House of Commons · General Debate
15 June 2020 · 22 other contributors
Opened by Jo Churchill Con Broxtowe
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Jo Churchill raised concerns about public health in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
The amending regulations made by the Secretary of State on May 31st and laid before the House on June 1st aim to respond rapidly to the threat from the pandemic. The use of urgent procedure has allowed for a cautious return to normality while reopening the economy. Despite criticism, these measures are intended to be proportionate and necessary, with the objective of protecting lives and supporting NHS capacity without overwhelming it.
Expressed concerns about the use of urgent procedure for laying regulations before the House and questioned why draft regulations could not have been debated prior to their implementation.
Asked the Minister to explain the sequencing of the amendments, suggesting that debating regulations in advance would improve the legislative process. He highlighted the legal complexity of translating family support structures into law as a reason for better timing.
Asked about the specific guidelines regarding staying over at friends’ or partners’ houses, indicating confusion within these regulations. He emphasised the need for clarity in the implementation of social distancing measures.
Considering that Government have one job, and one job alone right now, which is keeping us safe and preparing for the days ahead, is it not inexcusable that they are not able to keep Parliament up to date at the same speed as they announce things to the media?
They are far-reaching, and it is a pretty poor reflection on this Chamber that it is empty. It is probably only a third full, even with the social distancing rules in place. Where are our colleagues getting upset about the removal of people’s civil liberties? Neither side here has a great story to tell.
We have to get this on to the record. My right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) want to be here engaging in the debate, but they are unable to be here because the virtual Parliament has been closed down for debates such as these, and they have to shield.
The regulations include relaxations for outdoor retail and sporting activities but also require closures of certain venues without an impact assessment. The approach lacks coherence, consistency, and adherence to the Government's own biosecurity centre’s recommendations. There are concerns over the testing and tracing system's effectiveness and the app's status, indicating premature lifting of restrictions.
We need to start voting on these matters as we have not had a vote after 10 weeks into this crisis. The debate on easing lockdown measures is important and needs proper democratic accountability through voting. There should be leadership from both the Government and Members of Parliament to get people back to work.
Asked Charles Walker about the possibility of electronic voting in the House, suggesting it could facilitate quicker decision-making on important matters like easing lockdown measures.
It is an honour to debate civil liberties during the lockdown, but leaders should set a better example by working from home if possible. The restrictions have been necessary for protecting lives and livelihoods in the long term, but they have imposed significant sacrifices on communities. In Westmorland and Lonsdale, unemployment increased by 312% last month; many are already facing financial hardship and destitution. The tourism and hospitality sector, a major employer in Cumbria, has been severely impacted due to its reliance on the summer season for income. Businesses need clear guidance and exemptions from the phasing out of the furlough scheme to avoid further job losses and business closures.
Urged members to focus their discussions on the regulations rather than debating about virtual Parliament versus other forms of Parliament.
Asked if the example set by Northern Ireland, where hospitality sectors are opening on 3 July, could be applied to areas like Westmorland and Lonsdale affected by tourism. Emphasised the need for safe re-opening with clear guidelines.
Highlighted the economic impact of tourism in Thanet similar to Cumbria and questioned if it would be sensible to allow people to sleep on boats, use caravans and campervans as a way to spend money locally and support the local economy.
Emphasises the need for guidance on reopening tourism and hospitality sectors, urges the Government to provide a special package for these industries, highlights the cyclical nature of tourism in Cumbria and the potential hardship it faces without support. Tim Farron also stresses the importance of early planning and flexibility with the furlough scheme.
He expresses concerns about the process of creating and amending regulations that impose significant restrictions on people's liberties, particularly noting that these are the biggest restrictions since World War II. He highlights issues with understanding and compliance due to the complexity of the regulations and their frequent amendments. Harper also discusses the impact of the current regulations on businesses in his constituency and expresses doubt about the timing of reviews for future changes. Additionally, he addresses a specific planned protest in his area under these regulations, noting that it would be unlawful due to gathering restrictions.
Asked Mark Harper to guess how many people will be fined for breaking new regulations, highlighting the inconsistency in enforcement.
Emphasised the importance of the rule of law applying equally to everyone and argued that large-scale breaches could undermine public trust. Also raised concerns about easing restrictions too quickly without proper review.
Argued for the strength of democratic rights in allowing people to protest, despite lockdown regulations, highlighting that this should give hope for democracy's future resilience.
Acknowledged the complexity and challenges of balancing opening up with maintaining necessary restrictions. Explained the Government’s approach to easing measures based on scientific evidence and public health considerations, including the current situation regarding zoos and other public spaces.
Expressed gratitude for the Minister's support during the outbreak but questioned inconsistencies in Government policy, specifically mentioning a U-turn on zoos.
Asked for clarity regarding restrictions on zoos and safari parks, expressing concern about the lack of transparency and documented reviews behind easing restrictions.
The Government are considering the economic impact of the regulations on businesses and individuals, as well as the personal impact on those with protected characteristics. The testing capacity has increased from around 2,000 tests a day in March to over 200,000 tests a day now. Businesses reopening is important, especially for industries like tourism which are suffering unprecedented impacts due to covid-19. The Government have clarified the regulations and guidance for businesses regarding the regulations. Public adherence to the tough measures has been remarkable.
Government Response
For the benefit of the House, I understand that that particular point about participation in legislative debates is currently being considered by the Procedure Committee. I think the Government have indicated that if the Procedure Committee can come up with a sensible way of including colleagues who need to participate remotely in legislative debate, that is something that the Government will look at favourably. Responded to concerns by explaining that regulations are based on scientific advice and need to be reviewed constantly. She defended the Government's approach as necessary for public health, though acknowledged some inconsistencies. A full regulatory impact assessment is not required for regulations lasting less than a year, as these regulations expire six months after coming into force. The Government have considered the economic and personal impacts of the regulations. Testing capacity has increased significantly. Reopening businesses is crucial, particularly in tourism-dependent areas like Bury St Edmunds. Guidance on regulations will be reviewed. Public adherence to measures has been remarkable.