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

The amendments to the regulations that came into force on 13 May were made to reduce the social and economic impact of the measures where it was safe to do so; to ensure continued compliance; and to provide some points of clarity. We are all aware of the substantial cost to our economy that we have had to accept. I am sure noble Lords will be supportive of efforts to protect and restore people’s livelihoods. The Government have been paying close attention to the measures, assessing them to ensure that they continue to be necessary and proportionate. We know that these unprecedented measures have placed a great burden on people, society and business. None of us wants to maintain that burden longer than it is needed to protect the nation and our NHS. The question to be considered each time the regulations are reviewed is whether the restrictions and requirements contained in them remain necessary to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the incidence and spread of infection. Each restriction and requirement must be judged by reference to its continuing necessity and be based on the available information at each stage about the effectiveness and impact of the measures. The Government keep their necessity and proportionality under consistent consideration between the formal reviews. Every review and decision is based on the most up-to-date evidence available at the time it is undertaken. Working alongside scientists and experts, we must act swiftly as we develop a better understanding of the virus and how it affects us, clinically, socially and economically.

As I outlined earlier, two further sets of changes to the regulations came into force on 1 June and between 13 June and today. Both sets of amendments will be debated by this House in due course. I am grateful to noble Lords for their continued understanding of the necessity of making such changes quickly, so that we can support people and businesses to begin their recovery from the effects of this terrible virus. There are no easy judgments or choices at this time, and I welcome the scrutiny that this House will rightly exercise on each set of amendments. I look forward to continued engagement and dialogue with noble Lords as further amendments are made in the coming months, in line with the priorities set out in the Government’s recovery strategy. I beg to move.

The so-called review of the two-metre rule announced yesterday is a case in point, since it appears to be a softening-up process designed to legitimise a decision which has already been made. As the respected Professor Sir Chris Ham, the former director of the King’s Fund, wrote this morning:

“Boris Johnson was complacently late to grasp the gravity of the crisis and then animated by a panic-driven urge to try and impress the public by throwing out pledges he could not deliver.”

That typifies the Government’s whole approach: slow into lockdown; the sacrificing of the care sector; the shortages of PPE; the dubious testing targets and the world-beating app that never quite appears. When will the Government get a grip?

I am happy to support this SI and hope that local authorities are working with local resilience forums to determine a lockdown picture of their patch.

We are more likely to respect both the rules and the guidance if we are treated as grown-ups, capable of distinguishing between them. Let us hope for more of that openness as we fight the pandemic together.

On the same page, paragraph b mentions “open space”. I am afraid that the Countryside and Rights of Way Act does not cover the seashore, so there is an omission there. As far as I know, you can go to the seashore.

Under “Consultation”, the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“There has been no public consultation”.

However, for consultation you do not have to go out and tell people; you can do it through all sorts of research organisations. But if it is left to government departments or SAGE, you can see why mistakes are made.

On “Monitoring & review”, I will make one point to my noble friend. I do not want to hear any more about one metre until there are some real plans for it to come in, giving people in the hospitality industry adequate time to do it. It has to happen—and soon.

I remind the Government that a Minister emphasised at a press conference last week the need for masks in enclosed spaces. I do not think we need the normative ambiguity referred to by a previous speaker.

Many people over 70 who are still fit and active, contributing to the economy and society and with no underlying health conditions, are increasingly finding these blanket policies ageist and discriminatory. A growing number of over-70s are also annoyed at the implication that all their age group are equally vulnerable and have called on the Government to take a more nuanced approach. Indeed, some are starting to say that the proposed cure of a lengthy extended lockdown for older people is as bad as or worse than the disease itself.

To finish on care homes, which are never far from my mind, at the end of May social care leaders began calling on Ministers to prioritise unlocking care homes amid growing concerns that mental health problems were contributing to the deaths of residents, a call echoed by the Relatives & Residents Association. The executive director of the National Care Forum said:

“We need to put the same energy and imagination into opening up care homes as we’re putting into opening up the great British pub.”

I for one agree.