On 23 rd  March the UK was put into lockdown to reduce the number of Covid 19 cases, to reduce pressure on the NHS and to limit the deaths from the disease.

As the proposers of the policy thought, admissions to hospital with severe forms of the disease peaked 9 days later at 3121 cases on April 2nd. Peak use of NHS ventilator beds was hit a week later on April 10, which was also the day of peak deaths. I have taken these figures from the latest Downing Street briefing graphs. The method of counting has changed over the period, increasing the number of deaths recorded as time passed.

This implies limiting contact was the way to slow the progress of the virus, and did lead to an important reduction in serious cases and deaths. So far so good.

What does need more examination is why it has taken so long to secure faster and more dramatic declines in serious cases and deaths after success in changing the trend in early April. You would have expected the figures to come down quite quickly to low levels. After all we are advised that a person with the disease is clear after seven days, and a person getting it before symptoms show should be clear in 14 days. Thus we would expect a sharp fall off after the  14 day point from lockdown.

As we enter the test and trace era, it would be good to hear from the medical and scientific advisers why they think the diseases has lingered at relatively high levels for so long during lock down. Are all the cases now concentrated amongst the small proportion of the population that go to  a physical place of work? Are hospitals and care homes now a  main source of spreading the disease? Or is the disease somehow still spreading – at a slower rate – through the population that are staying at home? If so, how is it being transmitted?

These become important issues so that we know who to isolate and consider what other measures to take in the Test and Trace phase. Do we need better infection control in those health and care settings that do get the disease? Are there issues with deliveries to households? What more can be done to rid items and surfaces of the disease? Has the UK investigated the use of UV light machines to destroy the virus on surfaces? I will pursue these questions with the government.

I have had many emails about the lock down over the last few weeks. Some have written to me to complain about their neighbours, alleging they have broken the law or the guidance. Others have written asking me to endorse a particular interpretation of the rules or guidance so they can do something they wish to do. Some have written seeking clarification without revealing their plans. More recently some have written complaining about Mr Cummings conduct, and a lesser number have written in supporting Mr Cummings.

I have sought to answer all of these consistently by explaining that MPs have no special powers to authorise conduct or to prosecute it. The aim of the law and advice is to limit the spread of the virus. Everyone has to exercise commonsense and remember the aim is to protect others from the virus. I have not rushed to judge others as they make their decisions about how to do this. I have favoured a light touch to policing, which requires consent. Only where someone breaks the rules with ill intent has it been right to prosecute. That has been the case of  the tiny minority who have deliberately breathed or spat into the faces of police and others to threaten or harm them. Many people have made choices or judgements that others would not have made, but each person’s circumstances are a bit  different.

I did not condemn Stephen Kinnock when he travelled to see his father for his birthday, nor call for his sacking from the Labour front bench for a clear breach of the rules. Constituents have pointed out they would love to visit their parents but did not do so as they thought it wrong. I suggested a tolerant approach.

I understand the anger of some over Mr Cummings. I believe him when he says he did not go to see his parents and kept his distance from them as he did  want to give them the disease. He is widely criticised for the journey to Barnard’s Castle though no -one apparently came close to him and his family.

 It has been clear for some days that the Prime Minister has investigated his actions and intends to keep him. His view is we must move on, tackling the next stage of defeating the virus and trying to rescue the economy. There are going to be more difficult judgements for people as we enter the world of Test and Trace, where co-operation of all is important to success. I am seeking more clarification of what the advice means by close recent contact.

I am writing today to Matt Hancock, Health Secretary, to clarify how the Test and track system will work. It is in all our interests that it is used to keep us safe whilst allowing many more people to work and go about their daily lives more normally.

The idea of the system is people self isolate and get themselves tested if they develop new Covid 19 like symptoms. We are told that the testing may take 48 hours during which time no-one else has to self isolate. If the test confirms the presence of the virus then “recent close contacts” of the infected person should also self isolate and will be contacted by the system.

The government document does seek to define recent close contact. It says it includes spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of the infected person,  and face to face contact of under 1 metre. The document tells us this could result from travelling even a short distance with someone in a car, or on a plane. It could also include people in  the same school or workplace.

So I would like to have more guidance on

1. Travelling in a train or tube carriage with someone who is infected. How could contacts be discovered, and can this represent a threat to a traveller? What is government advice on train travel? If someone travels by train and another passenger notifies as having the virus do the other passengers have to self isolate?
2. How many people in a workplace or school would need to self isolate if one of their number is discovered with the disease? Would there be an assessment of who had come closer than 1 metre? Presumably it will not require all people at that location to self isolate?
3. Can we assume that after someone has self isolated for 7 days who has the virus, and for 14 days who might get it, they are no longer able to infect anyone else?
4. Why has the government decided to use the WHO guideline of 1 metre separation rather than the U.K. 2 metre? Have government advisers reconsidered the 2 m requirement given WHO advice of 1 metre and Germany’s use of 1.5 metres?

The more knowledge of the transmission of the virus that can be shared with the public the more effective social distancing will be and the more co-operation there will be with the policy of Test and Trace.

The forces of Pessimism and defeat want the U.K. to seek an extension to the negotiating year with the EU. It is most important that the Prime Minister and Mr Frost refuse to countenance such a dreadful idea. There is nothing we could negotiate next year that we cannot negotiate this year. The U.K. made a mess of the negotiations under Mrs May who trusted the Official Civil service and liked advice that always meant the U.K. giving in on issue after issue.

The present government has so far been as clear as Mrs May was muddled over what the U.K wants. It has rightly refused to accept the EU’s wish to settle fish first before anything else and make our fish a further payment to them. It has proposed a free trade agreement as the base of the future relationship but said no agreement would also work fine.

There is no point in negotiating through June unless the EU changes its approach and understands we are not giving away powers over our fish, our laws or our money. The EU pretends we want to stay in the single market and customs Union, which we voted to leave.

The U.K. just has to stay calm, be pleasant but show great resolve. We are not going to give in again and do not want some kind of Association Agreement putting has back under the EU Court and laws.

Offering money to companies to see them through a couple of months when they are not by law allowed to trade was necessary. It was right for the government to pay the wages of staff who have jobs but are not allowed to do them, so that the workforce is available to start up again as soon as the lockdown is lifted. It was right to offer money to the self employed who were also banned from earning a living.

Government now needs to handle the return to work well. The state cannot afford to carry on paying out large sums to companies that do not have enough turnover. The only way to sustain our living standards is to get everyone back to work. There are will  be some businesses that were declining before the shut downs. They may need to make a bigger adjustment now as the shut down probably accelerated their decline.

There will be other businesses that had a great business model prior to the lock down that will now  be damaged by the changed conditions created by the anti virus policies. Travel and hospitality will have to change the way they work for as long as social distancing remains, and plan for reduced workloads for sometime after lifting of the shut down.

There are then a range of businesses which gained market share out of the shut downs and who may continue to grow well even after the  end of the exceptional times for on line retail, internet conferencing, remote working service and supplies, home entertainments and other technology winners.

What we do not want is to search for some top down government led model of backing winners, interfering with customer choices and deciding who to subsidise and what changes to lifestyle they require.

The danger is some companies that were short of cash owing to lock down end up insolvent because they do not experience a surge of returning business once the lock down is lifted. The government does not have the resources to keep all companies going that lack a strong business offer for the new conditions post shutdown. The private sector has the means to lend money and to buy shares. Large companies have access to low interest rates on bank finance and bonds, and can raise additional capital from shareholders. They can and are conserving cash by not paying dividends or buying back shares where they need to be careful with the money.