We should vote to pass legislation that severely restricts the freedom of our fellow citizens and the legitimate activities of lawful business only if there is the most compelling necessity, the measures are proportionate and there is proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. On balance, and having seen in my constituency data on the exponential growth in infections caused by the new variant of the virus, I am persuaded that there is a compelling necessity for the regulations. As for proportionality, again, on balance there is evidence to support the bulk of the measures—even, regrettably, the closure of schools.
Inevitably, however, because the measures were produced in haste, some elements frankly fly against evidence and reason. They need to be reviewed, and swiftly. The obvious example is the prohibition on two people in the open air playing golf or tennis. There is no rational basis or evidence for that, and it is a mistake to include those things. It is very clear that it is not necessary in Scotland—they have not done that in Scotland—and I do not think that those activities are safe north of the border and unsafe south of it. The decision also creates a problem
for many local authority leisure centres that are struggling for income, and it ought to be revisited. Similarly, the disproportionate effect of the ban on alcohol off-sales on micropubs and small, independent public houses, as opposed to the off-licence chains, ought to be revisited.
That brings me to the point about parliamentary scrutiny. I will live with those flaws in the regulations for the broader good if there is timely scrutiny and review. Leaving it until 31 March without any review would be unconscionable. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister said earlier today that there would be the intention to bring matters back to the House as the vaccination programme proceeds. He also said that there was a legal obligation to remove redundant restrictions in the regulations as the vaccination programme proceeds. I hope the Minister will indicate what the mechanism is for that, because an obligation has to have a means of being enforced. In this instance, that means coming back to this House. If we can have that, on balance, I could give these regulations my support, which has not been the case in previous instances.
We cannot use the gravity of the situation as a reason to overrule the normal requirements of proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is necessary in the interests of democracy and the rule of law. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me those assurances as she winds up the debate.
5.41 pm