Public Health — House of Commons, 2021-11-30
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope the hon. Lady accepts that people should be free to make their own decision on whether they wish to be vaccinated. I am therefore extremely nervous about backdoor proposals to require vaccine passports. I do not believe people’s freedom should be conditional on taking compulsory medication, which is why I am against the provisions in the Health and Care Bill on compulsory fluoridation. To that extent, I am probably on the same side of the argument as she is A mood of increasing intolerance is being engendered towards those who have a reasonable excuse for not wearing a face covering. Paragraph 7.8 of the explanatory memorandum makes it clear "people do not need to show proof of this reasonable excuse" but that is not being promoted by the Government. Regulation 5 says: "For the purposes of regulations 3(1) and 4(1), the circumstances in which a person ("P") has a reasonable excuse include"— this is the important point— "those where P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability…or without severe distress" That is one reasonable excuse, but there are many others. The Government seem to be rather conflicted or muddled, because paragraph 7.8 of the explanatory memorandum says: "Nobody who has a reasonable excuse and is therefore not wearing a face covering should be prevented from visiting any setting because of the requirements in these Regulations. Furthermore, people do not need to show proof of this reasonable excuse under the Regulations." In other words, people do not have to show a face covering exemption certificate, such as this one from Hidden Disabilities. I see quite a lot of people wearing these certificates but, as soon as people have to wear them, they are asked questions, "Well, what are your disabilities?" Most of my disabilities are well hidden, and I intend to keep them hidden. It is unreasonable that we should be creating an environment in which people are being challenged, and being encouraged to be challenged, on their personal and private health That brings me to the conflicting content of paragraph 12.3 of the explanatory memorandum. It may just be a misprint, but it says: "The Department has also included a range of exemptions to ensure that this policy does not unfairly discriminate against those with protected characteristics. Furthermore, the policy will be supported by a communications campaign that will make clear that some people are exempt from these regulations and people should be challenged by members of the public for not wearing a face covering." Surely it should say "should not be challenged". I do not understand it, because paragraph 15.3 says: "Maggie Throup, the Parliamentary under Secretary of State"— she is sitting on the Front Bench— "can confirm that this Explanatory Memorandum meets the required standard." If it was indeed a misprint, the explanatory memorandum does not meet the required standard. If it is not a misprint, it is a serious contradiction within the explanatory memorandum and seriously undermines people’s freedom to go about their business without having impertinent remarks and questions put to them by busybodies acting on behalf of enforcement authorities.