Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend for stepping into the breach unexpectedly. In moving the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 I will speak also to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021. These regulations are part of the Government’s balanced, proportionate and evidence-led approach to managing the virus.

Test, trace and self-isolation measures remain an important part of our line of defence, but we continue to keep our approach under review as we learn more and gather more data, to ensure that we have an evidence-led response. The self-isolation regulations we are debating today made important changes to the rules from 9 December by helping to align our domestic and international arrivals self-isolation policy on vaccination recognition. This issue has been raised many times and I know these changes are welcomed by many noble Lords. The regulations mean that a person who has been vaccinated outside the UK is exempt from self-isolation if identified as a close contact of a positive Covid-19 case, if their vaccine status is recognised for the purpose of international travel rules. Those who have taken part in qualifying clinical trials abroad are also exempt from self-isolation if they are a close contact of a positive case.

The regulations also clarify the process for those who are unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons to provide evidence of this in line with the Covid-19 pass scheme. We hope these changes will benefit visitors to the UK, returning UK nationals who have been vaccinated abroad, international students and families with relatives overseas. This is part of the Government’s approach to ensuring that the regulations are balanced and proportionate to the risks we face from the virus.

Financial support measures continue to be available to people who are required to self-isolate because they have tested positive for Covid-19 or been identified as a close contact and are not in one of the exempt groups. The Government are also continuing to provide funding to enable local authorities to offer support to those who are eligible and require assistance to self-isolate.

Since 15 December, showing evidence of being fully vaccinated, a negative lateral flow test in the past 48 hours, proof of medical exemption or evidence of participation in a clinical trial has been a condition of entry into certain settings in England. This was introduced following parliamentary approval as part of the package of plan B measures in response to the omicron variant. The regulations that we are debating today make small amendments to correct some minor cross-referencing errors and an omission in the original regulations. They correct how venues calculate attendee thresholds and adhere to spot-check criteria, and they provide a designation to a police authority that collects fixed penalty notices. The correcting regulations were made as soon as possible and came into force at 6 am on 15 December, in line with the original regulations.

I should make noble Lords aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely in her slot.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his informed and helpful introduction, coming as he does from the cockpit of European politics of yesteryear. I also acknowledge my noble friend Lady Merron. When I was in another place, I always observed how cogent and persuasive she was when debating business from the Front Bench and elsewhere.

The second sentence of these regulations indicates why they should be passed in this formal, low-key manner. In the third sentence, however, we can see that some history is made. In the Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 3.1, we can see the status of Parliament writ large. In paragraph 3.2, at line 3, there is the failsafe for Parliament: “cease to have effect”. The Minister has introduced a quite exceptional and very necessary procedure.

These regulations enable one to acknowledge the magnificent way in which our hospital trusts responded throughout to this virus. I still live in what was my constituency of 31 years, and our Deeside Community Hospital manager, Mrs Cheryl Froom, took charge of a new hospital—our leisure centre. The jabbing went like clockwork, despite daily football match-sized crowds. The local GPs and nurses were brilliant; they were so efficient and professional, and the volunteers so co-operative and willing. It all went so well that Mrs Froom also took charge at the seaside resort of Llandudno. Our hospital trust faced up to an exceptional challenge superbly. Arguably, I dare say that the Minister knows of many other trusts that did so very well.

In the Explanatory Memorandum there is reference to fixed penalty notices. Were any served? How many? What amount was charged? Will the Minister give further insight on FPNs? In paragraph 6 of this helpful Explanatory Memorandum—thanks should go to Ms Stockley and Mr Vereker—reference is made to Wales. Does Wales operate the exact FPN as England? My understanding is that Wales can be different and do its own thing legislatively.

I note the reference to small businesses in paragraph 13. Was there consultation with, for example, the Federation of Small Businesses? The Minister might know that the economy of Wales is based largely on small businesses, as well as some very great and considerable businesses.

If I may say so, the Government of Wales have, in my opinion, responded very well to this crisis. We took the people with us in Wales. The Welsh point of view was expressed frequently on the influential Radio 4 programme, “Today”; the nation got to know our First Minister on the “Today” programme—perhaps the Minister did too, and might remember him from his Welsh accent.

What estimate is there from Her Majesty’s Government of the impact so far of decisions by devolved Governments on English Covid policy? Do different Covid policies cut across English ministerial policy in a negative way? Is the department now assessing such impact? Which of the Governments got it right? Have these conclusions been arrived at or not? Who is considering that big issue in governance? Devolved government is now coming up front, after some 20 years—the unforeseen consequences of devolved government.

On these matters, how often did the First Minister of Wales confer with Her Majesty’s Government? When the First Minister embarked on a different Covid path, how was Downing Street informed? Did English officials debate, criticise or confer with Welsh officials? What attempts were made to achieve a unified approach? Were there any? I am talking here of governance—how it affects a great crisis and as a consequence of devolved government. It is only right to pose these questions in a forum such as this; many of the regulations that we consider here, from time to time, impinge hugely on the daily lives of our fellow citizens, but we tend to debate them in this low-key manner, and across the Floor, there is usually friendship and co-operation.

For certain, the consequences of devolved government have manifested themselves in the British state. Health is the current issue: a highly centralised state, some two decades later, has experienced the consequences of its devolution legislation. That is a fact; we have seen it broadcast across the nation, time and again.

Has the Covid crisis signposted the way to a federal Britain? The regulation does not concern the constitution, but there is the question, as a consequence of central government dealing with a crisis in health: has the Covid crisis signposted the way to a federal Britain?

I participated as a Minister in the legislation concerning devolved government as it was put forward, and rejected, in 1979. I remember the campaign, as I do the one that succeeded. I must say that things have moved on, hence my questions. When I entered the other place in 1970, it quickly became apparent that there is a constant battle between the House and the Executive. We may have observed it today—arguably, quite importantly. It often crossed the boundaries of parties. Parliament always needs to be vigilant, but in this instance, for these regulations, there was immediate co-operation in the other place. Throughout, however, that co-operation was shot through by the considerations of devolved government, the consequence of decades-old legislation.

Lastly, having seen the emergency regulations put forward, and now addressed again by the Minister, I was in the Chamber of the House of Commons early in the 1970 Parliament, when that iconic manufacturing company, Rolls-Royce, became bankrupt. Overnight, the British House of Commons—in 24 hours—took into state ownership a dying company. I am not making a specific parallel, but the measures in the other place and here today conjure that up for someone with a long parliamentary memory, such as me, and it seems apposite to dare to remind this Committee of those moments.

My Lords, some of us may remember a propaganda campaign during World War II—if people are old enough, that is; we were not necessarily there. It was called, “Careless Talk Costs Lives”—in this case, livelihoods. I did not support the imposition of plan B before Christmas as I foresaw certain consequences.

It was infuriating that, despite the Prime Minister announcing a balanced approach and that we would monitor events closely, Dr Jenny Harries took to the airwaves to warn everyone to ratchet up precautions. Regrettably, the Chief Medical Officer also contradicted the policy we had, and we watched the hospitality sector once again descend into free fall. Restaurants, pubs and hotels had spent millions on food, drink and recruiting extra staff; reservations were sky-high; at last, they could make some money. But no, tens of thousands of cancellations took place that affected them all. In addition, elective surgery was halted immediately, despite a waiting list of several million people. Some hospitals allowed relatives of dying patients only a one-hour visit per day and the same then occurred in care homes. Many GPs opened their doors for jabs, but not if you needed a face-to-face appointment or a referral for surgery or treatment.

The decisions which also caused those draconian measures were also based on the modelling. It was flawed modelling, yet again: 200,000 cases a day; 25,000 to 75,000 deaths between January and March. That was blasting through the airwaves, too, and it was way out. The media, meanwhile, were back in what I call hysterical overdrive, pressing for tougher measures—just like, I fear, some of the parties opposite, along with Scotland and Wales.

The PM made the right decision. The NHS has had billions of pounds of extra investment, yet it still cannot deal with additional capacity in winter. We know it needs probably 20% more beds for respiratory infections at that time—and that was before Covid—so why was that not planned for? Meanwhile, surgeons and medics were unable to carry out their operations and their treatments. Frankly, this is just not good enough. Those responsible for managing and planning the operational structures are clearly out of their depth, and that needs to change. For far too long, too many patients have been treated like second-class citizens.

My Lords, here we are, rather surreally, at a debate about regulations that were passed so many weeks ago that we are debating them as they are being abolished. It makes a mockery of the idea of scrutiny before we start. Since I have been in the House, I have not liked the idea of nodding things through—what has felt like rubber-stamping so many important decisions.

As I listened to the announcement of the abolition of plan B in the other place, I reflected that it sometimes feels as though our freedoms are treated as gifts from those on high, to be withdrawn from the public far too easily on the precautionary principle—we are being told even now to be cautious—and then given back to the public as though an act of generosity. None the less, I do not want to be churlish, and the announcement that plan B is consigned to the dustbin of history is great news. Hurrah. Perhaps, then, this discussion is just us going through the motions, and we should be celebrating—with wine and cheese—the end of an awful policy.