No single solution as the government tries to ease the coronavirus lockdown

‘Why are we going to take in all these parents’ kids every day, when we can’t even see our own grandkids?’ That primary school receptionist summed up the raging debate about the government’s plan for easing the lockdown and its encouragement to people now to go back to work.

The government was always going to find it hard to communicate this change in policy, moving from an absolute injunction easily caught by a three word slogan to a more complex one. There is also an issue of substance: the government acknowledges there is a real risk – even likelihood – that more people will catch the virus as social contact rises. But one of the greatest obstacles confronting the government in successfully getting people back to work is also the question of authority: whether it can persuade people to take its word that now is the right time to return.

When lockdown was announced there was a full alignment of advice. The government was backed by medical voices, scientific experts, and employers – many of whom had already moved staff to working at home. Now there are contesting views. The question is whose views of adequate standards will predominate – whether the government’s endorsement of the new practices in returning to work will carry the day.

Employers, unions and workers are all questioning the government's guidelines

The government has published guidelines about how workplaces should try to ensure social distancing. It has urged some new practices (such as wearing face coverings on public transport and in enclosed spaces) and encouraged people to find alternatives to public transport.

But many employers have found these statements inadequate. They have a broad concern to do the right thing by their staff but also worry about liability for workers catching the virus and note that the guidelines are not compulsory, adding uncertainty. Trade unions, with a long-established role in underwriting health and safety standards, are pressing for guarantees of workers’ safety, and have pointed out that it is blue-collar workers who are least likely to be able to work from home and most likely to need to use public transport. There is wide scepticism – among employers, unions, workers and public transport operators – about protection from the virus on public transport as numbers rise.

These tensions look likely to come first to a head in a clash with the unions over the government’s plan to open some school classes to all children in June. The government has argued that this is an essential early step, both because of the educational cost in lost lessons, particularly to the poorest children, and on economic grounds, to help parents get back to work. David Blunkett (Lord Blunkett), education secretary among other senior cabinet roles in Tony Blair’s government, has challenged the unions to consider that many public servants during the crisis had accepted a degree of risk in continuing to do their jobs. In a key test about who sets the new standards of work, public opinion will play a central part.

There is no single solution for the government as it eases the lockdown

For the government, there is no single solution. The classics-loving prime minister might see this as a Gordian knot which must be patiently unpicked rather than swiftly severed. There are several steps he might take to bolster the government’s authority to set the terms and timing on which the nation goes back to work. His first step should be to set the standards for what the government deems to be safe working practices much more clearly. This needs to be backed up by published scientific advice and the Health and Safety Executive, a public body that exists to scrutinise standards and offer public assurance.

It is likely to have more success in setting the standards if it moves now to coopt its critics. The unions have now been invited into some talks on working practices. It needs to tackle the question of employer liability head-on. Many are predicting a flood of coronavirus litigation and fear of this could deter many businesses from restarting. At the same time, the government needs to recognise that many solutions will be local and need to be adapted to specific circumstances – such as how schools split primary classes into 15 or fewer pupils, or what social distancing amounts to in their playground. The same will go for ways of using lifts safely or spreading out desks at work, or the frequency of office cleaning. The government should consider sharing responsibility with local government (which already inspects shops and restaurants through trading standards officers). Councils might take responsibility for guaranteeing safe workplaces.

The government needs urgently to work out whether it is going to set transport standards (for social distancing, cleaning, capacity) nationally or whether it will allow local discretion, depending on patterns of use and the spread of the disease in that area. The question is too central to its plans for a return to work to be allowed to drift.

Finally, the government needs to remember that it is leading a national conversation and that persuading people to share its view of risk and acceptable practices takes time. There are times when ministers seem frustrated with questions and impatient at having to explain details of their policies. There are reasonable answers to the question – ‘why must I wear a face mask on public transport, but don’t need to in the classroom?’ But it is a reasonable question too, and should be treated as such.

The public want difficult questions resolved in a way they can trust. Getting there will take slow, steady and collaborative work, but so will successfully restarting the economy while bearing down on the pandemic.