Coronavirus

Asked about the timing of unlocking the country based on new modelling data, highlighting that a faster unlocking could save jobs and businesses. Also questioned about the efficacy and take-up of vaccines in relation to hospitalisations and deaths.

Inquired about the inconsistency regarding travel restrictions for over-60s who own property abroad compared to general restrictions, expressing concerns about public perception of mask mandates.

Asked if there was data indicating how many people had died from covid in NHS hospitals three weeks after receiving their first vaccine dose.

Reiterated the concern about lack of crucial data on hospital admissions and deaths post-vaccination, questioning why such critical information is not being collected.

Raised concerns over long-term effects of covid on the population, specifically long covid, urging for further investigation by the Department.

Asked about the assessment level of hospital admissions that would be consistent with protecting the NHS during the pandemic.

Questioned if step 4 is not in regulations because it signifies freedom from these regulations. Also suggested that certain measures under the Act are unnecessary and should expire sooner rather than later.

Asked about the necessity of renewing the Coronavirus Act for an additional six months, expressing concern over discriminatory social care easements.

Welcomed the expiry of certain measures and highlighted issues with wrongful charges under the Act. Stressed that practical measures can be implemented without extending the temporary provisions indefinitely.

Inquired about the need for continued emergency registration of nurses and court-related provisions beyond six months, suggesting updating legislation through future Bills.

Mr Ashworth acknowledged the Secretary of State for allowing him to intervene at the end of his speech. He paid tribute to those who lost their lives during the pandemic and highlighted the impact on social care, NHS staff, children's education, and public health funding cuts that exacerbated the crisis. He supported the vaccination programme but warned against complacency, noting the need for caution due to the potential spread of variants and the ongoing third wave in Europe. Mr Ashworth emphasised Labour's support for restrictions necessary to control the virus but criticised the curtailment of basic freedoms and called for better scrutiny of such measures. He also raised concerns about specific clauses within the Coronavirus Act, including Schedule 21’s power to detain potentially infectious individuals which has been used unlawfully and could be repealed, and schedule 22 regarding gatherings that might limit protest rights. Mr Ashworth urged a public inquiry into the pandemic's handling.

Vaccination roll-out has been a success with high rates in North Herefordshire, but the Government needs to justify extending the Coronavirus Act for six more months. The vaccine is changing the game and creating economic opportunities as the UK leaves the EU.

The Government must heed expert advice and implement tougher quarantine restrictions for all incoming travellers to prevent new variants from spreading. Scrutiny of the Coronavirus Act is necessary to protect human rights and promote public health.

Stringer criticised the Government's restrictions on demonstrations during the pandemic, citing an example of an arrest with a £10,000 fine for NHS staff pay protest. He argued that the Government does not provide adequate data to parliamentarians to assess the situation effectively and highlighted significant losses in health service provision due to actions taken against the virus.

Bradley discussed procedural motions, stating that while they align with her Committee's report, she emphasised the need for future debates on procedural changes. She addressed the confusion caused by current laws and highlighted the lack of debate time, suggesting the Government should not fear amendments supported by a majority.

It is an eccentric thing to talk about beliefs and fundamental rights in the House of Commons. The current legislation mirrors a Napoleonic code where UK law typically specifies what is unlawful, rather than affirming freedoms. Poorly drafted laws led to excessive restrictions on protests in Manchester. Yesterday’s suggestion by the Prime Minister for covid vaccine certification to access pubs demonstrates a utilitarian urge from the Government without proper consideration of its implications. The Procedure Committee recommended reverting to pre-pandemic practices and procedures, and we should hope that our freedoms as citizens are similarly restored.

The Liberal Democrats will oppose the renewal of the Coronavirus Act due to its unnecessary powers that infringe on people’s freedoms. While we supported the original bill, many provisions have proven unnecessary, such as detention powers unused throughout the pandemic. These powers cause confusion for law enforcement and have resulted in incorrect charges. Though some provisions are needed, they do not justify renewing all sweeping powers for another six months. Ministers resort to false arguments to persuade MPs to vote in favour. Liberty’s protect everyone Bill offers a balanced approach that preserves both public health and human rights. We urge Conservative Back Benchers and others to oppose this motion.

The most significant shift is the success of the vaccination programme, which has led to high take-up among vulnerable groups. By April, those accounting for 99% of mortality will have received at least one dose. The risks of reopening too slowly are not negligible, and removing restrictions in June and not in May means weeks more misery for businesses and individuals. He supports much of what the Government has done but cannot support the continuation of damaging restrictions beyond April.

Butler argues against the continuation of the Coronavirus Act, which she sees as a blanket of draconian powers. She presented the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill to Parliament and believes it is more in line with current needs. The Act has failed on many levels, and most measures have come under other legislation. Less than 5% are from the Act itself, so there is no need to cling to this old legislation. Her bill would protect disabled people and ensure proper sick pay.

Swayne criticises the Government for seeking to retain emergency powers that should have been temporary, even as vaccination rates rise. He cites an example of a constituent denied companionship during a miscarriage due to restrictions. The motions on the Order Paper show that tyranny is still present and will extend to areas like restaurants and theatres if measures pass tonight.

Winterton criticises the Government's response to the pandemic as one of the worst globally, resulting in high death rates and economic downturns. She highlights that contracts were prioritised over public health measures and calls for an alternative strategy involving maximum suppression or zero-COVID approach alongside vaccinations. Winterton stresses the importance of proper economic support, including sick pay at real living costs, to prevent further socio-economic disparities.

Burgon argues against extending the Coronavirus Act due to the Government's failure in implementing effective public health and social crisis measures. He calls for proper sick pay, a minimum income floor, and other provisions to address deepening socio-economic issues resulting from the pandemic.

Brine welcomes the road map proposed by the Government but criticises certain aspects such as the prolonged restrictions on hospitality businesses. He supports the regulations despite his reservations and calls for continued reviews of the Act's provisions, suggesting that some sections are still necessary while others should be retired.

Agreed with comments made by his hon. Friend about tackling variants from overseas and welcomed the success of the vaccine programme. Highlighted the need for further debate on virtual proceedings in Parliament, including measures such as pass readers that have benefited work here. Advocated for a mechanism to scrutinise contracts related to the pandemic after events through amendments to the Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill.

Thanked those who kept lives going during lockdown, including core workers and community volunteers. Resented having to vote for a six-month extension but supported the Government due to legislative position. Emphasised the need for regular review of emergency powers in future emergencies. Discussed concerns over domestic passport requirements while supporting private sector freedom. Highlighted the ongoing nature of the pandemic wave without community immunity. Advocated for global protocols and metrics to improve pandemic handling.

Expressed concern over the Government's failure in managing the virus, leading to Europe’s highest death toll and worst economic recession. Criticised lack of scrutiny on measures under the Coronavirus Act and cited misuse of powers by Home Secretary. Highlighted instances where powers were used to suppress civil liberties and protest rights. Proposed an alternative Bill presented by her hon. Friend for a 21-day period of renewal, aiming to protect all constituents better.

The speaker expresses concern over the harms caused by the response to coronavirus, including economic and wellbeing impacts. He cites a poll indicating that government pandemic advertising has negatively affected mental health in the nation, suggesting that the Government should instead focus on positive messaging about vaccine efficacy. Steven Baker also raises issues with schedule 21 of the Coronavirus Act, arguing it is extreme, unnecessary and disproportionate, and expresses hope for a path to freedom through these regulations.

The speaker opposes the Government's measures due to concerns over risk avoidance rather than management. He advocates for monthly renewals by Parliament of such measures so that they can be reviewed regularly. John Spellar highlights the severe economic impact on various sectors, including leisure and hospitality, and expresses a belief in the inevitability of vaccine passports/certificates as necessary steps towards reopening society.

Expresses concern that supporting the motion could mean extending lockdown restrictions and delaying freedoms. Supports parts of the Coronavirus Act but criticises its non-amendable nature. Urges the Government to focus on addressing mental health issues, physical operation backlogs, and easing police enforcement requirements. Also mentions the need for a new message from the NHS about prioritising those who have not had coronavirus.

Rejects support for the renewal of the Coronavirus Act, criticises the Government's approach as half-baked and authoritarian. Raises concerns over travel bans and quarantine measures at borders, highlighting inconsistencies in rules for second home owners. Calls for better self-isolation compliance and urges against vaccine passports.

Supports the road map to freedom but criticises its pace. Argues that reopening society could happen sooner based on hospitalisation data, vaccination progress, and reduced death rates. Opposes renewal of certain temporary measures in the Coronavirus Act, citing balance between sensible and egregious measures.

I am pleased that some provisions are being removed from the Coronavirus Act. The Government's handling of the pandemic has resulted in one of the highest death tolls and the worst economic crisis among major economies, exacerbating societal inequalities and disproportionately affecting black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and disabled people. While public health restrictions were essential to protect vulnerable groups, the lack of transparency and effective communication by the Government has damaged public trust. Businesses have faced significant frustration due to a lack of information about government decisions, particularly regarding curfews and pub restrictions. To build trust with the hospitality sector, I urge the Secretary of State to publish detailed data underpinning each step in relaxing restrictions.

I congratulate the Government on the success of their vaccination programme, which has made many people feel safe. However, we have seen some errors and shifting guidelines during the pandemic. People need to be let out more; hospitality businesses and wedding venues are struggling despite spending significant sums to protect their premises. The government must provide clearer guidance for these industries so that they can operate safely. We also need to address mental health issues exacerbated by prolonged lockdowns, such as increased suicide rates. The government's contradictory messages have been detrimental to small businesses and individuals who rely on weddings and hospitality services.

We will not support the extended powers proposed in this debate as they are an overreach. The government's tendency towards authoritarianism is evident in their handling of protests, vaccination mandates for carers, and vaccine passports for pubs. There has been a lack of clarity and consistent messaging from the government throughout the pandemic. I suggest that outdoor education centres should receive bespoke funding to support young people during this time. Financial support for hospitality and tourism businesses must continue until autumn as they will not be able to operate at full capacity immediately.

Stressed the importance of scrutinising legislation that defines the relationship between citizens and the state, highlighting that many powers in the Act were unnecessary or unused. Questioned the Government's decision to retain such provisions without clear justification, likening it to previous cases where such powers led to intrusive measures like identity cards.

Expressed concern over normalising extreme policy responses and retaining draconian powers for too long. Emphasised the importance of protecting fundamental civil liberties and questioned the Government's right to control personal freedoms such as family life and relationships.

Chope argues that the Government's data on coronavirus cases is being withheld or ignored, suggesting that continued lockdown measures are disproportionate and costly. He mentions a constituent who noted that only three hospital admissions in Dorset over the last week out of 1,200 beds for a population of more than 750,000 does not justify continued restrictions. Chope also highlights economic costs, stating that each day the regulations remain in place cost about £1 billion and calls on the Minister to reflect on risk assessment.

Clark supports his colleague's argument by referring to evidence from the Science and Technology Committee which shows no known instance of outdoor infection from covid. He criticises the road map based on outdated data and suggests that it should be flexible to advance more quickly if possible. Clark also expresses concerns about future risks, emphasising the need for transparency in assessing tolerable levels of risk.

Drummond acknowledges the strain the pandemic has put on society and the economy but argues that the measures have saved lives. She compares current restrictions with those during Spanish flu, which resulted in 50 million global deaths including a quarter of a million in the UK. Drummond supports the regulations for continued protection against potential new variants and the backlog of medical cases.

Seely acknowledges the success of the vaccination programme but criticises the Government's plans as unbalanced, highlighting that data has changed quicker than dates. He argues that basing lockdown on cases rather than deaths or hospitalisations is misleading and not good enough. Seely emphasises that continued draconian measures set a dangerous precedent when the link between cases and death has been broken.

I think the day when all the regulations under the Coronavirus Act are lifted will be my highlight in this Parliament. There is a road map and an end in sight, but events on the continent remind us that we have not reached the end point just yet. The vaccination programme has been successful with 30 million jabs done, but sudden change might undo much of that good work. I support the Government's approach to lifting measures gradually to ensure irreversibility and certainty.

The past year has been incredibly difficult, but my constituents have shown boundless resolve and community spirit. The road map brings certainty and hope for the future. I want to go faster but agree that lifting restrictions too soon could lead to reverting later on. I support the regulations we are voting on today due to the need for irreversibility and certainty. However, the broader provisions of the road map require a long-term plan for living with the virus post-pandemic.

I support extending the measures before us tonight because there have been false dawns in dealing with the impact of covid. We need a package of measures to enable swift government action if there is a resurgence due to mutation. While some restrictions are chafing, they are crucial for supporting businesses and people affected by the pandemic.

As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I welcome actions taken to remove provisions around mental health sectioning and care act easements. However, education easements in the Act are still retained despite not being used since July. Parents are worried that children with special educational needs are not getting access to assistance they need. I urge the Education Secretary to reconsider removing these unneeded easements.

Supported the Government's measures throughout the pandemic with some reservations, advocating for a more cautious but irreversible approach. Emphasised the need to return to normal life and praised the Health Secretary for his belief in science and rapid vaccine development.

Expressed sadness over the loss of 125,000 lives due to the pandemic. Agreed with colleagues on issues like low pay support, hospitality, protest rights, but disagreed with voting against measures for fear of losing provisions. Criticised some Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs who advocate for fewer protections during the pandemic.

Calls for cautious easing of restrictions while acknowledging progress made through vaccinations. Acknowledges concerns from colleagues regarding new variants, rising cases in Europe, and the need to balance precautionary measures with economic and social freedoms. Defends the necessity of current regulations under the Coronavirus Act 2020.