The case for a Tiered system of coronavirus measures
Tonight there will be a vote in Parliament on the ‘Tiering’ system of coronavirus measures that is due to come into force tomorrow, December 2. South Yorkshire is due to be placed into ‘Tier 3’, as an area of Very High Alert.
The vote will determine whether or not the proposed restrictions are implemented. The vote does not allow MPs to vote on the specific rules for each Tier, nor on which area should go into which Tier.
I have thought long and hard about how to vote tonight. I’ve studied the data available, have had dozens of conversations with colleagues, ministers, constituents, business owners and NHS leaders over the past week. Perhaps most importantly I am confident that a number of vaccines will soon be approved.
I am deeply concerned about the impact of Tier 3 measures on local businesses, and I’m worried about the continued isolation and loneliness that many are facing as a result of the measures. But I’m also concerned about the ability of our local NHS services to cope with the increased demand and the risks to elderly and vulnerable constituents should infection levels start to rise again. I have therefore had to weigh up all these different factors in deciding how to vote.
In my speech last month before the national lockdown, I made three requests of the Government.
Firstly - I asked for schools to be kept open in all circumstances.
This has been achieved and continues to be Government policy. Schools across Penistone & Stocksbridge have worked incredibly hard to educate and support our children, and attendance rates are excellent. We are one of the few countries in Europe to have kept schools open throughout the pandemic and, as a mum and a former teacher, I am proud of what this says about our belief in the value of education.
Secondly -I asked the Government to use the lockdown wisely to make preparations such that we would never again need a full national lockdown.
The progress made on a COVID-19 vaccination programme during this time has been very encouraging, and there is now a very real prospect that vaccines will start to be distributed this month. Logistical challenges remain, but this year has demonstrated that we can overcome these challenges. Indeed the distribution of over 3.8 billion pieces of PPE to more than 58,000 locations was described by General Sir Nick Carter, head of the UK armed forces, as the greatest logistical challenge he has faced in his career. Mass vaccination will be a complex exercise, but the evidence suggests we can do it. This means that there is a credible, science-led way out of these restrictions in the relatively near future.
Thirdly - I asked for a national debate about the morality of the measures taken to combat coronavirus.
As we can see from national and social media, that debate is alive and kicking. As we all know, COVID can be a deadly disease, but for many there is very little risk at all, and we should also consider deaths from COVID in the context of the normal mortality rate. We therefore need to find consensus over the way forward that balances protecting people from COVID with protecting ourselves from the consequences of damaging restrictions.
If there was no solution on the horizon, it would be difficult to justify never-ending continued restrictions and the associated damage to families and livelihoods. But there is a plausible way out of this situation in the near future, and, given that we are still seeing 33% more deaths than usual in South Yorkshire, I think there is a moral case for continuing with restrictions for just a short while longer.
We also need to look at the moral case for the alternative to regional restrictions. It would be difficult to justify continued national lockdown when areas such as Cornwall have hardly any incidences of the virus. It would also be wrong to spend taxpayers’ money supporting businesses and wages in areas where the risk of hospitals being overwhelmed is extremely low.
One option would be to have no restrictions, but that would undoubtedly see infection rates rise, more deaths and potentially overwhelming pressure on the NHS. We would also see a fragmented reaction from different families, communities and businesses who would all have a different approach to whether or not they are comfortable with returning to normal. Whilst it is clear that many of us are losing patience with lockdown, I also have many many constituents who are very anxious about their own and their loved ones’ health and are supportive of restrictions.
Another alternative would be a less restrictive tiered approach; I think there is an argument for this, and looking at the data it seems clear that cases in South Yorkshire are falling and we have a strong chance of being moved down into Tier 2 when the data is reviewed in two weeks’ time. Whilst there may not be a strong moral consensus for the proposed Tiering system, there is also no strong moral consensus for any of the alternatives. All the options are bad; this is the least worst.
Given that these three ‘asks’ have largely been satisfied, I have decided to vote with the Government tonight to implement the Tiering system and I hope the explanation above sets out how I have come to this position.
However, I do have a number of concerns that I have raised with colleagues in Government and will continue to pursue.
Firstly - I was deeply unhappy that these regulations were due to continue until the end of March with no further opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny.
Whilst I do believe that the Tiering system is the right approach for now, we have seen how quickly things can change, and I do not believe that it is right to hand over democratic control of such significant decisions for four months. I am pleased that the Government has therefore now offered another vote in January which I believe will give MPs the opportunity to consider the evidence for continuing with the restrictions in light of the data and progress with vaccinations at that time.
Secondly - I think the restrictions are particularly devastating for pubs and I am lobbying for additional financial support.
Pubs are so important to our communities here in Penistone and Stocksbridge, and for many people the local pub is the only place where they regularly meet others. Whilst the current financial package is generous for some pubs, the grants are based on rateable value which means that smaller, Northern pubs are penalised. We can’t afford to lose these pubs and so I will continue to make representations to the Treasury on their behalf.
Thirdly - I strongly believe that we need each other and that virtual meetings do not fulfil the human need for being physically present with our friends and families.
It is almost impossible for grandparents to maintain relationships with grandchildren, or for those living alone to escape loneliness under the current restrictions. The ‘rule of 6’ penalises families with children, and I know from personal experience just how much families need the emotional support of other households; the nuclear family just isn’t sufficient. I am therefore asking the Department of Health and Social Care to consider reverting to the ‘two household’ rule, which would minimise the number of physical interactions but make sure that every family, no matter what size, is able to meet others.
As I look back over my first year as an MP, it is sobering to reflect on the changes we have seen to our way of life in just twelve months. I certainly did not stand for Parliament expecting to have to take decisions around closing businesses and preventing people from seeing those they love. But in a time of crisis there are no easy – and perhaps no right – answers.
One day we will have the clarity of hindsight, but for now MPs must balance the scientific evidence, the views of their constituents and their own personal moral judgement to decide on policies for which there is no precedent. That is what democracy is all about – it’s not perfect, but it’s better than any other system we know.
