After many attempts opposing a second lockdown, I finally received a second reply from my MP.
Dear Mr Steven Thank you for your email to Lucy. Lucy is now pushing for a targeted approach to lockdown, focusing on those most at risk. She is distinctly aware of the pressures placed on businesses, individuals and livelihoods by the restrictions. The complicated and rapidly evolving set of rules has clearly had a difficult and restrictive impact on many people’s lives. Lucy has heard from countless constituents who wish for clarity and candour from the Government. She has spoken out in the House against lockdown mission creep. The public was informed that the aim of lockdowns was to prevent the NHS exceeding its capacity. This has not happened and seems unlikely to do so given the evidence from other countries around the world. Lucy is concerned at what she sees as the disproportionality of the measures relative to the risk – it is her opinion that to impose draconian emergency powers on the entire populace at this stage in the pandemic is simply not an appropriate way to protect those most at risk. As we know more about the disease and who it affects now, it seems logical to Lucy that we should be able to target restrictions and, crucially, shielding measures to cover those most at risk from the virus. The costs of excessive restrictions will be borne by future generations and leave the exchequer with no choice but to hike taxes or cut spending to balance the books for years to come. Until a vaccine is developed we must learn to live with risk. It is clear from Lucy’s conversations with constituents that the people of Telford now want to rebuild their lives and are sceptical that further restrictions on their work and personal life will benefit the health of our nation. Lucy is distinctly aware that we will be living with the virus for months, maybe years. As a matter of personal and social responsibility, we should all take measures to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our communities: Hands, Face, Space. The powers passed by parliament were temporary and intended to ensure the prevention of avoidable deaths. Lucy has been clear that she considers the public to have admirably complied with lockdown restrictions to ensure that the NHS was not overwhelmed, which saved lives. However, many paid a high price in terms of their own jobs, businesses, education, mental health and wellbeing. The challenge for Government comes when the public perceive these powers to be disproportionate to the risk. The temporary powers Parliament granted to Government are due for review by MPs at the end of September. Parliament will be asked to permit these emergency powers to continue. Lucy believes it is time for Parliament to fully debate and contribute to the Government’s strategy. Lucy is keen to see MPs fully involved in reviewing Coronavirus Act given that measures are currently being implemented by statutory instrument. Lucy supported handing emergency powers to Government in March to prevent deaths. However, she believes that we are in a different place now and it is therefore incumbent on the Government to make the case for retaining these powers and allowing Parliament to decide if they should continue. I hope this clarifies Lucy’s position on this issue.