; col. GC 364.]
First, Governments can, and sometimes do, change. Secondly, intentions, however sincere when made, do not always survive unscathed. Presumably the Government intended to act in good faith in respecting the EU withdrawal agreement that they negotiated, signed and recommended to Parliament and the country, but now they want to give themselves the power to override a key part of it. They no doubt intended to keep their promise to uphold high standards of food safety and animal welfare. If they reach a trade agreement with the United States, imports from there will not comply with those standards and our own farmers will become uncompetitive, putting pressure for deregulation here.
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned, there is also apprehension about what pressure might be exerted by potential trade partners. Outside the EU, the UK is more vulnerable because it is only one country. As part of a bloc of 28, we could say: “Sorry, we’re bound by EU law, we can’t give you an individual concession, so there is nothing we can do, chaps.” We are much more exposed to that pressure if trying to reach a bilateral trade agreement with a single country.
Those are the reasons of principle why we need individual statutory instruments, country by country. There are also practical reasons. By insisting that this House takes an all-or-nothing approach, the risk is that the House feels compelled to vote down an SI that contains some perfectly respectable countries and one dodgy one—my noble friend gave some examples. This would waste more time than if the Government had the good sense to take them one by one. It is quite puzzling why they are being obstinate in refusing to see the good sense of that. It would be far more efficient, effective and respectful of human rights and the transparency of parliamentary scrutiny to allow Parliament to focus on one country at a time. That need not slow down the process at all; it could possibly streamline it.
Are there any other Members present who would like to contribute at this point? If not, we can move on. The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
I supported both the amendments to which the response of the Commons is considered in this grouping. Indeed, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I put my name to the “one at a time” amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which Commons Amendment 4 would remove.
I described that amendment at Report as a sensible and practical safety valve. Given the unamendable nature of statutory instruments, it would have made it possible, at least in theory, for your Lordships to vote down the proposed addition to Schedule A1 of an unacceptable country without jeopardising the desirable inclusion of other countries proposed at the same time. As such, it would have been a contribution—a tiny contribution, I acknowledge—to the solution of a much larger and increasingly pressing problem: the need for some sort of practical and meaningful parliamentary control over the content of statutory instruments laid before us.
The Minister is right to say that the issue raised by the amendment has been properly debated in the Commons; the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has, I am sure, borne that in mind, together with whatever prospect her amendment may have of succeeding today, in deciding to put it to the vote. If she persists in that course I shall, because I still support the principle of her amendment, vote for it.
My Lords, it is disappointing that the Government are not moving on either of the two issues on which this House agreed some time ago.
Looking first at Amendment 3, I hope the noble Baroness is right to say that the previous amendment, which is subsection (8) of the Bill at present, is unnecessary because the Government will consult widely with devolved institutions and other organisations before regulations come before Parliament. I know it is a different issue, but when we consider the Covid pandemic, we often hear representations from devolved institutions and the metro mayors about the lack of consultation, so there is concern more widely across government that the Government do not consult as much as they should. I hope we can accept what the noble Baroness is saying: that the Government would consult. Of course, no matter what the good intentions of the noble Baroness—I have a lot of respect for her—she will not always be the Home Office Minister in charge and this Government will not always be in place. People come and go over time, and we are setting down something that may be here for much longer. That is important to note.
There is also the issue of Interpol red notices, which certain countries abuse. I hope the Government will be firm on that and clear that they will not accept abuse of those notices.
The other issue we discussed was whether we should deal with a number of territories together or just singly. I put my name to and supported the decision to deal with them one by one, for very good reasons. There could be a number of countries with which everyone is very happy, but one that raises some concerns. Again, the noble Baroness has said, “We would never do that”. I am sure she would not but, as I said on the previous amendment, people change, Governments change and at a later date, a particular Government may want us to agree to a particular proposal. In that sense, it is disappointing to find ourselves in this position today.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom I respect very much, says that she is going to divide the House. We on these Benches take the view that we have pursued these issues as far as we can, so if she does divide the House, although I have great sympathy with what she is saying, we will not be supporting her.
My Lords, I start with the issue that has been mentioned by all noble Lords who have spoken: the specification of non-trusted countries. Speaking as a Minister, when we look at secondary legislation we always look to see where the risks are and where the opposition might lie. For a Minister to bring forward a statutory instrument that might contain a country to which the whole of Parliament would be opposed would be to absolutely guarantee that that instrument would be voted against. The addition of any country must be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and I trust that neither House would be content to approve the addition of a country about which it had any concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about politically motivated extradition requests. I certainly have sympathy with her point, but the power is not being afforded to countries known to issue politically motivated extradition requests, nor does it alter the ability of a UK judge to discharge such requests in the normal way. The independent courts are the proper forums for deciding which extradition requests should fail, so it would not be appropriate to make provision relating to politically motivated extradition requests through this Bill, which is about a power of arrest. The immediate power of arrest proposed by the Bill will apply only to requests from specific countries: currently, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and, if necessary, the EU member states. These countries are specified as we already have effective extradition relationships with them, and we have confidence in their use of Interpol and the international arrest alerts that they issue. The Government have no intention of specifying countries which are likely to abuse the system to political ends.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the abuse of Interpol channels. International organisations such as Interpol are critical to international law enforcement and provide a secure channel through which we exchange information on a police-to-police basis for action. The UK continues to work with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust, effective and complied with. The former chief constable of Essex was recently made the Executive Director of Police Services for Interpol, which is the most senior operational role in that organisation. A UK Government lawyer has also been seconded to Interpol’s Notices and Diffusions Task Force to work with it to ensure that Interpol rules are properly robust and adhered to by Interpol member states.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made a sensible point about consultation. Of course, extradition is a reserved matter, but we have worked very closely with the devolved Administrations regarding the contents of the Bill and will of course engage with them as a matter of good practice where any secondary legislation is to be introduced in relation to it.
Motion on Amendment 3 agreed.
Motion on Amendment 4
4: Schedule, page 4, leave out lines 3 and 4
Motion 4A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 4)
Motion on Amendment 4
4: Schedule, page 4, leave out lines 3 and 4
Motion on Amendment 5
5: Schedule, page 7, line 2, at end insert—
“3A In Schedule A1 (as inserted by paragraph 3), at the appropriate places, insert—
3B Paragraph 3A is repealed at the end of 2021 if, or to the extent that, it has not been brought into force before the end of that year.”
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local COVID-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020
Motion to Approve
My Lords, these regulations, which were made on 12 October and came into force today are necessary owing to the continued rise in the national transmission rates of coronavirus in England. They form a critical part of the government response to the ongoing threat to public health posed by the coronavirus epidemic.
The new local alert level approach, announced by the Prime Minister on Monday, will rationalise the important programme of local interventions that have been applied across the country. It will enable a coherent set of interventions across England, making it easier to communicate to the public which restrictions apply in their area. This will increase the likelihood of compliance and the effectiveness of social distancing measures.
Today we are debating three sets of regulations: very high, high and medium. The regulations in this debate set out the restrictions that will apply when the local alert level category is set at very high. These will apply when the local alert level category high measures cannot contain the virus or where there has been a dramatic rise in the transmission rates. There is no automatic trigger for an area to move into higher restrictions. Government, working with local authorities and directors of public health, will consider several factors, including the number of cases in the area, the rate of transmission, the effectiveness of current interventions, hospitalisations, the national picture and an assessment of the capacity of local health services.
Regarding restrictions on gatherings, in areas subject to local alert level very high restrictions, social contact will be reduced to break potential chains of transmission. For that reason, meetings in indoor venues and private gardens is limited to a single household. Meetings in outdoor venues are limited to a single household unless exemptions apply. The intention is to dramatically reduce social contact while balancing the social and well-being benefits of meeting family or friends. We recognise the risk of isolation, and have taken targeted policy interventions to mitigate this. For instance, a single-adult household and one other household of any size may link together to form a support bubble. A gathering that is made up of people from the same bubble is not subject to the six-person outdoor limit or the one-household gathering limit that applies indoors and in private outdoor settings.
The Government recognise that both weddings and funerals are significant life events. As such, the following higher limits apply to balance the need for people to recognise these significant events, while minimising the spread of the virus: weddings and civil partnerships are subject to a 15-person limit; funerals are subject to a 30-person limit; and wakes are limited to 15 people.
The restrictions placed on business seek to balance reducing social contact and enabling businesses to continue operating to minimise disruption to the economy. We know that hospitality poses a high transmission risk. PHE data shows that, between 3 August and 27 September, 148 known outbreaks occurred in restaurants and food outlets. PHE’s weekly surveillance report also highlighted that, from 21 to 27 September, 13% of those who tested positive for Covid-19 reported eating out in the time before symptom onset, when there is a high risk of asymptomatic transmission. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has also highlighted that alcohol consumption may increase risk of non-compliance with social distancing and that hospitality settings are associated with increased risk of transmission.
At alert level very high, businesses and venues must follow the restrictions imposed at local alert level medium and high. This requires the closure of all hospitality and leisure venues from 10 pm to 6 am. In keeping with the restrictions on businesses and venues at alert level medium and high, hospitality settings in alert level very high must only use table service for the consumption of food on their premises. This is to reduce the potential for social mixing of customers from different households.
The regulations require the closure of services that pose a higher transmission risk and cannot currently be opened safely. These include nightclubs, dance halls, discos, sexual entertainment venues and hostess bars. The Government are conscious of the impact that this will have on these sectors and we continue to work with representatives from these industries to develop options to facilitate a safe way for them to reopen.
We know that alcohol consumption results in reduced compliance with social distancing rules. These regulations mandate that hospitality venues can only serve alcohol for consumption on the premises alongside a main course meal. Those venues that do not serve main meals must close.
Key to our approach is financial support. Businesses that are required to close will be eligible for support from the Local Restrictions Support Grant. Eligible businesses will receive a grant for each two-week period they are required to close, payable after the first two-week closure period.
In addition, the Job Support Scheme will provide a safety net for businesses across the UK required to close temporarily. The Government will support eligible businesses by paying two-thirds of each employee’s salary up to a maximum of £2,100 a month.
Given the likely impact of the new measures introduced in very high alert level areas, it is important that local areas shape the restrictions introduced and that the restrictions reflect the local, economic, social and public health situation. The Government will work with the respective local authorities to achieve this.
The regulations create offences punishable by fines and provide for fixed penalty notices. I pay tribute to the vast majority of the general public who are doing the right thing and diligently following the rules, but it is vital that the police have appropriate powers to deal with those who do not.
I appreciate that these changes have caused real disruption to people’s lives. However, the evidence continues to indicate that the infection rate is rising across the country. It remains vital that the Government take decisive action to limit further spread. For that reason, I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
At end to insert “but that this House regrets the failure of Her Majesty’s Government to provide the scientific evidence used to inform these Regulations and other restrictions put in place to address the COVID-19 pandemic, including the imposition of a 10.00pm curfew on businesses.”
Some noble Lords may have noticed that I have my reservations about the government policy regarding this pandemic. Of course, there are many different views. Yesterday, we had the somewhat surprising and unlikely juxtaposition of both the leader of the Labour Party and the Conservative leader of Essex County Council calling for tougher restrictions. They may be right.
I have great sympathy for the Government because they are in a very difficult position. They have the hugely difficult task of balancing public health needs against the needs of society and the economy in their policy. They may be right, as we wait with bated breath for the vaccine cavalry to come over the hill. Apparently, though—according to Kate Bingham, the chairman of the Vaccine Taskforce, today—the likelihood is that the vaccine will be only 50% effective.
There are different and opposing views on how to deal with this public health crisis. Of course, I may be wrong. It may not surprise your Lordships to know that I have occasionally—perhaps on many occasions—been wrong in the past. However, this amendment is not concerned with my views or the opposite views.
First, let me ask: what is the purpose of Parliament and this House? Are they just talking shops? The tribunes of the people in the other place should hold the Government to account but we, too, have a role to play, primarily as a revising Chamber. Frankly, we often do rather a good job of that. Also, as I recall from my days at school studying for the British constitution alternative O-level, we act as a check on an unaccountable or overly powerful Government—especially one with a big majority in the Commons—and the arbitrary abuse of power. We should not overstate that role but we can point out the wrongs of untested government decisions.
My amendment concerns the 10 pm curfew in particular. Surely Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons can legitimately ask about it, because the curfew will do grave damage to an already fragile hospitality industry. Restaurants will struggle without two sittings per evening. Pubs are seeing a slump in sales while, incidentally, supermarkets are seeing an increase in the sale of alcohol to be consumed at home after 10 pm. Crowds are being ejected on to the streets at 10 pm, which rather ruins the idea of preventing large gatherings. There will be a reckoning in terms of closed pubs, bankrupt restaurants and, of course, unemployed staff.
So why 10 pm? Why not 11 pm or 9 pm? There is a sense that the figure was possibly plucked out of the air. What is the reasoning behind it? I doubt that any of your Lordships would disagree that the Government should tell us—more especially, the Commons and, indeed, the British people—the answer, yet I have seen no evidence or real response. There are a lot of assertions but little concrete evidence or informed debate. I want to see the opinions of economists, scientists and others, not just of those urging circuit-breakers and the like. I want to hear a balanced discussion on the merits of the case, including the social, economic and behavioural advice. I want to hear a discussion about whether the current policy, which I understand SAGE urged, is working because, as my noble friend just said, infections are increasing yet we have, and have had for some time, lots of local lockdowns.
By nature, I am a rather boring loyalist. I have a fond, perhaps naive, belief that a Conservative Government usually make the right decisions, and I support them even when I have reservations. Can the Minister tell the House what evidence and reasoning the Government have, and can he please share it with us? If the House receives a satisfactory explanation, I will see no reason to press my amendment to a Division.
My Lords, my amendment says that
“that this House regrets that Her Majesty’s Government have failed to implement an effective test, trace and isolate regime for COVID-19 and calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to give all local authorities the resources they need to operate an effective contact tracing system in their areas; furthermore notes that these measures may not be sufficient to address the impact of the COVID-19 virus; and calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to provide the support local businesses and communities need to have confidence in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
I speak to my amendment with a sense of real regret and sadness because, as the Minister tells us from time to time—and I believe him—he and his colleagues are working hard to deliver test and trace and fight the disease on our behalf. I recognise what a huge job the Government have. I wish to make it clear to the Minister that we will not vote against the regulations, but we will see whether we test the opinion of the House on this amendment. However, it is time to come clean. What follows is a sad account that justifies the House expressing an opinion of regret.
I hope that the Government have a plan to make test and trace, as well as investment in local communities, work. When NHS Test and Trace was launched in late May, the Prime Minister promised that it would help “move the country forward”—that we would be able to see our families, go to work and stop the economy crumbling. In the absence of a vaccine, the Prime Minister’s “world-beating” system would be worth every penny of the £10 billion-plus that the Chancellor announced in July would be spent.
This week, we learn that the Government’s SAGE scientific advisers have concluded that the current test and trace system is not working. They say that too few people are getting tested, results are coming back too slowly and not enough people are sticking to the instructions to isolate. They say that the system is having a “marginal impact” on transmission as a result and that, unless it grows as fast as the epidemic, the impact will only wane.
Tasked this spring with rolling out millions of coronavirus tests, the Health Secretary, Mr Hancock, opted for a centralised system using private firms. The business consultancy, Deloitte, was handed a contract to run testing through local drive-in and walk-in test centres, with swabs being sent for analysis at a network of national laboratories, many of which were also outsourced. Serco was also handed a deal to run contact tracing, subcontracting work to other firms as well. I am not making an argument for public versus private; it is a case of the Government not taking cognisance of the assets they already had to carry out this function.
At the same time as this was happening, local efforts were forbidden, not funded or sidelined and ignored. Local directors of public health knew much from their experience of tackling sexually transmitted diseases and food poisoning outbreaks, but their role was being limited, leaving many of them exasperated. The stakes are very high. The Imperial College study found that if test and trace worked quickly and effectively, the R number could be reduced by up to 26%.
As the system got up and running over the summer, ONS surveys of the virus’s prevalence suggested that NHS Test and Trace might be picking up only a quarter of actual cases. In July, one of the system’s senior civil servants, Alex Cooper, admitted privately that the system was identifying only 37% of the people
“we really should be finding”.
The clamour from mayors and local public health officials for a bigger role was growing. Finally, this week the Government admitted that cities and regions should be given help to do more—something that some of us have been advocating literally since February and March.
In the last week of September, the percentage of close contacts reached fell to 68.6%, the lowest level yet. Dido Harding—the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who is the system’s head—said last month that the number of people wanting tests was three to four times the number available, while the national Lighthouse Labs in Milton Keynes, Cheshire, Glasgow and Cambridge had hit capacity. There were website warnings that no tests were available, exposing the British public on an almost daily basis this summer, especially in September when the schools went back and we saw people being sent all over the country to get tests. The scale of the task was shown when the noble Baroness told MPs that around half the available tests were actually being used by NHS patients and social care and NHS staff.
The need for testing will only increase as the virus grows and winter comes upon us. Of those transferred to the contact-tracing system in the week ending 30 September, 74% were reached. We are already a long way off the target and the system will come under greater pressure in the coming weeks. On Tuesday, the Government finally said that visitors to care homes could be tested regularly to try to end the isolation caused by their visits to loved ones being banned. There are 400,000 care home residents, so the new laboratories in Newcastle, Bracknell, Newport and Charnwood cannot come too soon.
As far back as May, SAGE experts said the speed of the results had a significant impact on the reproduction rate of the virus. The Prime Minister pledged on 3 June “to get all” non-postal
“tests turned around in 24 hours”,—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/20; col. 839.]
but this has not been happening. The percentage of returns is too low, and the data blunder that caused nearly 16,000 tested coronavirus cases to go unreported in England last month is only exacerbated by this IT problem.
We have heard embarrassing stories about contact tracers making no calls for days on end. By contrast, local public health officials have been setting up their own call centres and deploying environmental health officers and sexual health experts with local knowledge. Being properly trained to do the job, they reckon that they are tracing up to 100% of the contacts. If they want to back a winner, it seems that that is the winner the Government really need to back.
All of this leads to the Motion I have tabled. The Government have to move quicker; that is clear and has been since March. They have to stop overpromising, share information and data more openly, trust local leaders to know their patch, and support local businesses and communities more readily when they face restrictions. The question of who gets the extra resources to be able to test, trace and isolate, and support local communities, should not depend on their alert level—that is a perverse incentive if ever I heard one. Everyone in all these communities needs to have a level of local support; then, we might see the R number reduce.
My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lady Thornton said, as these regulations need to be seen in the context of a failed and still failing government policy. There is still no coherent government strategy. “Where is the plan?”, the Labour leader Keir Starmer rightly asked. The introduction of a mass-testing programme, checking everybody for the virus on a regular basis, would be one way to endure the crisis while minimising the damage to the economy and the risk to life, but there is still absolutely no sign of such a programme. When people are tested they have to wait ages to get their results, often making the tests out of date. In September, nine in 10 care home tests in England got back late.
The Government are pinning all their hopes on a vaccine but cannot say when there will be one. Nobody can; the answer cannot just be locking down continually, given the large economic and social cost this involves. A recent Lancet peer-reviewed paper identified three key elements essential for bringing the virus under control; none of them is really happening. As Professor Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, has written:
“Most important is a robust system for testing, tracing and isolating, where test results are returned within 24 hours, at least 80% of people’s contacts are reached and there is high adherence to a rule of 14 days’ isolation for those exposed to the virus.”
We will otherwise be locking down, lifting and locking down continually, with massive economic and social costs. I fear that these regulations do not address that key question.
My Lords, I speak on this statutory instrument as a Liverpool city resident and, for eight years, the leader of its city council. Liverpool’s people have a strong sense of community and justice, and what is fair and right. If there is a wrong against the city and its people, they will always join together to fight that wrong— as our Prime Minister has found, to his cost. The agreement hammered out by Boris Johnson and the city’s regional mayor to put Liverpool in tier 3 was tough and has major consequences for the economy of the city region and the jobs of its people. Liverpool has seen cases of Covid-19 rise and rise, although not to the highest in the country. Intensive care units at Liverpool’s main hospitals are now at 95% capacity.
The deal hammered out by the Prime Minister and Labour’s mayor Rotheram is certainly tough; it has put Liverpool City Region as the only region in tier 3, with all the restrictions that entails. This puts a real strain on the whole community and its cohesion, with families separated, people’s jobs and livelihoods lost or put at risk and the city’s economy in danger of going back to the 1980s. Given the severity of the situation, the people of Liverpool are entitled to ask questions and expect straight, honest replies.
Why was Liverpool put in tier 3 when areas of the country with a higher rate of infection were not? What does the Chief Medical Officer mean when he says that these tough restrictions will not be sufficient without tougher local action? Will we get the resources to have a proper test and trace system in place, as the current system has badly let us down? Does the Minister not agree that it would be sensible for all the schools to have a two-week half-term now? Liverpool has 70,000 university students, the majority living in residential communities. Does the Minister consider there is a case for students to study online from home? How many so-called Covid marshals have been recruited in the region? Finally, travel restrictions are tough: they advise not travelling out of the city region and certainly not staying overnight. Are the Government making arrangements so that the city region’s MPs can work and vote from home?
My Lords, government gets harder by the day, but the released SAGE report is shattering because all that it predicted is being seen. Will the Government use half-term as a circuit break and stress, over and over again, the two-metre rule for all places, avoiding indoor shared workplaces?
How many complaints have been received about test and trace? With local lockdowns happening, is all testing and tracing now being handed over to local public health with a transfer of funds from the current outsourced system? Is accompanying the seriously ill and dying still allowed, especially if the relatives have either had Covid clinically or want to take the risk? The guidance seems silent on this. The mental health harm of banned visits will haunt us for years. I declare that I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm; we have heard how pushing alcohol consumption into homes with cheap supermarket booze pushes up domestic violence.
What of the app? Some 79% of adults are thought to own smartphones, but the figure falls to 40% for the over-65s, and not all smartphones are compatible with the Test and Trace app. In tier 3 areas, what proportion of the population have a smartphone that is compatible with the Test and Trace app versus the old NHSX app? Of the 1.5 million QR codes registered with the Test and Trace app, why has only one notification to isolate been sent? Is the app failing? How much money has been spent on trying to get this Google/Apple app to work?
Two-metre distancing, proper mask wearing, soap to wash hands and a circuit break will be far cheaper in the long run and could cost fewer jobs and fewer lives.
My Lords, since being introduced to your Lordships’ House last week I have been treated with generosity and kindness by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I am particularly indebted to my two supporters, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and my noble friend Lord Borwick, and to all the staff who have been so helpful since I appeared here—not least, and in fact especially, the doorkeepers.
Many people can point to a career that is a sort of linear progression, whereas mine has been more a series of happy stumbles. At the core of it is 28 years spent in local government—something that I stumbled into in 1990, becoming a councillor at that stage. That gave me the opportunity to have an insight into much of the hidden infrastructure, the amenities that make our civilised life possible—everything from waste disposal and parks management to roads, railways and aviation, all of them important to us and all fascinating operating businesses in their own right.
In 2008 the Conservative candidate was elected Mayor of London and he asked me to be the deputy chairman of Transport for London. There was a great deal to learn there as well, not only about the operation of railways but about tunnelling, construction and, most painful of all, automatic signalling. Meanwhile, back at my local authority I was writing a local plan and promoting development and new housing.
Now I have stumbled into your Lordships’ House, and I hope while I am here to be able to draw on my experience to give support to the Government as they pursue an ambitious and very necessary infrastructure strategy for the country. I will also be very keen to support them as they manage our exit from the European Union in such a way as to make us a properly self-governing country.
I turn to the matter in hand. Many noble Lords have spoken wisely. It is a matter of immense difficulty and delicacy for the Government at this stage to deal with this pandemic. At some point they will need to stand back and tell us that we can make our own decisions again. That moment is not now, but we must hope that it is not delayed for too long, or beyond the point that is good for us. For now, however, I am content to support this measure.
My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Moylan on his maiden speech in your Lordships’ House. It was delivered in record time, so he was unable to do justice to his considerable achievements.
I had the pleasure of knowing my noble friend when up at Oxford. His presidency of the Oxford Union provided a platform for him to display outstanding intellect and considerable debating skills, which he has put to good use in the City and local government for many decades. Despite his modesty, he has never stumbled but has moved seamlessly from challenge to challenge as a natural leader of people, with strength of purpose, a deep knowledge of the local government challenges to be faced and, above all, an instinctive ability to understand how local government impacts the lives of local people—a subject very relevant to today’s business before the House. I am certain that the House will be the beneficiary of his experience and insights for many years to come. He is warmly welcome.
I turn to the SI before us. The Minister will not be surprised if I make one comment about active lifestyles. It is well known that one of the strongest measures that we can take to tackle Covid is to reduce obesity, increase opportunities for sport, recreation and an active lifestyle, and ensure that we are as fit as possible. An active and well-balanced campaign to be physically and mentally strong is the best way of dealing with Covid. The campaign led by ukactive to keep gyms and leisure facilities open should have the total support of the Government. While it is critical to seek improvements in the way that we treat patients suffering from Covid-19, it is equally important that, where gyms and leisure facilities can be safely opened, they should be. I call on the Government to recognise that and not to close them during this pandemic.
My Lords, it is also a pleasure for me to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
This debate concerns a proud northern city that has pulled itself up from the high unemployment of the 1980s to be a vibrant, multicultural city with a reputation for hospitality and culture. It is refreshing to hear its mayor, the Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region and the leaders of the city region’s five authorities speaking inspiringly about their city and about how the problem of Covid needs to be addressed by balancing the well-being of the residents and that of the economy, recognising that Liverpool needs restrictions to save lives, but not without compensation to save livelihoods.
A note of exasperation is coming in at the lack of organisation in the Government’s approach. It has been clear for some time that locally controlled test-and-trace systems are more effective than a national one. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment. Will the Minister confirm how much this national system has cost so far, including the salaries of those in charge of it? Could that money have been better spent on direct needs?
I have huge reservations about how enforcement will work and the danger of overwhelming already stretched police forces. Can this be made clearer?
Leaders in Liverpool point out that austerity measures in Liverpool over the past 11 years, with cuts to public health, the NHS and local government, have left a high correlation between the highest Covid infections and the areas of disadvantage. It is estimated that by Christmas there could be 20,000 unemployed. Three hundred leisure and hospitality venues have closed since March. They insist that, if more closures are to happen, there must be appropriate support for staff.
Liverpool politicians ask the Government for acceptable solutions, with a clearer final settlement that enables forward planning and the ability to set budgets. If this funding crisis is not resolved, there will be no economy to come back to. Mayor Anderson said recently:
“At a time of crisis, people need hope”,
“lockdown, yes; on the cheap, no.”
Liverpool has been practical and imaginative. Will the Government give it the financial and practical support to help it solve this grave problem?
My Lords, there is possibly nowhere else in the country more lacking in confidence and trust in Boris Johnson’s Government than Liverpool. Previous Conservative Governments spoke about “managing Liverpool’s decline”—but Liverpool fought back, and what the city needs now is a managed recovery from the Covid pandemic. Almost everyone in Liverpool recognises that, with intensive care units at 95% capacity in the main hospitals, saving lives is paramount. The question is how best to do this, and people know that saving livelihoods is vital for the long term, too. As the Echo said yesterday:
“Many of us will feel frightened, isolated and lost amidst the tangle of seemingly contradictory rules and support packages—barely providing a sticking plaster to cover the deep wounds to our region’s economy.”
The problem is that there is simply no confidence that Boris Johnson’s policies are soundly based on science or that there is a proper plan for making sure that lockdown measures do more than just postpone the spread of the virus and ensure that people’s livelihoods are protected. The Government expect to be trusted but they have not trusted local authority leaders or local public health services, which could have done a much better job with test and trace.
People see Boris Johnson’s Government as incompetent and uncaring. They sense a whiff of corruption as contracts are inexplicably awarded to friends of those in government without normal transparency rules. They hear from journalists about briefings from a “senior government source” and assume that this must mean the man who goes to Barnard Castle for an eye test. There should be an end to such anonymous briefings.
People in Liverpool feel singled out. They feel that they are being told to walk alone, but the people in Liverpool never will.
My Lords, it is a pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I draw attention to my interests as listed in the register.
I support the principles informing this statutory instrument, yet citizens need to be aware of how compliance will enable restrictions to be downgraded from very high to high and medium, and vice versa. The public need to understand the criteria which are used, and will be used in the future, to inform a change in tier levels. Knowledge is vital to gain buy-in to the measures to protect lives and livelihoods. For example, will indicators be considered in addition to those that we have just been informed of, including rising levels of local unemployment and mental health crisis referrals, to inform local and national discussions regarding the application of tier-level restrictions by area? The SI’s associated guidance for visitor access to residential care homes is far from transparent. It simply states:
“Closed to external visitors other than in exceptional circumstances.”
I welcome the announcement of testing healthcare students on clinical placements, particularly as they often work with vulnerable, frail residents in care homes. The test and trace system has limited resources, yet surely it is time to include essential visitors for each care home resident. In evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee, Helen Whately, Minister for Care, acknowledged the challenges associated with the restriction of visitors to care homes. Can the Minister assure the House that testing of at least two regular visitors per resident will be organised this winter? It is a basic human right to see, touch and reassure a loved one. We must learn to live with Covid and promote the health and happiness not only of care residents but of their families and loved ones if we are to remain a compassionate society during this pandemic.
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Moylan on his maiden speech, and I particularly welcome a fellow Brexiteer to our ranks.
I have my name down to speak on all three sets of regulations this afternoon. I would have preferred to take all three together, as was done in the other place, so that we could make more considered interventions, but the horrible hybrid House rules prevent this.
I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Robathan. The Government have said that they base their decisions on scientific evidence, but it is not clear that they are doing this. The advice from SAGE on 21 September was a shopping list of immediate interventions that included a circuit-breaking lockdown and the immediate closure of all pubs, restaurants and hairdressers. The Government very wisely ignored that advice.
The most interesting thing in the record of the SAGE meeting was as follows:
“Overall, the evidence base on which to judge the effectiveness and harms associated with different interventions is weak”.
There we have it. There is no real evidence for the biggest infringements of civil liberties in peacetime, no real evidence for a harsh penalties and enforcement regime, no real evidence for the biggest act of self-inflicted economic harm, and no real evidence for the actions which have caused so much collateral damage for the mental and physical health of non-Covid patients. I shall be saying more about that in the next debate.
My Lords, I have a certain sympathy for the Minister. These are very difficult judgments. Within a global pandemic, there are no silver bullets, and I do not doubt that Ministers have done their best. However, in my view they have made a very grave misjudgment—here, I disagree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—in ignoring the SAGE advice of 21 September. They did not just ignore it; they failed to explain at the time why they were ignoring it, and this is bound to further undermine trust.
In the chaos of crisis, stuff happens and things go wrong, but a wilful decision to ignore the best available scientific advice without explanation at the time is a very serious criticism. That is a pity, because I think that the three-tier system is in principle a good idea. A differentiated approach with an emphasis on local action is right. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to the House as a fellow enthusiast for local government, if not a fellow enthusiast for our membership of the EU. The Government should have put more emphasis on remedying the obvious failings in their track, test and trace system; they should have pursued stronger integration of the national and local systems; and they need to give decent resources to councils, as well as proper compensation to businesses and employees.
We have lost a lot of ground in the last month, and I believe that Keir Starmer’s proposal for a circuit break is all that we have left in the present situation.
My Lords, I very much regret the statutory instrument that we are debating this afternoon. Like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I am acutely aware of the need to be able to deal effectively with Covid-19.
I declare my interest. I might go by the title of Baroness Smith of Newnham, which is in Cambridge, but I am of Crosby in the county of Merseyside, which I believe Her Majesty’s Government have now renamed Liverpool City Region. I am from Sefton. On Friday, I was planning to travel to visit my father, as well as my optician. That might of course be seen as simply “doing a Dominic Cummings” but I had anticipated doing so. I have talked to my family and asked what they think about the tier system and, in particular, the question of visits by members of the family who no longer live in the city region. Officially, we can visit but we cannot stay—or maybe we can, although it is advised not to.
I have looked at the three statutory instruments that we are dealing with today—unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I propose to speak to only one of them—but it is not clear how people are expected to engage between the three tiers. It is not necessarily clear to people in Sefton and others parts of Merseyside why they should be in the “very high” tier, when infection rates are lower than in Manchester, Nottingham or Newcastle-upon-Tyne. If it is because of the capacity of the local hospitals being reached, that needs to be made much clearer.
Given that I am from Crosby, I should be most grateful to be told whether outdoor locations where people are permitted to meet include a beach. To me, that is outdoors and possibly a place where I am allowed to meet my father. However, in terms of trust and understanding the Government, can the Minister explain why this approach is being taken now rather than their having proposed something clearer and more self-explanatory three weeks ago, when SAGE put forward its suggestion for a circuit break?
My Lords, we have heard that these restrictions are necessary to save lives, but which lives? Lockdown is assessed to have caused thousands of deaths from non-Covid causes. As hospitals in an area fill up, can our National Health Service not accommodate patients elsewhere, including in the Nightingales? Imposing these further, very high restrictions will undoubtedly damage family life and overall quality of life, yet Parliament has not been offered evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. It is not clear how they defeat the virus, nor how many lives will be saved by ongoing lockdown.
In addition, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, about the dangers of the 10 pm curfew and the ineffectiveness with regard to crowds coming out at the same time. I also share his sympathy for my noble friend the Minister. None of this is easy, and I know that my noble friend is dedicated to his brief. But balancing public health needs with the needs of society, albeit a horrendous challenge, surely needs to be based on sound data. How does a draconian lockdown, or indeed a circuit-breaker, defeat Covid? Will locking down and opening up, followed by new Covid transmissions, perhaps cause more deaths than lives saved from coronavirus? Estimates suggest that the number of people dying from non-Covid causes due to staying away from A&E, and inadequate social care, is, so far, 42,000. I hear that imposing these further restrictions will increase fatalities and, without effective test and trace or a vaccine, they do not offer a remedy.
Since March, 350,000 people have not been referred for urgent cancer checks. Many of those people will die. This is not just about saving lives from Covid—it is about saving lives overall, and our way of life.
My Lords, the system of testing that is the basis for these three SIs has failed completely, as many noble Lords have said. It is in total disarray: the data comes late, is unreliable and does not, in my view, support any kind of three-tier lockdown. My noble friend Lady Thornton has called for local delivery, properly financed, and that is absolutely essential. It is time to get that implemented, and the two weeks that people are talking about now is much too short.
Let us take a step back. Covid-19 is going to be here for months, if not years. Many people will catch it next week or next year, until there is a vaccine that everyone can have. These restrictions are there to ensure that there are enough hospital beds, but they should also allow business and leisure to continue, on a restricted basis. We are not going to beat the virus, as such, unless or until we get a vaccine, so we have to learn to live with it.
Where is the data to support the 10 pm closure of pubs, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, asked? Communities will survive only if there is credible local delivery, with local finance, and it is about time that the Government responded to this and acted on it, because the essential work has to be done locally. In the meantime, it might actually reduce the costs—so far, I believe, £12 billion, which the Government have given to their friends on a national basis to take things forward, without any competitive tendering.