House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We are working on a dedicated small and medium-sized enterprise chapter in the US trade deal to help the UK’s 5.9 million small businesses. Some 31,600 UK SMEs already export to the US, and we want to help them by cutting red tape on customs and tariffs.
Daisy Cooper [V]
SMEs are the backbone of the UK economy, but while the US Government are engaging with their SMEs, SMEs in the UK say that there is no equivalent engagement from the UK Government. Will the Secretary of State commit to having a dedicated chapter in every trade deal that they are looking to develop, and will she create a mechanism for SMEs themselves to help shape it?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We have been in touch with a number of organisations representing SMEs—for example, the Federation of Small Businesses, which has come out in favour of a US trade deal, saying:
“For small businesses, the US is the number one single market of choice for importers and exporters for the next three years, which is why these negotiations are so critical.”
We are committed to working with businesses of all sizes in this trade process through our expert trade advisory groups, which we have with all industry sectors, and I am very happy to engage with the hon. Lady about how even more SMEs can be involved in this process.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
A free trade agreement with the United States is set to deliver a £15 billion increase in bilateral trade, benefiting every region of the UK, including the nation of Wales and the great county of Yorkshire, and delivering an extra £1.8 billion for workers’ wages.
Mark Eastwood [V]
In the light of the difficult circumstances we find ourselves in globally, I would like to congratulate the Secretary of State on setting up talks with the US. With the UK set to leave the EU at the end of the year, it is also important that we have free trade agreements in place with other nations, particularly our Commonwealth partners and countries in the far east. Therefore, could my right hon. Friend provide an update on progress with the potential trade deals with Australia, New Zealand and Japan?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We will shortly be launching negotiations with Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and pressing for early accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is an important step in diversifying our trade and making sure we are not just dependent on a small number of countries for our imports and exports. It is also important that we work with like-minded free market democracies to help set global standards in trade.
Alun Cairns [V]
Does the Secretary of State agree that all parts of the UK and all economic sectors stand to gain from a trade deal with the United States? However, some lobbyists are concerned about their specific interests, so what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that fairness to both the UK and the US, as well as economic opportunities for all parts of the country, will be central to her thinking in the negotiations?
Elizabeth Truss
A free trade deal with the United States is set to benefit every nation and region in the UK, including Wales. We will strike a hard bargain, and seek a deal that is fair for our producers. For example, we want to make sure that we gain access for British lamb and Welsh lamb in the United States market. It is the second biggest importer of lamb in the world, and it represents a massive opportunity for our farming sector and for the nation of Wales.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the warm welcome that she has given me in this new role and for the co-operative discussions that we have enjoyed so far in relation to both coronavirus and US trade. On the latter subject, she will be aware that the Trump Administration and the US Congress see the US-Mexico-Canada agreement on trade as a template for every other free trade agreement that they are looking to sign around the world. Can the Secretary of State make it clear to them today that she will not agree to any version of article 32.10 of the USMCA that would constrain the UK’s ability to negotiate our own trade agreement with China and therefore represent an unacceptable breach of the sovereignty of this Parliament?
Elizabeth Truss
First, I welcome the right hon. Lady to her seat. It is great to see her in the flesh, even though we have had a number of calls over the last few weeks. I am committed to working with the Opposition to ensure that we get the best possible deal for all parts of the UK in the US trade deal. I can assure her that when we negotiate with the United States we will negotiate in the UK’s interest, ensuring that we have full freedom of manoeuvre and making our own sovereign decisions as a country. Of course, we are looking at a number of precursor agreements for the text we use in those trade negotiations, but my No. 1 priority is to ensure that we have our own sovereign capability to trade with the rest of the world as we see fit. One important benefit of a US trade deal and the trade deal we are looking to strike with Japan is that we need to be setting standards with fellow free market democracies and ensuring that we have proper transparency in our operations and proper setting of standards.
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State really needs to think about the other Members who need to get in, so if she could shorten her answers, it would be helpful to all the Members who are waiting. [Interruption.] It is very good, actually.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
Business and trade are all about the bottom line and numbers, and we know from the Treasury estimate that Brexit will cost about 6% of GDP. An American trade deal—and remember that the USA is a quarter of the global economy—will only give an average lift of about 0.2% to GDP, or a thirtieth of what Brexit will cost. Is there any prospect of that number improving? What are the GDP lifts for the deals with Australia, New Zealand and Japan and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership? We need to get to the numbers at the bottom of Brexit.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will be aware that there is a projected benefit to Scotland from a US trade deal of over half a billion pounds on gross value added, which is a significant figure. In fact, Scotland is one of the parts of the UK likely to benefit most from a US deal. We will shortly publish the economics behind the Japan, Australia and New Zealand deals when we launch the respective trade negotiations.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We will shortly be launching negotiations with Japan, Australia and New Zealand. This is an important opportunity for the UK to form closer ties with a fast-growing group of countries and look forward to joining the CPTPP, which comprises 11% of the global economy.
James Wild [V]
I warmly welcome the ambitious agenda that my right hon. Friend sets out. Can she confirm that any trade deal with the United States will not lower our standards on imported food and that these talks and the other ones she referred to represent a great opportunity for world-leading companies in west Norfolk such as Bespak and other pharmaceutical, engineering and manufacturing firms to benefit from reduced tariffs and the removal of other barriers to trade?
Elizabeth Truss
I can confirm that we will not lower our food import standards as a result of the US deal. We are going to maintain those standards; it is an important part of the quality assurance we have here in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are lots of opportunities for Norfolk farmers and producers from a US trade deal, and overall the east of England stands to benefit by £345 million.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]
Around a third of the value added of UK trade comes from indirect trade—indirect links—where goods and services are first exported to one country and subsequently exported to the UK. Given the importance of indirect trade and value chains generally, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree with the Dutch Trade Minister that we should rethink our trade deals to take a closer look at the sustainability of those value chains. Will she go further and agree that we should not just be looking at sustainability, but that trade deals should be as inclusive as possible and based on World Trade Organisation rules, and because of the importance of value chains and indirect trade—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the Secretary of State will have got the question.
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say it is very important that we have resilient trade as well as trade that benefits our economy. That is why our strategy is to strike trade deals with more partners, to ensure that our companies have more options and that we are trading with a wider variety of nations than we were before.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Our priorities for the last four years were supposed to be in this order: first, securing a free trade agreement with the EU; secondly, rolling over all our existing deals with third countries; and thirdly, agreeing free trade deals with the rest of the world. Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government have failed on all three?
Elizabeth Truss
I would argue strongly that we are succeeding on all three of those aims. We have opened talks with the United States; David Frost is making significant progress in his talks with the EU; and we are making significant progress in increasing the number of countries that we are able to agree continuity trade deals with. We are on course to succeed in all those areas.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) [V]
As the WTO makes clear, coronavirus will lead to a substantial fall in global trade. It suggests a reduction in the range of between 13% and 32% in 2020. Although it is true that this is primarily a health issue, trade will be an important ingredient of the recovery, so does the Secretary of State agree with the WTO that keeping markets open and predictable will be crucial to secure the renewed investment that we need?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman; he is right that protectionism would be a disaster for the global economy at the moment. That is why we have been pressing at the WTO to keep trade open, and why the UK has unilaterally lowered tariffs on key medical goods, to keep that trade flowing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the UK’s approach will be to chemicals regulation during any future trade negotiations? Will we retain the precautionary principle, or is she looking to relax our current laws?
Elizabeth Truss
It is a very important principle that the UK Government have responsibility for their own regulations. That is not something that we will trade away in a trade deal; that is a matter for UK sovereign Government regulation.
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
As we emerge from the Covid crisis, it is vital that we keep free trade flowing. That is why the UK has been making that case with G20 Trade Ministers and the WTO. We have another G20 meeting this Thursday, where I want to see further action to cut tariffs on medical products, and for longer-term WTO reform.
Ruth Edwards [V]
Stilton producers, such as the excellent dairies of Cropwell Bishop and Colston Bassett in my constituency, face a 25% tariff when they export to the US market. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what progress has been made, in the first week of negotiations, to reduce those tariffs?
Elizabeth Truss
We are determined to get those tariffs reduced and removed on products like Stilton, and the brilliant producers in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Stilton Cheese Makers’ Association has backed a US deal, saying that a US free trade agreement will help recognise Stilton cheese further in the US, and bring down some of the existing barriers that we are currently facing.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
We continue to work tirelessly to secure vital supplies of medical equipment from overseas partners to meet UK demand. Hundreds of millions of units of PPE have been procured and over 2,000 ventilators have arrived in the UK thanks to our trade and FCO networks.
Grahame Morris [V]
Across the world, we are being advised to wash our hands with soap regularly to keep us safe from the virus, but the average import tariff on soap among WTO members stands at 17%, with some countries charging tariffs of up to 65%. What steps has the Minister taken to seek global agreement to reduce tariffs on the import of soap and other hygiene products, to combat the spread of covid-19?
Greg Hands
That is a very good question and I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking it. We are working tirelessly, at different international fora, to ensure that trade barriers—either long-standing barriers or ones that have been thrown up as a result of the crisis—are reduced or removed. For example, just last month, at the UK’s initiative, the G20 Trade Ministers met and discussed a lot of these and took significant action. We have also been lobbying bilaterally, most successfully, with India to ensure that such barriers are reduced or removed.
Dan Carden [V]
It is shameful that our national stockpile of PPE dwindled during years of austerity. The Government’s response since has been one of confusion and panic—missing three chances to join the EU scheme to bulk buy PPE, and with the recent fiasco of flying in unusable gowns from Turkey. What discussions are Ministers having with the Governments of New Zealand, Singapore and other WTO countries to support global efforts to keep medical supply chains running during and beyond this crisis?
Greg Hands
We are extremely active at the WTO and other forums, including the G20, to ensure that products flow. We have delivered 1.22 billion items of PPE to the NHS, which is a tremendous achievement. That includes 40 million safety goggles and 1.3 billion face masks; the numbers are substantial. On the action that we are taking at the WTO, we continue to lobby at all levels. May I just correct the hon. Gentleman on one point—about the delivery of 400,000 Turkish gowns? That number represents a tiny proportion of the total, and only a tiny proportion of those gowns were actually found to be defective. We are very thankful to Turkish suppliers for what they have done.
Mr Speaker
It would be remiss of me not to welcome the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) to her new role.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I also thank my colleagues for asking such vital questions about shortages of PPE and other essential medical supplies?
One area where we have, thankfully, not seen shortages to date is the supply of prescription medicines, thanks to the so-called Brexit buffer of supplies built up in preparation for a no-deal Brexit. But given that this buffer only provides somewhere between three to six months of supplies, will the Minister tell us how the Government are getting on with replenishing these stocks from imports, so that we do not experience any shortages once the Brexit buffer starts to run out?
Greg Hands
I join the Secretary of the State in welcoming the right hon. Lady to her position. After four years of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), we always look forward to seeing somebody new at the Dispatch Box.
Again, we are active in all available forums to ensure that the UK’s supply of prescription and non-prescription medicines continues. For example, following the restrictions that India put in place on 3 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been very active with the Indian Trade Minister to get almost all those restrictions removed. We will continue to be active with all our trade partners to ensure that products continue to flow to our NHS at this time.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The UK has a strong history of safeguarding human rights and promoting our values globally. Our strong economic relationships with trading partners allow the Government to have open discussions on a range of important issues, including human rights. We continue to encourage all states to uphold international human rights obligations.
Dr Huq [V]
Twenty-one countries have been listed where negotiations are ongoing with regard to rolling over existing trade agreements beyond 31 December. A number of those countries have shockingly poor human rights records, including Cameroon, Egypt, Singapore, Uganda and South Sudan. Will the Minister tell us whether human rights are part of those discussions? Also, in order to ensure that there is no saying one thing and doing another while everyone is diverted by coronavirus, will he guarantee the inclusion of human rights clauses in any eventual deals?
Greg Hands
I think the hon. Lady is referring to the various EU agreements. She was a passionate campaigner —and, I think, still is—to remain in the EU. Of course, if we had remained we would still be in those trade agreements with the self-same countries that she mentioned, but we are clear that the UK will remain a strong voice for human rights and that more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights, and we will continue to encourage all states to uphold international human rights obligations.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
In response to covid-19, the Department continues to support UK businesses to trade. Office for National Statistics data states that 75.4% of businesses are continuing to trade.
Vicky Foxcroft [V]
For British companies that trade overseas, the one thing guaranteed to make a very bad situation even worse would be the loss of free frictionless trade with the rest of the EU at the end of the year, so will the Minister reassure UK firms that the top priority when it comes to trade is securing the free trade agreement that we need with Europe?
Greg Hands
Of course. The hon. Lady will have seen that the UK is continuing the negotiations, which the chief negotiator David Frost has been doing virtually. We have completed the first round and we look forward to getting the trade agreement that I believe is in the interests of both sides and which will bring relief to British business and others at this important time.
Julie Elliott [V]
In Sunderland and the wider north-east, lots of businesses—large, small and start-ups—rely on international supply chains as they trade internationally. What are the Government doing in these challenging times to ensure that international supply chains are protected?
Greg Hands
The hon. Lady asks a good question. One important thing that we will learn from this crisis is the importance of the robustness of supply chains. Currently, most of the focus is obviously on medical supplies, but that will extend more broadly. We need to make sure that we have diverse sources of supply, that the supply chains that ensue are robust, and that we have choice and diversity in respect of where we procure our goods from.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the negative impact of trade barriers. OECD analysis shows that cutting tariffs and addressing unnecessary costs associated with non-tariff measures could increase trade by more than 20% among G20 economies. We are working to remove barriers for UK exporters around the world—from helping British beef and lamb to export in Japan to obtaining geographic protection for Scotch whisky in Indonesia.
Deidre Brock [V]
The most recent WTO review saw G20 economies implement 28 new trade-restrictive measures, estimated to cover around $460 billion of trade, and import-restrictive measures in force for the period January-October 2019 are now estimated to cover $1.6 trillion, suggesting that import restrictions have continued to grow. It is obvious that we need resilience in our economies, but does the Minister agree that that cannot be an excuse to engage in economic protectionism or simply close down value chains?
Graham Stuart
I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady; she is absolutely right. Pre-covid, over the past decade, perhaps since the financial crash, there has been an increase in the number of trade barriers that have been erected, which is why, as an independent nation once again, we are so determined to champion free trade and to use the WTO and the other international fora referred to by colleagues to make sure that we make that case. It will lead to prosperity for all.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the all-party group on Ethiopia and Djibouti. The UK has signed continuity trade agreements that secure our long-term trading relationship with 11 African countries, and a further 35 will benefit from our unilateral preferences scheme. We continue to work with our partners on arrangements for the remaining African countries covered by EU agreements, in a way that reflects the current economic and public health realities.
Mr Robertson [V]
I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that trade is the best way out of poverty for developing countries? Bringing that idea together with the fact that the United Kingdom is looking to forge trade agreements around the world would create a bigger benefit. Will the Minister do everything he possibly can to bring about strong trade agreements with African countries?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a win-win situation for the UK economy and those developing countries in Africa, and it is so important that we work together. To those considering seeking to put up barriers to foreign produce in our consideration of the Agriculture Bill tomorrow, I should say that not only would that breach the WTO’s global rules and hurt our good name in the international community, but it could also have the effect of restricting imports from developing countries, including those in Africa. Surely no one should wish for that.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
May I just pay tribute to the men and women of the armed forces who have risen to the challenge of helping to deal with covid? We will find them up and down this country, and indeed in Whitehall, embedded right across the system helping to deliver the response. May I also welcome to his place the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)? I look forward to working with him to tackle the issues around defence.
The Royal Navy, along with other NATO allies, will continue to uphold the right of navigation across the globe. This is an inviolable right, and, where it is threatened, the UK will always be at the forefront of defending it.
Andrew Lewer [V]
The Royal Navy is at its best when it works closely with our allies. Will the Minister update the House on recent co-operation with the Royal Australian Navy?
Mr Wallace
The Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy collaborate across the globe on a near daily basis. Only this morning, I had an hour-long conversation with my counterpart in Australia. The Type 26 Hunter-class frigate partnership has flourished through the Global Combat Ship user group. Operationally, we have worked closely on the management and challenges of covid-19 in the maritime sector, as well as in the Strait of Hormuz, providing security to global shipping.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I echo the comments of the Defence Secretary and say thank you to our armed forces for what they are doing to tackle the coronavirus. The British people may have come together as one nation, but the same cannot be said on an international level, which is a very different picture. Our world order was already in a fragile state, but now, under the fog of covid-19, countries such as China and Russia are exploiting this global distraction to further their own geopolitical agendas. May I ask him to call for an urgent meeting of the National Security Council to review our competitors’ activities, which, left unchecked, could lead to serious conflict in the future?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes an important point that there are adversaries and competitors around the world seeking to use this horrendous outbreak not only to exploit our differences, but to further their ambitions. I urge them to focus on the matter at hand, which is tackling covid collectively around the world, rather than taking advantage of that. On the point about the NSC, the decision to call an NSC meeting is a matter for the Government Security Directorate in the Cabinet Office, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. It is not the case that, by not having such a meeting, we have no agenda on security. We meet the threat every single day and, indeed, many of the decisions made at NSC are enduring and do not need to be refreshed unless there is a major turn of events. We will keep the situation under review, as will, I know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
On any given day, up to 4,000 men and women of the armed forces support the Government’s response to covid.
Dr Wallis [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in times of crisis such as the current covid-19 pandemic, our best approach is a united one? Can he therefore describe how the military has helped the people of Wales in dealing with covid-19?
Mr Wallace
Joint Military Command Wales has provided mobile decontamination teams and drivers to support the Welsh Ambulance Service Trust. It has also provided general duties personnel to unload PPE from aircraft at Cardiff Airport and transfer it to civilian trucks for onward distribution to Bridgend. As of 10 May, there are 30 military planners also embedded with the Welsh Government.
David Duguid [V]
I welcome the intervention of the Ministry of Defence in supporting the covid-19 testing capacity across the whole UK, but can my right hon. Friend tell me what discussions he has had with the Department of Health and Social Care and the devolved Administrations on the effectiveness of those MOD testing facilities, and will he meet me, at least virtually, to discuss specific issues that we have had recently in Peterhead in my own constituency?
Mr Wallace
Mobile testing is a capability developed between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Defence under DHSC direction. NHS Scotland decides on the location to which each mobile testing unit will be deployed in Scotland. Peterhead, to which my hon. Friend refers, was an isolated incident in which the opening of the site was delayed due to capacity issues with central laboratories. Unfortunately, the site incorrectly remained open on the digital booking portal for a few hours longer. Such bookings were accepted when the site opened on 4 May. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss further the use and deployment of mobile facilities throughout Scotland.
Mr Speaker
In calling the new shadow Secretary of State, I welcome him to his post.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for his welcome, too. It is a privilege to take on this role, which has always been so important to the Labour party. We will do right by our armed forces and veterans and we will promote their role as a force for good at home and abroad. Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to our military’s essential role in helping the country to respond to the covid crisis. They are keeping us safe, and it is right that we do everything we can to keep them safe.
The US Defence Department has increased its testing capacity to 30,000 military personnel a week. It has set out a strategic testing plan and has now tested everyone deemed a priority for national security, including strategic deterrence, nuclear deterrence, anti-terror forces and healthcare as well as, of course, its entire covid support force. Has the Secretary of State done the same here in the UK?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Member. May I place on record a tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who did a great job as shadow Defence Secretary, sometimes in difficult circumstances? We have done it slightly differently from the United States with testing our personnel. We have no problems whatsoever testing whoever we want, when we want. The best example I can give is that, before embarkation, we tested all 799 of the crew of the Queen Elizabeth carrier. We will test them again throughout their period of sailing and when they return.
We have a strategy around protecting the national security-vital parts of our forces, which involves testing and quarantine. That is also being carried out in areas that I will not particularly comment on; nevertheless, the right hon. Member mentioned what the Americans view as strategically important. We do not have a mass programme; we have testing that is available—we do not have any problems acquiring it—and, as we bring forces up to either readiness or deployment, there is an opportunity if required, if quarantine has not done the job, to test them as well.
John Healey
The Secretary of State talked about testing who we want when we want, but he gave no definition of that. The last published figures show that we had tested just 1% of our entire military personnel. This is about keeping our armed forces safe and safeguarding our national security. There is no fix for coronavirus without mass testing, and we really expect the Ministry of Defence to lead the way, not lag behind, so will he get a grip of this? Will he produce a plan for testing our military, set a target for the number of tests and publish the results, just as our allies in the US have done?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Member. The reality is that we have a grip, because we do have a plan. We have certain individuals whom we treat as a priority and, at the same time, we have all the availability we need for testing; getting it is not a problem. He will know that the vast majority of our military in the UK have been sent home to self-isolate in their homes and follow what the rest of society is doing; they are not on duty, en masse back in their barracks unless they are part of the covid force.
Those who are part of the covid force and either feel symptoms or come into contact with someone will be tested. There is a clear path for them, through the medical officers and the direction of the commands, to get testing. There is a plan. Unlike the United States, we have sent many of our personnel home. They can acquire testing, if they feel the need, in the same way as the rest of the public. When we bring them back for duty, we will have a proper regime for getting back to work, following the Government’s changes to advice. In getting back to work, a comprehensive testing plan will be included.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Defence remains ready to contribute however requested, with a further 16,000 troops available at high readiness if required. We keep our support under constant review and adjust the capabilities available to meet demand. We have liaison officers deployed in the other Government Departments and local resilience fora, which provide the standing joint commander and the Defence head office with insight into developing needs.
Stephen McPartland [V]
As the crisis develops in our care homes across the country, does my right hon. Friend agree that our military are ready and able to help our local authorities if they need that support to get into care homes and provide the logistical support to get PPE to the people who need it?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend raises a very important point about care homes. There are two parts to the issue: one is infections in care homes; and one is, effectively, leakage of infections from care homes into the wider community. Only this morning I spoke to the Prime Minister about offering up more military support if needed to make sure that our local resilience fora and care homes get the assistance they need, whether that is bringing testing to care homes or helping them with the routine and structure of decontamination, so that staff can come and go better from care homes. We stand ready to do that as required by the Department of Health and Social Care and any other stakeholder.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Reflecting on where the armed forces have been needed most shows that we have helped the most in logistics, command and control, and testing. The MOD’s strengths of moving at pace, assessing the situation, and resilience have been key enablers to the rest of Government.
Royston Smith [V]
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all our armed forces personnel for their significant contribution to the nation’s efforts to tackle the covid-19 virus. What plans does my right hon. Friend have for service personnel in the continuing battle as we enter phase two of this process?
Mr Wallace
As I have said, the armed forces have played a vital role in supporting the NHS and others to manage the situation, and I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to them. Defence remains ready to contribute, as requested, by any civil authorities through the MACA—military assistance to civilian authority—system. After this crisis started, as Defence Secretary, I took the decision very early on to devolve the power to grant military assistance right down to the regional commands—so it is not from my desk, from the bureaucracy of head office—and those regional commanders stand ready to call on the whole forces of the covid force for support as needed.
Mr Speaker
We go up to Sunderland again—I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), to her new position.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The armed forces are indeed playing a vital part in helping the country through this coronavirus crisis, as are our veterans, who, across the country, are volunteering to help their local community, and I commend them all for their contribution. Many are helping other veterans because the Government have closed the Veterans UK helpline. Will the Secretary of State set out why he decided to close the helpline in the midst of this crisis, when many veterans will need its help and support?
Mr Wallace
From my understanding of the helpline, the activity that it did remained and, in fact, the vast majority moved online, reflecting the changes to the working patterns that we all have to face. We have found that the services are still being delivered. My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans has reported that there is no decline in the service being given to those veterans—this is about the medium that is currently being used. However, as soon as possible—indeed, maybe it has already started—we will be returning to some form of telephone service alongside the online service. The feedback, both from charities and veterans, is that they are getting the service they require, and my hon. Friend is absolutely, on a daily basis, keeping on top of that.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Defence is supporting the Government’s campaign against covid-19 disinformation, specifically to counter disinformation, misinformation and malign information from abroad. The Government are also working closely with social media platforms, academia and civil society to tackle this issue, although I stress that this is not a role undertaken by our military personnel. The Government’s particular focus remains on promoting factual public health advice and countering inaccurate content.
Chris Law [V]
In many cases, disinformation about covid-19 can travel faster than the virus itself and pose just as great a threat to our security. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and with the majority of the public surveyed by the Open Knowledge Foundation that the Government need urgently to impose compulsory action on social media sites to clamp down on the spread of such disinformation?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Member will know that, not just in this world of the coronavirus battle but previously, in the world of exploitation, misinformation, radicalisation and other areas, the biggest challenge for Governments across Europe has been how to deal with social media companies, many of which are based abroad. The extent of our powers and jurisdiction is sometimes limited. We have consulted widely about duties of care, but in this outbreak we are seeing media outlets way away from this part of the world that have no regard for the fact or truth magnifying or spreading propaganda in real time. That is the challenge we have. No amount of legislation will be able to deal with some foreign outlets that are based elsewhere or linked to Governments elsewhere, and that is a challenge. To be fair, the mainstream social media outlets, which are often United States-based, have been more responsible in this; Facebook, Twitter and so on have stood up to the plate and removed lots of content when it has been pointed out to them.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin) [V]
Two hundred and seventy-five civilian scientists and 13 embedded military personnel from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory are currently deploying their unique capabilities right across Government. That includes statistical analysis, decontamination trials, assistance on testing laboratories, and experiments on how the virus survives in the atmosphere.
Patricia Gibson [V]
It has been reported that the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory is conducting studies on Citriodiol, an ingredient found in insect repellent, to test its effect on covid-19. Can the Minister tell us if and how our armed forces are involved in those tests? If the tests show that the ingredient is effective against the virus, when will it be available for use on the covid frontline?
Jeremy Quin [V]
As the hon. Lady will be aware, Citriodiol is a natural extract of lemon eucalyptus oil, and it is readily available to the public in a range of insect repellents. It has been issued to members of the armed forces to use at their discretion if they wish to. We are aware that it was efficacious against SARS. There is no evidence as yet as to whether it is useful against covid-19, but I can confirm, as per the hon. Lady’s question, that, at the request of the Surgeon General, DSTL is conducting tests on this product to see whether it is efficacious. If it is, we will of course let the House know and let that be known more widely as soon as possible.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
May I, too, put on the record my thanks to the armed forces, particularly for helping with building the NHS Louisa Jordan in my home city, Glasgow?
This Citriodiol issue is deeply serious. The Minister has just said himself that there is no evidence that it is effective in the fight against covid-19, yet it was dished out to the armed forces without being tested. Can he tell us on what basis it was given out? Will he publish the guidance that was given to members of the armed forces? Did it go through an ethics committee? Who signed off on it without it being tested? A false sense of security can be deadly.
Mr Speaker
I do not know whether you got that, Minister; it was a bad line.
Jeremy Quin [V]
As I emphasised in response to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), Citriodiol is a natural product—it is a natural extract of lemon eucalyptus oil—and it is readily available to the public as an insect repellent. We know that it was efficacious in the past, and the view was that if it was efficacious against SARS in the past, it may have properties that are useful against covid-19, but we have been very clear that that is not as a result of tests. It is very early days. Those tests are ongoing. If they prove that there are positive properties, that will be shared. However, this is just one very small element in a range of protections provided to our armed forces personnel, including appropriate PPE and all the appropriate hygiene and other instructions that are widely shared and widely known.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin) [V]
Defence’s considerable commercial expertise is actively supporting the national effort in providing procurement, supply chain and logistics advice and expertise across Government. As a purchaser of some £19 billion of equipment and services annually, we are also working closely with our suppliers to support them at this difficult time.
Stephen Metcalfe [V]
In times of trouble, we rely on our armed forces as much now as we did 75 years ago, as embodied by Basildon resident and veteran Don Sheppard, who celebrated his 100th birthday last week. There are many who also rely on defence procurement for their livelihoods. How has my hon. Friend ensured that small businesses and the jobs they provide, which are particularly important in my constituency, are being protected at this time?
Jeremy Quin [V]
I am sure we would all wish to congratulate Mr Sheppard on his century, just as we all thank his extraordinary generation for their fortitude and service to our country.
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of defence jobs. There are 119,000 employed directly in the defence industry, and we are hugely grateful to all who have persevered in maintaining critical defence tasks at this difficult time. Our suppliers have made clear their determination to ensure safe working environments. We have worked with them to support the industry right through the supply chain, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and we are grateful for all their work.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin) [V]
We remain closely engaged with our strategic suppliers and continue to monitor the impact of covid-19 on the defence sector during this difficult time. We are engaged with defence primes and with SMEs, directly and via the prime contractors. As I said, the sector employs 119,000 people directly, and we are committed to its success.
Lucy Powell [V]
It’s always sunny here, Mr Speaker.
The UK’s world-leading defence industry is critical to our national security as well as our prosperity, particularly here in the north-west, as the Minister has just outlined, but its future capability is inextricably linked to the aviation industry, which is now suffering a collapse in demand. Will the Government now commit to bringing forward major research and development programmes and clean tech to help support the whole sector, especially SMEs and others, to retain jobs and capability?
Jeremy Quin [V]
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question from sunny Manchester. The Government are providing a range of help and support across the board to every industry, as she is aware. In defence in particular—she is absolutely right that many defence companies have aerospace arms—we have been clear that we want to do everything we can to help. That includes ensuring prompt payment and looking, where appropriate, at interim payments to support companies where they are requested and required. We are doing our utmost to work with the industry, and I will be saying that again at the defence suppliers forum, which I will chair virtually later this week.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin) [V]
The Ministry of Defence has rigorous processes to test its capabilities and force structure to ensure they are robust against the ever evolving threats to our country and our allies. We will be assisted in doing this by the forthcoming cross-Government integrated review.
James Sunderland
I pay tribute to everyone involved in the covid support force. Will the Minister give an early indication of how this current deployment might influence the integrated review and whether defence planning assumptions will be amended to reflect the fact that the MOD has again provided extensive liability to support the civil power?
Jeremy Quin [V]
My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right that the lessons learned will be picked up by the IR. There will be many points to take on board from what has been a formidable military effort, including the value of being plugged in early for effective working at regional and devolved level. The huge value of our reserves, not only to their local links but for the specialist skills they can bring to bear, and for their agility in coping with all the tasks of our brilliant military planners and logisticians, is a point that will not be lost on my hon. and gallant Friend, a former commanding officer of 27 Regiment Royal Logistics Corps.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey) [V]
I am sure the whole country was disappointed that the planned parades and commemorations could not take place, but the activities we did manage were, I felt, still a very fitting tribute to the greatest generation. From the Red Arrows over London to our ships at sea and the military banners in the gardens of Downing Street, I was proud of the way our armed forces still managed to mark such an important moment for our nation.
Mrs Murray [V]
My dad fought in Burma during the second world war, and clearly VJ Day has always been very significant to my family. What plans does my hon. Friend have to celebrate VJ Day in the middle of August?
James Heappey [V]
First, may I thank my hon. Friend for her unstinting support for our nation’s armed forces? Like everybody, I am hoping the lockdown measures will have been lifted further to allow us to celebrate and commemorate VJ Day properly later in the summer. That day is every bit as important as VE Day, and the MOD wants to make sure that it is marked just as enthusiastically.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey) [V]
HMS Medway and RFA Argus, along with 30 military personnel, are currently deployed in the Caribbean, and our garrisons in the overseas territories have been engaged in supporting the local communities as they are required.
Paul Bristow [V]
It is great to hear how our country has helped the Caribbean overseas territories during this emergency. Will the Minister also assure me that our armed forces will have enough resources to support any future humanitarian assistance or disaster relief, if that is needed?
James Heappey [V]
People in the overseas territories will be reassured to see their plight being raised by my hon. Friend in the House today. HMS Medway and RFA Argus are already on post in the Caribbean, but additional naval assets and personnel are on standby. The commitment of our armed forces to support the overseas territories in times of pandemic or national disaster, or whatever else, is unwavering.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer) [V]
I have used this unprecedented situation to continue to modernise and improve our support to veterans in the UK. Last week, I launch the first stage in placing veterans’ care in the palm of the hand of every veteran in the country, with the launch of the smartphone application of Veterans UK. I have also secured £6 million of funding from the Treasury for service charities at this time.
Christian Wakeford [V]
Although the UK was unable to celebrate VE Day as originally planned, because of the threat of covid-19, it is still important that we remember and support the veterans who bravely played their part in fighting for peace and who sacrificed so much for our freedom. The UK’s armed forces compensation scheme, which helps veterans claim for injuries obtained while in the armed forces, was temporarily paused because of the covid-19 lockdown. Can the Minister assure my constituents that payments will be made as soon as possible? When will those payments be made?
Johnny Mercer [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am afraid he may be slightly misinformed; we have not missed any payments. We made 470,000 payments last month. Veterans’ care has not been suspended in the UK. We have, as the Secretary of State alluded to earlier, changed the way we provide services, but I am unaware of a single veteran currently in the care of Veterans UK who has not had their need met during this time.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
But that is not good enough. Other Departments and businesses have found ways of operating call centres safely, so at a time when the nation has been awed by the efforts of Captain Tom Moore, why has the Ministry of Defence closed its vital Veterans UK helpline—the telephone service? It is not good enough.
Johnny Mercer
I am certainly not going to take lectures on what is and is not good enough from a Labour party whose veterans’ care I experienced over a number of years. No services have been closed. We have changed the way of doing business. Clearly we cannot do new face-to-face consultations at this time. Again, I reiterate that not a single veteran in the care of Veterans UK has had their needs unmet at this time. I would caution Members against politicising what is clearly a very important issue.
Paula Barker [V]
Half of respondents to a recent Army Families Federation survey said that they had received no information at all about the Ministry of Defence’s future accommodation model. What are the Government doing to rectify that?
Johnny Mercer
Again, I find that hard to believe, because we have gone out on a huge programme of engagement around the future accommodation model. This is a significant part of what the Government are doing to invest in what we call the offer to keep people within the military. If anybody requires that information, I am more than happy for them to get in touch with me. We have used the Army Families Federation’s publications and so on. I am always happy to do more. This is a communications battle we are determined to win. It is a positive step, and I look forward to engaging further with the Army Families Federation in future.
Emma Hardy [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister has heard me speak previously about how fortunate veterans in Hull are to be supported by the Hull Veterans Support Centre and Hull 4 Heroes, which have been doing an incredible job in providing resources and mental health support. But I remain concerned that these are charities and are therefore competing with all other charities for donations at this time. So what specific funding can the Minister make available to support veterans’ charities?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to Hull 4 Heroes, which the hon. Lady knows I have been in contact with. It has done an amazing job during this time, as have many in the veterans’ sector. We have secured an initial £6 million out of the Treasury to support veterans’ charities at this time. But make no mistake—the environment that these charities operate in is changing, and will change, as a result of covid-19. I am absolutely determined to make sure that the ambition the Prime Minister has set out—that this is the best country in the world to be a veteran—is realised in due course.
Mr Speaker
Excellent. We now come to the urgent question. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, and wish him a happy 40th birthday. He should speak for no more than three minutes.
Covid-19: Economic Package
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government’s economic package in response to the covid-19 outbreak.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your warm wishes.
This Government’s plan is one of the most comprehensive anywhere in the world. We have provided billions of pounds of cash grants, tax cuts and loans for over 1 million businesses, tens of billions of pounds of deferred taxes, income protection for millions of the self-employed, and a strengthened safety net to protect millions of our most vulnerable people. These schemes speak to my and this Conservative Government’s values. We believe in the dignity of work, and we are doing everything we can to protect people currently unable to work.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our plan for the next phase of the public health response, and today I can confirm the next stage of our job retention scheme. This scheme has been a world-leading economic intervention, supporting livelihoods and protecting futures. Seven and a half million jobs have been furloughed—jobs we could have lost if we had not acted—and nearly 1 million businesses supported who could have closed shop for good.
As we reopen the economy, we will need to support people back to work. We will do so in a measured way. I can announce today that the job retention scheme will be extended for four months, until the end of October. By that point, we will have provided eight months of support to British people and businesses. Until the end of July, there will be no changes whatsoever, from August to October the scheme will continue for all sectors and regions of the UK, but with greater flexibility to support the transition back to work. Employers currently using the scheme will be able to bring furloughed employees back part time. We will ask employers to start sharing with the Government the cost of paying people’s salaries.
Full details will follow by the end of May, but I want to assure people today of one thing that will not change: workers will, through the combined efforts of the Government and employers, continue to receive the same level of overall support as they do now, at 80% of their current salary, up to £2,500 a month.
I am extending the scheme because I will not give up on the people who rely on it. Our message today is simple. We stood behind Britain’s workers and businesses as we came into this crisis and we will stand behind them as we come through the other side.
Mr Speaker
I now call Anneliese Dodds, who is speaking virtually. I ask her to speak for no more than two minutes.
Anneliese Dodds
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I would also like to wish the Chancellor many happy returns.
As a constructive Opposition, we want to work with the Government to ensure that people’s jobs and incomes are protected and the furlough scheme is a critical element of that. Many of the more than 6 million people who are currently furloughed were taken aback by comments made in the media by Government spokespeople suggesting that, for example, people needed to be weaned off an addiction to the scheme. There were many intimations that changes might have been announced to that scheme by the Chancellor, potentially in the media, without the opportunity for proper scrutiny.
I have only heard about these changes in the last few seconds. We will look at them very carefully, but there are some critical principles that the Chancellor surely must follow as he redesigns the scheme.
First, we must acknowledge that people did not want to be furloughed. It occurred through no choice of their own and through following the Government’s advice about the closure of sectors. It is critically important that they are not penalised for that choice.
I welcome the flexibility mentioned. We have asked for that repeatedly; it applies in many other countries. It has been a long time coming, but I welcome the fact that it is occurring now.
That flexibility includes an employer contribution, so the Chancellor needs to provide more information about that employer contribution now. He also surely needs to provide more information about alternatives to the scheme. Other countries have job creation, training schemes and redeployment schemes. We do not have those yet. Will the Chancellor work with me, trade unions, businesses, local authorities and further and higher education institutions to create the support that is so desperately needed?
Rishi Sunak
I thank the shadow Chancellor for her warm wishes and for the constructive support for today’s announcement. I will address two specific points that she raised. First, the word addiction is not one that I have ever used and it is not one that I agree with. Nobody who is on the furlough scheme wants to be on the scheme. People up and down the country believe in the dignity of their work, of going to work and providing for their families. It is not their fault that their business has been asked to close. It is not their fault that they have been asked to stay at home. That is why I established the scheme to support those people and their livelihoods at this critical time. I wholeheartedly agree with the shadow Chancellor in that regard.
On the next steps, I am pleased to tell her that I have already been talking to the TUC and, indeed, the CBI about the future; helping those people to get back into work who, unfortunately, may lose their jobs through this period. That issue weighs heavily on my mind. Every person who loses their job through this difficult period is a person the Government are determined to stand behind, whether that is with new skills, new training or indeed through supporting businesses to create new jobs. We are determined to make sure that that happens. I look forward to continuing my conversations with Opposition Members and with the trade unions, the CBI and other business groups as we look forward to a brighter future. As we get through this crisis, people can come back to work and we can create the jobs and opportunities, and a brighter future for tomorrow.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
I broadly welcome the statement the Chancellor has made relating to furlough and, in particular, the additional flexibilities that he has outlined, most notably about part-time working. However, as we come through this crisis, many businesses will be saddled with significant debts just at the time that we are looking to those businesses to invest and to grow the economy. Does he therefore agree that it is vital that the Government come forward as soon as possible with a clear plan as to how they are going to assist those companies with that indebtedness in terms of debt forbearance and equity finance so that they can fire up the economy and grow the jobs that the country will so desperately need?
Rishi Sunak
As always, my right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I agree that debt is not the answer to all businesses’ problems at this time, which is why we have provided business with unprecedented degrees of direct cash support, with cash grants of £10,000 or £25,000 for up to 1 million businesses and 750,000 businesses benefiting from a cut in their business taxes and tax deferrals. All of that will help. With regard to equity in supporting the future, I hope he will agree that the Future Fund that we have announced will be part of that solution, with the Government matching essentially quasi-equity investments in early-stage companies to ensure that they are here to power the growth and innovation we will need as we recover from this crisis.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
I wish the Chancellor a very happy birthday. The coronavirus job retention scheme has kept people from unemployment at a cost to other parts of the UK Government’s spending and to the economy as a whole. I welcome his commitment to extend it to October and to look at flexibility in the scheme, because that is something that many, including the Scottish National party, have been calling for. We await the details of that, which I hope we will see before too long. Does he recognise that removing or reducing wage support levels in the furlough scheme prematurely would increase universal credit claims, force workers back to work before it is safe for them, and risk a second peak? The Scottish Government have been clear that the stay-at-home advice has not changed, so will the Chancellor commit today to ensuring that the job retention scheme will remain in place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if our lockdowns continue longer than in England? Lastly, will he commit to looking at the gaps within the scheme for new starters, and will he look at those businesses who are still waiting for money under the scheme, because he said that he would do whatever it takes, and if he does not fill those gaps, that will ring very hollow?
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Lady for her warm wishes as well. To clarify, there will be no reduction in the level of support for those on the scheme. That is the commitment that I made earlier, so I am not entirely sure whether I understood her question right. It is crystal clear that those on the scheme have the reassurance that the level of support they will receive will not be changed. Those wages and support will now be shared by the Government and employers, but the levels and percentages of support will not change. I committed to bringing forward further details by the end of this month, while we work through some of the technical details of implementing part-time furloughing. As I said at the outset, this is now an extension for four months to the end of October, which will provide eight months of support in total to all regions and all sectors of the United Kingdom. I think it provides a good, generous runway for businesses and firms to plan against, so that they can start getting back to work when the time is right, as per the Prime Minister’s plan that was outlined on Sunday and Monday.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) [V]
We know that international comparisons should be made carefully, but I note that polling released yesterday showed that the UK is considered the best in the world for supporting businesses and jobs during the crisis, so what steps is the Chancellor taking to ensure that this success is continued for companies in Milton Keynes and elsewhere as we gradually come out of the lockdown?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that. He is indeed right. I was pleased to see polling that showed that people in this country felt that businesses were well supported, as compared with almost any other developed country. Indeed, the full scale of the economic intervention that we have put in place as a percentage of GDP stands as one of the most comprehensive anywhere in the world. I am very happy to continue listening to my hon. Friend to see what more we should be doing to support his businesses in Milton Keynes as they look forward to a future where they can start to reopen, start to get their employees back to work and start to rebuild our economy as we emerge from this crisis.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I welcome the continuation of the furlough scheme and its new flexibility to allow part-time work. That is vital for businesses in Brighton, particularly those in tourism and hospitality. Will the Chancellor consider further support to that sector by a reduction in VAT on tourism? It is a policy that many of his Government MPs support. Will he consider revising the self-employed scheme by including small business owners who take their income in dividends, as well as those who combine PAYE with freelance work?
Rishi Sunak
Those who work for their own companies can indeed avail themselves of the coronavirus job retention scheme for the PAYE part of their income already. With regard to support for the hospitality and leisure sector, I agree that it is the sector that has been most impacted by what we are all going through, which is why it is the sector that has received the most support, with cash grants of up to £25,000 for those businesses—almost a million are eligible—and an entire business rates holiday worth almost £12 billion for the entire 12 months of this financial year. I believe that to be considerable support, but, of course, as we emerge from this crisis I keep all economic measures under review.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
May I thank the Chancellor for the speed with which he has managed to get so much money out to help my constituents in Bury? Does he agree with me that the coronavirus job retention scheme is one of the most generous in the world? I express my gratitude to him for supporting so many jobs in my constituency and throughout the country, many of which would have been lost without these schemes.
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his support, and he is absolutely right. In Bury, as elsewhere, businesses have benefited from the support that the Government have put in place. They have been able to retain their employees through using the scheme. That means that Bury, when we get through this crisis, can be in the forefront of making sure that our economy bounces back as strongly as it can. I look forward to hearing from him what more we can do to support his constituents and his businesses through this crisis.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) [V]
The Mayor of Greater Manchester’s United We Stream initiative has raised thousands of pounds for our creative industries, which make a vital contribution to our economy and to socioemotional wellbeing. With the sector likely to be among the last to exit lockdown, and with many artists working on a freelance or self-employed basis, will the Chancellor confirm that full support will be given to that vital sector for as long as is needed?
Rishi Sunak
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has engaged extensively with that sector as part of planning for a future where people can get back to work and sectors can reopen in a responsible and safe way. That work is already ongoing. Of course, many people in that sector are benefiting already from our self-employment income support scheme, which opens this week for applications. People will start receiving their lump sum payment as early as next week, and I know that will make an enormous difference to the many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people who work in that sector and will benefit from that scheme.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) [V]
May I too welcome the Chancellor’s announcement today on furlough? P&O and many ferry operators are benefiting from millions of pounds of support that the Chancellor has provided for furlough and freight. However, P&O, which is headquartered here in Dover, last night announced redundancy plans for more than a thousand jobs after its Dubai owners failed to provide the support that the company needs. Does the Chancellor agree with me that companies and their investors, such as Dubai, cannot simply rely on taxpayer handouts, but need to play their full part, investing and supporting British businesses and British jobs at this time?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is an excellent advocate for the freight industry and the importance of the port in her town, which does so much to help fuel the growth of our country. That is why I was pleased to extend support to the sector, to maintain our vital freight links.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: as I said at the outset of this crisis, we are in this together—everyone has to play their role, and that means employers and companies as well doing their bit to support and protect their staff to the best of their ability and pitch in to help get through this crisis. I would be happy to talk to her further if there is more that she thinks we can do.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) [V]
Women are considerably more likely to be furloughed than men, and the disproportionate impact of covid-19 on our black, Asian and minority ethnic communities is already being investigated from a health perspective by Public Health England. Has the Chancellor assessed the equality impact of all his package of economic measures on women and our BAME communities? If so, will he publish that impact assessment?
Rishi Sunak
What is clear and emerging is that the sectors and people most impacted by the lockdown are disproportionately women, as the hon. Member mentioned, and those in lower-paid sectors, who probably are financially less resilient. That is why the scheme is so important in providing job and income security to millions of people. That is why today I have made the decision to extend the scheme, to maximise the possibility that those people will have a job to go back to. The hon. Member can rest assured that I keep a very careful eye on all the impacts of the scheme. I do believe that it is benefiting some of the most vulnerable in our society today.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Chancellor will be aware of widespread concern about the future of our commercial airlines—not least in constituencies such as mine near Heathrow, Gatwick and other major hubs. The CEO of International Airlines Group appeared yesterday before the Transport Committee and made it clear that job losses at British Airways were only being considered as a direct result of the pandemic. What further support might be available from the Government for UK aviation?
Rishi Sunak
Companies in the aviation sector, like all others, can benefit from the considerable range of support measures already announced—indeed, I know that many companies in the sector are benefiting currently from the jobs retention programme. Of course, individual companies have the opportunity to engage with the Government on a bilateral basis, where that is appropriate, but it obviously would not be right for me to comment on those conversations.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
May I give the Chancellor a small birthday present by welcoming the extension of the furlough scheme and the greater flexibility for employees coming off furlough—not least because the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for an almost identical package? But may I urge him yet again to look at those employees and self-employed who have not been helped at all and are in dire straits—people who have moved jobs, who were not on their employer’s payroll by mid-March? Will he consider the new starter scheme that I proposed in early April? Will he please review his refusal to properly help those self-employed people who operate from limited companies and who have just been cut adrift?
Rishi Sunak
The self-employment scheme in this country remains one of the most generous and comprehensive anywhere in the world. It was designed to provide support to those people who have a different pattern of working. As I have explained previously to the right hon. Gentleman, there is a difficulty in distinguishing the dividends that company directors earn from the dividends that anyone might earn through earning a passive share portfolio.
I have seen the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman and others have sent. Of course, my team and I have considered and are considering those, but that does not take away from the fact that what has opened this week is a scheme that will support millions of those in self- employment and enable them to receive the same level of support as those in employment, starting with cash coming into their accounts as early as next week.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement today, and also, in particular, on his handling of this crisis and the support he is providing to businesses and individuals during it.
Many of my constituents in Chesham and Amersham work for British Airways, which despite furloughing nearly 23,000 staff has been threatening to make over 12,000 staff redundant. Can my right hon. Friend send a clear message to British Airways today that with this extension it should now remove all threat of redundancy, which has been adding to the anxiety and stress of so many of its hard working and in many cases long-serving staff?
Rishi Sunak
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) is right to advocate for and support her constituents employed by the airline industry, and she is right to urge employers to do the right thing at this difficult time. The Government have provided considerable support to companies to help them get through this crisis, and she knows what will benefit her constituents. I will continue to support her in those efforts to make sure that we can protect as many of those jobs as possible.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
Prynhawn da, Mr Speaker. The Chancellor has said that he is doing everything he can, but has he seen the New Starter Justice campaign for people who started or were due to start a new job after 28 February and are still cut adrift from any help from the Chancellor and his schemes? Why has he thrown this particular group of hard-working British people under the bus?
Rishi Sunak
When we announced the job retention scheme, I said clearly that it would apply for those of whom HMRC was aware on 28 February. We were able, while protecting the taxpayer against fraud, to extend that date to 19 March, the day before I made the announcement, which is reasonable, in the sense that without HMRC or the Government knowing whether someone was actually employed the scope for fraud would be considerable. I did not think it appropriate to expose the taxpayer to that.
That change to 19 March brought in 230,000 of the 350,000-odd people that the hon. Gentleman talks about. Yes, that left a number of people who could not be covered, but for a reason that I believe is defensible. The scheme is able to cover the 29.5 million people who were notified to HMRC on that date; indeed, 7.5 million of them are benefiting from it. We should not lose sight of that. The scheme is doing an enormous amount for several million people up and down this country.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
Time and again, the Chancellor has stepped up to ensure that our businesses have what they need to get through this difficult period, and I welcome the measures announced today. The bounce- back loan scheme is another example of the unprecedented interventions that the Chancellor has made and this has been unequivocally welcomed by organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that work is continuing to be done to ensure that we increase the number of accredited lenders that provide bounce-back loans so that we can make sure we are getting funds to those businesses that need them, wherever they may be?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his advice as we looked to design and improve our lending scheme. I very much value his direct links with business and his relaying that to me. If you will allow me Mr Speaker, I can update him and the House on the number of loans that have now been approved. I am pleased to say that more than a quarter of a million bounce-back loans have been approved—267,000—with over £8 billion of capital benefiting small and medium-sized companies up and down the UK. On top of that, 35,000 CBILS loans worth more than £6 billion have now been put out. Hundreds of thousands of businesses are benefiting from the loan schemes that my hon. Friend helped to implement, ensuring that they worked well and quickly for businesses.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
As a result of the loss of income through both fundraising and small service charges, many small and local charities will be struggling financially despite being heavily involved and active in the covid-19 response and in supporting constituents. When will the Chancellor issue guidance to local authorities on providing grants to charities that are in receipt of local charitable rate relief but have up to now been excluded from securing the £10,000 grants from the small business grants fund?
Rishi Sunak
Just over a week or so ago, we outlined plans for a top-up fund for local authorities worth more than £600 million nationally so that they could distribute further rate relief to the businesses that they thought were appropriate. Indeed, it would be up to those local authorities to make the decisions and they could well use the money for that purpose if they so wished.
We also unveiled a £750 million package to support charities through this crisis. They are an important part of the social fabric of our country. Charities are impacted in the same way that businesses and the rest of us are, and it is important that we maintain them through this crisis, not least for the valuable work that they do on the front line, but also for the contribution they make to our civic society as we come out of this.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
The Isle of Wight is Britain’s festival island, and we have a unique tourism sector that is supported by events in the arts, music and sport. Will the Chancellor confirm that the furlough extension will help islanders in that devastated part of the economy? Will Ministers meet me, and others, to discuss how we can further protect the visitor and festival economy, which relies on specific parts of the year, and sometimes only on weekends, to generate an entire annual livelihood?
Rishi Sunak
Let me start by conveying the thanks of the whole House, and certainly of the Government, to my hon. Friend’s constituents for the role that they are playing in trialling the new app. That will be important as we look to gain control of this virus in the second and third phase of our approach to tackling it. Will he please pass on our thanks to all his constituents? I reassure him that they are very much in our minds. We know that the sector he mentioned is struggling and will need support. The document that the Government published yesterday spoke about creating an industry taskforce, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend, and others, as we chart a future for those in the leisure, hospitality and tourism sectors.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
The all-party group for disability, which I chair, believes it is crucial that the Chancellor accelerates efforts to include people with disabilities in the economic recovery plan, enabling a disability-inclusive covid-19 response. Will he address that issue by undertaking an impact assessment of the economic recovery plan, based on equalities principles?
Rishi Sunak
The Government and the Treasury will, of course, undertake all appropriate equalities and disabilities assessments for policies as they are unveiled and as is required. I have talked about this issue in the past with the hon. Lady, and the Budget outlined something that she and I care very much about, which is the Changing Places campaign for those with complex disabilities. We created a fund to help local authorities and businesses to adapt or build new changing places that will benefit hundreds of thousands of those, especially young children, who suffer with complex disabilities, and who require different types of facilities so that they can enjoy time with their families out and about. I hope we can continue to work closely on that issue.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
I support the Chancellor’s bold move to extend the furlough scheme to October—[Inaudible.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Unfortunately we have to move on to the next question. I call Judith Cummins.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) [V]
Has the Treasury made an assessment of how many employers are currently topping up the wages of furloughed workers to full pay? If the Government reduce the amount they are contributing, many employers may struggle to top up wages. What will the Government do if employers cannot top up wages?
Rishi Sunak
As well as the furlough scheme, the Government have provided direct cash support to businesses in the form of cash grants or tax cuts, and allowed them to defer taxes such as VAT. We have also provided them with access to discounted and attractive loans to ease cashflow. I believe that in sum that represents a considerable amount of support for business, and we have now stretched and extended the furlough scheme to cover eight months. Sitting alongside the plan that the Prime Minister outlined, that will provide businesses with a generous and sufficient amount of time to help bring their employees back to work. Indeed, they will also benefit from the part-time flexibility to ramp up their operations.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I welcome the world-leading package of measures that we are providing to support livelihoods and businesses through this pandemic, which is helping a huge number of people in Runnymede and Weybridge. Aviation is crucial to my constituency due to our proximity to Heathrow, and many constituents have contacted me who are employees of not just BA but logistics firms and others associated with the aviation industry. Getting our planes flying again is crucial to our economy through air freight and just-in-time supply lines. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to direct support for the carriers and industry, we need to get planes flying again as soon as possible?
Rishi Sunak
I know that my hon. Friend is rightly focused on that issue for his constituents, given the location of his constituency. Of course, aviation has been impacted considerably by this, but he is right; the best way to help, in the end, is for us to find a way to control this virus, live with it and reopen those parts of our economy that are currently closed. That is the best long-term way to provide the support to the industry and his constituents that we all want to see.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
The extent of Government support available is of cold comfort to those who are still not receiving any support. New starters are being abandoned simply by accident of the date on which they happened to change jobs. Those workers could be helped if the Government would accept evidence of their employment in the form of a contract of employment. Many of these workers have paid taxes for years. Will the Chancellor reconsider his approach and take further action so that new starters are not left behind?
Rishi Sunak
I do not have much more to add to my previous answer, but for those who do not benefit from this scheme or others, we have taken significant action, investing several billion pounds in strengthening our safety net in this country. Whether it is through tax credits, universal credit, the local housing allowance or the hardship fund provided to local authorities, the most vulnerable in our society through this crisis are seeing considerable extra support from Government to help them get through.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) [V]
Like others, I am grateful to the Chancellor for his extension of the furlough scheme, which is a reverse birthday present from him to workers and firms in my constituency. He will want our brilliant creative industries to come out of this crisis intact, and he knows that many people working in them are freelancers or on short-term contracts. Can he give some hope to those producing world-class work, often in precarious circumstances, that their sector will survive and flourish again after this is all over?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the creative industries play an incredibly important part in our economy in this country, and they are also one of our great exports around the world and add to our soft power. He is right that we should do everything we can to preserve the jewel that is that industry. As I said, I am talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who is engaged with that industry to find the safest way for those workers to get back to work. We all want to see that happen in a measured and safe way. He can rest assured that I am also thinking about it from an economic perspective and seeing whether our support schemes and everything else are optimised for that industry as we emerge from this recovery.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
The furlough scheme is hugely welcome, but it needs greater flexibility. I hear what the Chancellor says, but the Opposition have set out ways in which the furlough scheme arrangements could be adapted to include new starters who have just missed out without risking fraudulent payments. Will he give those proposals urgent and serious consideration?
Rishi Sunak
We did give consideration to proposals that we received and worked with our systems, which is why we were able to extend the date from 28 February to 19 March, the day before I made the announcement. To me, that is a reasonable and defensible date to choose. It is important not to underestimate the operational challenge of creating these schemes and ensuring that they work for people. As I said at the time, from announcement to the scheme going live was a matter of weeks. Thousands of people worked their socks off to make that happen, and several million people’s pay packets are now being supported because that all works. These things are not straightforward to do, and changing them and adding complexity to them will simply make it more likely that they do not work and that people have to wait a lot longer to get the support they desperately need at this time.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) [V]
I welcome the fantastic announcement about the coronavirus job retention scheme, and thank my right hon. Friend for all that his Department is doing to support businesses in Redcar and Cleveland, with the CJRS, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and the new bounceback loans. Will he reassure me and employers in my constituency that this support will be kept under review so that it reaches the businesses that need it most?
Rishi Sunak
I can give my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour exactly that reassurance. I thank him for all that he is doing to support his businesses and constituents at this time. I very much welcome the advice that he has given me, as he has fed back what he is hearing on the ground from businesses in the north-east. He and I have a shared ambition to make sure that Teesside drives our economic recovery as we come out of this situation, and I look forward to continuing those conversations with him.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) [V]
Aberdeen has been hit by the double whammy of covid-19 and a massive drop in the oil price. Will the Chancellor tell us when he last had a conversation with the industry, and will he please give consideration to announcing sector-specific support in order to protect my constituents and those in other regions where employment is centred around oil and gas?
Rishi Sunak
Regardless of the industry in which companies operate, they are able to benefit from our furlough scheme. That is something that we were keen to do. It is not necessarily replicated by every scheme around the world, but we thought that that comprehensive approach was the appropriate one. Many of the companies that the hon. Lady mentioned will be able to benefit from that scheme. Beyond that, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary engages regularly with all sectors regarding their particular concerns, and I will continue to liaise closely with him.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
I strongly welcome the extension of the job retention scheme. It is the most generous in the world, and is saving a huge number of jobs here in Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. One of the great successes of policy in recent years has been a huge reduction in youth unemployment, but the virus is inevitably going to disrupt a lot of apprenticeships and work placements. Is my right hon. Friend thinking hard about how we can limit or stop any rise in youth unemployment?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that he has put a lot of thought into this particular issue, and I look forward to hearing his ideas on it. As we emerge from this situation, we need to be cognisant of having the right support available for those who are most affected by this issue, especially those who are young and entering the labour force for the first time who will face this challenge, but also younger people who work in the disproportionately affected sectors of retail and hospitality; and that support might include skills, retraining and a dynamic labour market. This is about the economic impact on us all, and especially on those individuals; not having a close connection with the labour market at that early stage in their life is very damaging for their long-term prospects. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to ensure that that does not happen.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) [V]
If 800,000 businesses have benefited from the welcome job retention scheme, the 800,000-strong world-class automotive industry will be key to recovery, including Jaguar Land Rover, whose Jaguar factory lies at the heart of my constituency of Erdington. Does the Chancellor recognise that the continuation of the job retention scheme for as long as is necessary, together with welcome measures to help companies that are deeply in debt and battling with liquidity, will be crucial for the future, providing the necessary certainty upon which businesses, workers and trade unions can plan to rebuild?
Rishi Sunak
I think I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member. He is fortunate to have such a fantastic company locally to him. I know that that company and its workers will be pleased that the Government, and their representative, are advocating on their behalf. We have extended some of our loan schemes for larger companies—not Jaguar Land Rover specifically—and many companies in the automotive supply chain, for example, will now be able to benefit from our larger CBILS programme, which went live last week and is already lending billions of pounds. The hon. Gentleman is right; these various schemes are important and the industry that he mentions is critical to the UK. I look forward to ensuring that it can have as strong and swift a recovery as possible.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) [V]
I, too, welcome the announcement the Chancellor has made today. It will be particularly welcome to the businesses in the leisure, hospitality and tourism sector, which are very important in my area and have been very hard hit. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor has extended the scheme to October. Should businesses plan on that scheme coming to an end in October if we are able to stick to the timetable set out by the Prime Minister in the Government’s recovery strategy, or is there any chance that the Chancellor will be able to extend the scheme? I think some certainty for businesses will be helpful.
Rishi Sunak
We will of course keep everything under review, but my expectation is that by then the scheme should end. As I have said before, we have stretched and strained to be as generous as possible to businesses and workers. That is why we have made the decision we have made today, which is important to me personally, but of course as I have also said the scheme is expensive. It is the right thing to do—the cost of not acting would have been far higher—but it is not something that can continue indefinitely into the future. Eight months of total support is a considerable amount of time. Now that we have a plan from the Prime Minister, with a path to reopening those parts of our economy that are closed, I believe we can get the country back on track and get people back into work. This scheme will help them to do it in a measured and phased way, and protect as many jobs as possible.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr, Lefarydd. May I take the opportunity to wish penblwydd hapus to the Chancellor? In Wales, workplace restrictions have not been changed as many parts of the country have not yet passed the peak of infection. The economic taps must not therefore be turned off in Westminster before the public health emergency has subsided in Wales. Will the Chancellor ensure that the furlough scheme remains in place for as long as necessary and in such a form as to enable expert-led public health guidance to be followed in each nation?
Rishi Sunak
As I have just said, and have said previously, this is a UK scheme. It applies equally to all regions, nations and sectors of the country. It is generous in its length, extending all the way to October, and I believe that provides sufficient runway and support to businesses wherever they might be in this country. But I thank the right hon. Lady for her warm wishes.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend and the Treasury team for bringing together the economic support package that has given businesses and families across the UK the support they need during the lockdown. Obviously, it is one of the most comprehensive packages in the world and my constituents are pleased that when they needed help this United Kingdom Government had their back. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the work is in progress so that businesses, particularly in the tourism sector, are prepared for when the lockdown restrictions are eased, as it is a significant element of Delyn’s economy?
Rishi Sunak
May I start by thanking my hon. Friend for everything he is doing not just for his constituents but in providing advice to me, using his own experience about how best we can support the economy and businesses at this time? I very much appreciate all the time and effort he has put into that and hopefully he can see the fruit of some of that work in the announcements that have been made. I can also give him that assurance on the tourism sector. That work is under way. The report talked about setting up a taskforce. I look forward to hearing his thoughts. I know how important it is to his constituency and others. The Culture Secretary and I look forward to engaging with him, creating a plan to make sure as many businesses as possible can safely open as soon as they can.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
Many minimum wage workers have been furloughed. They are now expected to get by on just 80% of the minimum wage, even though rents, bills and food prices have not fallen. Will the Chancellor implement guarantees, so that no furloughed worker is ever forced to live on less than 100% of the national minimum wage?
Rishi Sunak
The scheme, as it is designed, does provide income support of 80% of those wages. Indeed, where those wages are variable the scheme allows an average to be taken to benefit the employee. We have also strengthened the safety net, as I mentioned earlier. Crucially, employees who are furloughed are then able to work elsewhere as well to supplement their incomes. That flexibility is often unnoticed, but it is very helpful. I know many people are taking advantage of that to boost their incomes during this time and I think the scheme, as it is designed, provides the required support especially to those on the lowest pay.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Chancellor has spoken about freelancers, who often work on short-term contracts or for personal service companies. In answer to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), he talked about optimising the existing mechanisms for those people, but will he come forward today with the suggestion that there are concrete proposals in place? These are people with clear financial records and they often have accountants, so there is a track record. Will the Chancellor support these different types of self-employed people?
Rishi Sunak
They are being supported. The scheme to support them goes live tomorrow, ahead of schedule. Those who are self-employed whose returns and earnings we are aware of will be contacted, and are already being contacted. They are able to apply from tomorrow and will receive cash in their accounts for a three-month grant as early as next week. The scheme is one of the most generous in the world for those who are self-employed.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Excellent birthday work on the furlough scheme from the Chancellor; the flexibility that is being added to it is very welcome. When he announced the original furlough scheme, many of us in this House and outside in the country talked about the self-employed and asked for parity. He then acted but, notwithstanding the issues that he knows I have with the people left out of the self-employment support scheme, that scheme will come to an end very shortly. To return to the call for parity, can we assume that he is working on an extension to the self-employed income support scheme? Many people will be listening carefully to what he says about that today.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend has spoken passionately about this issue before, and I look forward to continuing conversations with him. I am of course keeping those measures under review. As I said at the time, there is of course parity in the level of support, but the nature of the schemes is different in the sense that employers who have been closed and have to make employment decisions, potentially 45 days in advance in respect of redundancies, do need to be treated slightly differently in that regard. I will of course continue to keep all things, including that scheme, under review.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
Women who are eligible for the self-employed income support scheme but have taken a period of maternity leave since 2016 could receive up to one third less financial support. This discriminates against women on lower incomes in particular, penalises families with young children, and exacerbates the gender pay gap. Will the Chancellor therefore exempt periods of maternity leave from the self-employed income support scheme calculations?
Rishi Sunak
People have ups and downs and variations in their earnings for all sorts of reasons, whether because of maternity, ill health or something else. To deal with that, we have provided an average of income over up to three years on a look-back basis, to smooth out all the ups and downs in all people’s incomes. That was something that stakeholder groups were keen to see at the beginning, it is something that we delivered, and I believe it provides the fairest way to treat everybody, on a level playing field, whatever their circumstances. A three-years averaging of earnings seems to me to be a reasonable approach to take.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need an economic strategy that balances getting some businesses support when they cannot reopen with encouraging others to go back to work, and that today we have got that balance right?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the plan that the Government and the Prime Minister have outlined does exactly what she says. For those who can go back to work now, they should do so in a safe way, as the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will talk about later. As the rest of our economy reopens, people will have the benefit of a furlough scheme that extends all the way to October and provides for part-time flexibility. The combination of all those things means that my hon. Friend’s local businesses and many others can take the time that they need to get firing on all cylinders again.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
It is estimated that the economic impact of the pandemic will hit the west midlands the hardest. It was announced this week that a manufacturer and supplier to Jaguar Land Rover in Coventry South has gone into administration, putting 600 jobs at risk. Will the Government therefore step up efforts to protect manufacturing jobs, especially in the automotive industry, and invest in them to provide green sustainable jobs for the future?
Rishi Sunak
I am very sorry to hear about the potential job losses in the hon. Member’s constituency. To me, every job lost during this period is heartbreaking, which is why I am doing my absolute utmost to provide the support that I can to protect as many as possible. I have said that clearly I cannot—and nor could any of us—save every single job or business, but the loans, the cash grants and the job retention scheme will all play a vital role in saving many millions of jobs and businesses, particularly in the automotive supply chain. The hon. Member is right that that is an important part of our economy, and it deserves our support to ensure that it can be a strong part of our recovery.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
The generous and unprecedented schemes that my right hon. Friend has put in place are doing a tremendous job, protecting thousands of employees, small businesses and the self-employed in my constituency. Many in West Sussex work in aviation, so in addition to heartily welcoming today’s extension of the excellent job retention scheme, may I ask him at least to consider temporarily suspending air passenger duty as well as testing passengers on arrival as an alternative to the 14-day quarantine, to help this vital sector of the economy?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and for the advice he has provided to me, with his extensive experience of business and of his constituency. He knows that I care deeply about the aviation sector. My right hon. Friends the Transport Secretary and the Foreign Secretary are considering the issues he raised. In particular, the Government have been clear that further detail on the quarantine measures will be outlined in due course, but I will pass on his suggestion.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
In North East Fife, much of the economy is seasonal and workers, who had contracts often agreed months in advance, face no income and no access to existing support. Fundraising for some golf caddies in St Andrews is under way and, although I applaud local community efforts and their generosity, rather than have the seasonal workforce rely on charity, what support can the Chancellor offer them this year so that they can return next year?
Rishi Sunak
Those who were in seasonal work can use an average of their earnings over a period for furlough payments, or indeed the same month on a year-over-year basis if that is a more generous way to calculate their eligibility. That is the most generous way to treat those in seasonal employment under the scheme and ensure that we reflect their earnings appropriately.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
These measures are exactly what manufacturing firms in Dudley South have called for as they start to reopen. Will the Chancellor undertake to work with our excellent Mayor, Andy Street, to ensure that the needs of west midlands manufacturing and its employees are fully considered as they start the task of rebuilding our economy?
Rishi Sunak
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I look forward to speaking further to him and the excellent Mayor, Andy Street, as we all work together to drive the west midlands economy as part of the economic recovery plan. He, the Mayor and his businesses can play a leading role in that.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
I am glad that the Chancellor has confounded recent worrying rumours regarding the job retention scheme that caused grave concern to my constituents. Will he liaise with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that workers are not forced back to work in dangerous conditions, bearing in mind that the Health and Safety Executive has issued no enforcement actions as yet and that employers may struggle to pay the 20% he asks for while ensuring employee safety?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will be here shortly to provide a fuller answer to the hon. Lady’s question, but it is right that employees should not work in unsafe environments and we have put in place measures to ensure that that will not be the case, with updated guidance, risk assessments and increased resources for the Health and Safety Executive. The Business Secretary will update the House in more detail.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
Mr Speaker, I hope you and your family are well.
About 19% of Calder Valley residents work in the manufacturing sector, and thousands of them are incredibly grateful for the Chancellor’s ingenuity around the furlough scheme. Will my right hon. Friend, on his birthday, confirm how today’s announcements on furlough will be a massive help to those manufacturers as they phase the return to work and deal with social distancing in the workplace?
Rishi Sunak
Manufacturing organisations in particular were keen to have the flexibility to bring employees back in shifts on a part-time basis while being able to furlough them for the remainder of the time as manufacturers ramp up operations, so I am pleased that we could deliver that flexibility today for the second part of the scheme. I think that that will be valuable to manufacturers in my hon. Friend’s constituency and help them get back up to speed as quickly as possible in a way that they can afford as well.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Ranjith Chandrapala lived in Hanwell in my constituency, and he drove the 92 bus until three weeks ago, before he died of covid-19, leaving behind a loving family, including his daughter, Leshie. A week before Ranjith died, the Government announced a life assurance scheme for the families of health and care workers on the frontline during the covid-19 outbreak. Will the Chancellor commit to extending the scheme to other frontline workers and, in particular, to the families of bus drivers such as Ranjith?
Rishi Sunak
My heart goes out to the family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent for what they have suffered. They, like many others up and down the country, are losing loved ones who are serving on the frontline. They deserve nothing but our admiration, respect and gratitude. I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has put in place a scheme to help those families who have lost loved ones during this crisis.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
I thank the Chancellor for all the schemes that he has introduced so far. In particular, I welcome the extension of the job retention scheme today. I wonder whether he is willing to look at a couple of aspects of the other schemes. There are two schemes in particular that would benefit from the introduction of a taper as, currently, there are cliff edges in support for both business grants and the self-employed income support scheme. It means that, in the case of two people in broadly equivalent positions, one could be entitled to support and one not. Would he be willing at least to consider the idea of a taper with these schemes?
Rishi Sunak
Introducing new measures to the schemes at this point would not be possible or desirable because it would just delay their operation. The problem with tapers is that there is still always an end point at the other end of the taper. With regard to the self-employment scheme, this covers 95% of all those who are self-employed, which is pretty comprehensive coverage. The 5% who are not covered have an average income of £200,000. Of course, there will be hard cases just the other side, but, on average, this is a group with relatively high earnings.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
I thank the Treasury for a very comprehensive set of measures for businesses and employers across the country, including those in my constituency of Meon Valley. Will my right hon. Friend tell me when further guidance on the discretionary grant funding will be announced because some councils are not happy with using their discretion? I believe, though, that the Treasury has made it perfectly clear from the start that the list was not exhaustive and that councils should use their own discretion.
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for her support. I think I am safe in saying that the guidance will be issued imminently. Of course there will be some broad guidelines on whom we think that support should be targeted at, but of course local authorities will have the ultimate discretion.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Although I welcome the announcement on furlough, the Chancellor knows that the Government’s covid response would have completely stalled without local government, yet our councils are now financially on the brink. The extra funding does not cover all the costs, which is something that Ministers promised. Will he ensure that our councils are fully reimbursed for all covid-related costs and lost income and protect the sector that has protected us?
Rishi Sunak
In a moment of nostalgia, let me say that the hon. Gentleman and I have a shared passion for local government and an admiration for the work that they do, and I know that he will remain an advocate of theirs. They have been provided with more than £3 billion of extra support. Of course, we are in constant dialogue with local government, whether in social care or others, to ensure that they get the financial resources that they need.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I thank the Chancellor for his announcement today, which is exactly what Amber Valley businesses have been asking for. Is there any way he can allow them to bring back some employees part-time, earlier than his extension, so that they can perhaps reopen their businesses next month rather than having to wait until a later date?
Rishi Sunak
That is a very fair question and one that I have looked at. There is an issue of operational complexity in designing the part-time aspect of the scheme in consultation with business and unions to ensure that we can enforce it properly. I think that the earliest that we can reasonably do it is in the extension period, as I mentioned. Of course, if there are ways for us to do that sooner, we will, but I would not want to commit to that today as it is a complicated thing to get right.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister about engagement with the devolved Governments in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I would like to try again today, and I hope receive a more detailed response from the Chancellor. Can he please outline what specific conversations he had with the devolved Administrations about these changes and when those conversations took place?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury speaks regularly to his counterparts in the devolved Administrations, and we engage with them regularly. I am pleased to say that more than £8 billion[Official Report, 2 June 2020, Vol. 676, c. 4MC.] of Barnett consequentials has been provided to devolved Administrations across the UK as they have also responded to the virus, and that will continue to be the case. We will get through this as one nation, all together.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Following the report of the Procedure Committee, and in advance of the first remote Division taking place later today, I have a statement to make about remote Divisions. A decision of the House arrived at by a remote Division has the same effect as a decision arrived at by more traditional means. I ask all Members to pay careful attention to what the Procedure Committee says about the integrity of the system. As the Committee states, any attempt to allow anyone who is not a Member to vote is likely to be a serious breach of privilege.
The Committee asked me to get a report on the number of Members not registered on the system. I can tell the House that all Members are automatically registered on MemberHub. I have received a report from the House Service that eight Members have not used MemberHub to vote in a remote voting test. I am satisfied that steps have been taken to enable them to vote should they wish to do so.
On each relevant day, when the business motion is agreed, I will announce my provisional determination on remote Divisions for that day. That provisional determination will be based on representations received by my office. Further representations can be made in the course of the day in question, and the final determination may change in consequence. It is integral to the success of hybrid proceedings that there is greater certainty about the timing and conduct of business than would normally be the case, and I do not expect changes to my determination to be a regular occurrence.
Finally, I want to assure Members that I will keep the system under review. I will carefully consider feedback from Members and information supplied to me by the Parliamentary Digital Service and House Service in accordance with relevant recommendations of the Procedure Committee. Further guidance on the matters in this statement has been published.
Business of the House (12 May)
Business | Timings | Remote division designation |
|---|---|---|
Statement: Covid-19 and Business | Up to 45 minutes | None |
Statement: Covid-19 Guidance for Transport Users and Operators | Up to 45 minutes | None |
General debate: Covid-19 (Day 2) | Up to 45 minutes; suspension; up to 90 minutes | Remote division |
Hybrid proceedings (extension of temporary orders) | Up to 30 minutes | Remote division |
Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills) | No debate | None |
Committee of Privileges | No debate | None |
Adjournment (Whitsun) | No debate (Standing Order No. 25) | None |
Mr Speaker
Two items of business today are designated for remote Division. My provisional determination is that the remote Division will take place on the Question, That this House has considered Covid-19, and that the motion relating to Hybrid Proceedings (Extension of Temporary Orders) will not be the subject of a remote Division. I now call the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement, and he should speak for no more than 10 minutes.
Covid-19: Business
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
I would like to update the House on the Government’s new covid-19-secure workplace guidance. On 23 March, the Government announced lockdown measures and required certain businesses and venues to close. Our message to workers was that if you can work from home, you should work from home, and millions did. At the same time, the Government provided guidance on how those who could not do their work from home could continue to operate as safely as possible in workplaces that were not required to be closed. I want to thank the many workers in distribution centres, supermarkets, transport, construction and manufacturing across the country who have been playing their part in keeping Britain moving. I hope that the whole House recognises the constructive spirit in which employers have worked with their workers to follow this guidance.
The Prime Minister yesterday set out steps to beat the virus and restart the economy, so that we can protect jobs, restore people’s livelihoods and fund the country’s vital public services. To support this, we have published new covid-19-secure guidelines, available to UK employers across eight settings that are allowed to be open, from outdoor environments and construction sites to factories and takeaways. This also includes guidance for shops that we believe may be in a position to begin a phased reopening, at the earliest, from 1 June. The Government have consulted approximately 250 stakeholders in preparing the guidance. It has been developed with input from firms, unions, industry bodies and the devolved Administrations. We have worked with Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive to develop best practice on the safest ways of working across the economy.
As we return to work, the Government want to give employers and workers confidence that their workplaces will be safe for them to return to, because we recognise that this is an anxious time for many. We recognise that workers want to know that their employer has taken every step to ensure a safe workplace, and we recognise that employers who take steps to keep workers safe want to know that they are doing the right thing. I believe that we have reached a consensus in doing that, and I am encouraged that businesses, representative groups, workers and trade unions can get behind this guidance.
The guidance has five key points at its heart. First, people should work from home if they can. Employers should continue to take all reasonable steps to help people work from home. For those who cannot work from home and whose workplace has not been told to close, our message is clear: they should go to work. Staff should speak to their employer about when their workplace will open.
Secondly, social distancing should be maintained in the workplace wherever possible. Employers should redesign workspaces to maintain 2-metre distances between people, stagger start times, create one-way walk-throughs, open more entrances and exits, or change seating layouts in break rooms. Thirdly, where people cannot be 2 metres apart, the transmission risk should be managed. Employers should ensure that every step is taken to reduce the risk when people cannot maintain 2-metre distancing. This can include putting up barriers or screens in shared spaces, creating fixed teams of partnering to minimise the number of people in contact with one another, or keeping the activity time involved as short as possible.
Fourthly, cleaning processes should be reinforced in line with the guidance. Employers should frequently clean work areas and equipment between uses to reduce transmission, provide hand sanitiser and washing stations, and pay attention to high-contact objects like workstations, door handles and keyboards.
Fifthly, a covid-19 risk assessment must be carried out, in consultation with workers or trade unions. In line with the current health and safety law, all employers must carry out a covid-19 risk assessment. They should identify risks that covid-19 creates and use the guidance published to take measures to mitigate these risks. Employers should share the results of their risk assessment with their workforce. A downloadable notice is included in the documents that employers should display in their workplaces to show their employees, customers and other visitors that they have followed the guidance. They should also consider publishing the results on their website, and we expect all employers with over 50 workers to do so.
The aim of this approach is for employers to create a collaborative working environment, building confidence and trust between employers and workers. I think the House will recognise that this is already the case across the UK, because the UK has a proud record as a leader in health and safety in the workplace. Our guidance operates within current health and safety, employment and equalities legislation, which is some of the strongest in the world, and we will continue with this approach. We will work closely with the Health and Safety Executive, which has the resources it needs to meet current demand, but of course we want to ensure that this remains the case during the covid-19 pandemic as people return to work. So the Government are making up to an extra £14 million available for the HSE, equivalent to a 10% increase in its budget. This extra money will provide resource for additional call centre staff, inspectors and equipment if needed. In many cases, this will meet the demands of employers and employees who would like further information on how to ensure that workplaces are safe. For the extremely small minority of businesses that do not follow the rules, the HSE and local authorities will not hesitate in using their powers, including enforcement notices, to secure improvements.
The measures I have set out in respect of social distancing and cleaning are the best ways to manage the risk of transmitting covid-19. Based on the scientific evidence, the use of PPE in the workplace is not recommended by the Government except in clinical settings and a handful of other roles stipulated by Public Health England. Of course, if a worker currently uses PPE to protect against other hazards, such a dust in an industrial setting, they must continue to use it. Workers have the option to use face coverings, which are simple cloth coverings. There are some circumstances in which wearing a face covering may be marginally beneficial as a precautionary measure. The evidence suggests that wearing a face covering does not protect you but may protect others if you are infected but have not developed symptoms. Wearing a face covering is not required by law in the workplace. If workers do choose to wear one, they should follow the workplace guidance on how to use it.
We have been guided by the scientific advice in establishing this position. Today, we provide a framework for how employers can keep workers safe in the workplace. This additional support and clarity, combined with more resource for the HSE, can give employers and workers the confidence they need to return to work safely. As we reopen new sectors of the economy, we will continue our collaborative approach when providing guidance for additional workplaces, meaning that we can provide a clear and safe route back to work for millions. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Edward Miliband, with a time limit of five minutes.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and add my thanks to all the workers and businesses that have kept our country going during these past few weeks? I say to him that we do not underestimate the challenges of lifting lockdown in certain parts of the economy. We agree that it is in all our interests for it to happen if it can be done safely, and that there are difficult decisions confronting Government, businesses and workers, who have to adapt to these unprecedented circumstances. I also want to welcome a number of steps forward in the guidance published last night, which he has talked about in his statement. They do represent progress from previous proposals, and I also welcome the tone of his statement.
However, I also say to the Secretary of State that what really matters to workers and businesses in these highly sensitive and difficult matters is proceeding in an orderly and judicious way. The confusion and mixed messages of the past 48 hours have been ill-advised and avoidable. Let me ask him six specific questions. First, on the impact of the Government’s change of emphasis on going back to work in phase 1, Ministers say that the reproduction rate of the disease—the R number—is currently between 0.5 and 0.9. How many extra people does he expect to go back to work as a result of the Government’s change of emphasis? What is the scientific advice about the impact on the R number?
Secondly, we are being told that in our daily lives, outside our places of work, that we must not come within 2 metres of those from other households, for reasons I understand. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, but for workplaces the overview document he has published asks for an observance of 2-metre distancing only “wherever possible”. If it is not possible, the only requirement is that employers should “look into” various mitigation measures. I understand that in some workplaces 2-metre distancing may not be possible, but can he explain why there is no requirement for mitigation if social distancing cannot be observed?
Thirdly, on enforcement, the challenge is, as the Secretary of State said, not the vast majority of employers, who want to do the right thing, but the small minority who do not. I welcome £14 million more for the HSE budget, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with the £100 million of cuts over the past decade. Given the challenges of enforcement, will he discuss with the trade unions how their tens of thousands of health and safety reps could player a bigger and, I believe, constructive role in ensuring covid-19 compliance, including in non-unionised work- places?
Fourthly, can the Business Secretary now provide an answer for parents who are being asked to go back to work tomorrow but are not deemed “essential” workers and therefore have nobody to look after their children, because they cannot send them to school or nursery? What are parents in those circumstances supposed to do?
Fifthly, can the Secretary of State clarify the position on the 2.5 million workers who are deemed clinically extremely vulnerable and are advised to shield at home until at least the end of June?
Currently, they have no automatic right to be furloughed and many have felt pressured to keep working. As workplaces reopen, the pressure will become greater. To protect their health and provide clarity, would it not make sense to place an obligation on employers to furlough these individuals if they cannot work from home?
The chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, said at the press conference last night that the reopening of workplaces was dependent on whether they can be made safe for work. Can the Secretary of State confirm that workplaces that are not safe should not reopen tomorrow and that, by law, workers who have a reasonable belief that they will be in danger do not have to be at work?
Finally, the Secretary of State will know that it is the highest paid workers who will generally carry on being able to work from home and lower paid workers who are being asked to go back to work. We also know from yesterday’s figures from the Office for National Statistics that, among men, construction workers have so far been more than twice as likely to die from covid-19 as the average member of the population. I know the Secretary of State will agree that working people are being asked to go back to work to help us all. Whatever the economic pressures, their health must be protected. They deserve to be safe. That is what the Government must take every action to ensure.
Alok Sharma
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I also thank him for the very constructive discussions that we have had, particularly last Friday, on a range of issues. He wrote to me yesterday on the issue of safer working and I hope he has received my response. I also want to thank him for the acknowledgement that what we have put out represents progress. I think there is consensus across businesses and trade unions for what we have sought to provide.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues, which I will try to address. His first question was about the R number and the numbers of people potentially going back to work. We have been very clear that we want to ensure that people are safe in the workplace and, at the end of the day, that we are saving lives. That is why we produced the guidance, which has been put together with the HSE and Public Health England. We are also very clear that people who can work from home should continue to work from home.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the fact that there was some confusion. The Prime Minister made reference to the manufacturing sector and the construction sector; those sectors are already open. Millions of people are already going to work and their employers are doing everything they can to keep them safe.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about how employees can feel safe in the workplace. We have had this discussion previously. We know for a fact that many employers are already open, and they are working incredibly constructively with their trade unions. When I held my stakeholder calls as part of preparing the guidance, that was abundantly clear.
He talked about enforcement. I am pleased that he welcomes the extra money for the HSE; we need to make sure that we provide support if it is needed. I want to be very clear that the HSE is able to do spot checks and to be proactive. We ultimately want to make sure that if employees feel unsafe in a work environment, they are able to get in touch with the HSE or with their local authority.
He asked about parents and made a very reasonable point about schools. The Prime Minister set out the timetable for that. Again, it is a question of employers and employees working flexibly together. That is already happening in the workplace. I would say to all employers that they should look to see what they can do to support their workers to continue to work from home if that is at all possible.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman raised a point about reopening, whether it is safe to open workplaces, and what to do about workplaces that are not safe. He is absolutely right. People should not have to feel that they are going into an unsafe work environment; frankly, from my experience, that is not what employers want either. We absolutely need our workers to feel safe. If they feel unsafe, they can get in touch with the HSE and with local authorities. I would say to all employers to please do absolutely everything you can, because it is in all our interests that the economy gets going again.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) [V]
Across Keighley, we have some fantastic manufacturing, engineering and technology-based businesses, whose employees are doing their utmost to ensure that the new guidance is adhered to. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial, as we move to the next phase of tackling this virus, that the needs of businesses—especially small businesses, which are the beating heart of Keighley—are taken into account? Can he confirm that the recently issued guidance applies to them, so that they are best placed to kick-start productivity and reignite their service offering?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is a strong voice for Keighley businesses. Of course this guidance applies to all businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses, which has been part of helping us to prepare the guidance, has welcomed it, particularly for small companies. My hon. Friend should continue the engagement he is doing with businesses, encourage them to look at the guidance and encourage them to get back to work.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Given that the Prime Minister previously attacked what he called the “health and safety fetish” as “madness”, and in 2009 said public warnings were “for the extremely stupid”, the fact that this Government are stressing the need for health and safety must be welcomed. However, it is important to give the utmost clarity.
I know that is what the Secretary of State will like to think he has done, but his advice is addressed to UK employers. Will he acknowledge, in the spirit of clarity, that his advice is for England only? The advice in the other nations of the UK remains to stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives. Lives are at stake. We must have complete clarity. Shops in Scotland are not scheduled for phased reopening from 1 June. Will he make that clear? His five-point plan does not apply at this time in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Will he make that clear?
We welcome the measures announced today to transition the furlough scheme, because business and people would be harmed by a cold restart without protection. However, before any reductions in furlough or rates of support start, we first need to fill the gaps for those left behind: those who had a contract or letter of employment by 29 March but whose employers have not logged into Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, those agency workers who are not included, staff whose pay is combined with commission, and the forgotten but vital summer seasonal workers. Will the Secretary of State make the case for those workers, or are they still to be left behind?
Finally, the Secretary of State has made great play—I quote from his statement—of
“Building a consensus and confidence when moving forward”.
Will he take that message back to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, and extend it to the leaders of the devolved nations? His Government have consistently updated Fleet Street before this House, and even before the First Ministers of the devolved nations.
Alok Sharma
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and his remarks. First, he talked about the Health and Safety Executive. We are of course providing more support. It is able at this stage to progress with the funding and support it has from the Government, but we have provided an extra £14 million in case it needs it. The UK has a proud record as a world leader on health and safety in the workplace. If he compares our statistics with those in many other countries in Europe, for example, he will see that we have a very good record.
The hon. Gentleman asked who this guidance is for. This guidance is to help all employers in the United Kingdom—employers, employees and the self-employed. I also say to him—[Interruption.] He is shaking his head, but let me come to the point that he wants me to make. In terms of the 250 stakeholders we engaged with, 70% of those businesses operate across the UK. However, in the guidance, we make it very clear that public health is devolved in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and we talk about the guidance being considered alongside local public health and safety requirements and legislation.
My final point is about consensus. We have been driven, throughout this process, through consensus. I have had very good discussions with my counterparts in the devolved nations, and we will continue to do that. The Prime Minister has been doing that, and we will continue to do that as a Government. At the end of the day, we all have to come together to get out of this and get our economy to bounce back.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) [V]
As welcome as this advice is, many workers will not be able to return to work and will remain at home on 80% of their pay. In my right hon. Friend’s role as consumer rights Minister, can he say something about the financial burdens being put on my constituents and on workers across the country by rip-off travel companies that are refusing to refund constituents for their holidays or flights? Be it Hoseasons, Virgin, British Airways, Ryanair or Tui, my constituents are getting ripped off, so will he run a campaign publicly to inform consumers about their rights to refunds?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises an important point. May I first thank him for the great work he is doing in the ambulance service as a community first responder, which I know is making a real difference in his community? He talks about consumer rights. The law is very clear, and it is there to protect consumers. Refunds should be issued within 14 days. However, he also knows that the sectors he is talking about are facing their own challenges. I am continuing to have discussions on this issue with my counterparts in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. He will also know that the Competition and Markets Authority has set up a covid-19 taskforce for consumers seeking refunds, and we continue to have a dialogue with it.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. The whole House will know that businesses will want to do the right thing in implementing the covid-19-secure guidelines, but we also know that many businesses, especially SMEs, have struggled to buy the required kit on the open market and that many workers feel under pressure to go to work when they do not feel safe to do so. Can the Secretary of State confirm what support the Government will give to businesses to ensure that they have access to the covid-19-secure codes they need for their workplaces and set out how workers will be supported, perhaps by ACAS, in dealing with potential workplace disputes linked to this issue?
Alok Sharma
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and I look forward to further interactions in the future. He raises a point about the support available for businesses. The Chancellor spoke earlier, and he set out an extension to the job retention scheme. He has also made available loans and grants, so there is a lot of support out there. On the point about ACAS, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Where employees feel that they have an issue they are not able to resolve, they absolutely should go to ACAS.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
I am sure we all welcome the reduction in the prevalence of the virus in the general population, but we also know that we are not going to beat this thing in weeks; it will take us months. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend join me in calling on everyone—individuals and businesses alike—to stay alert and to follow the rules, so that we can keep the very important R rate down?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The message is very clear on staying alert. It is about keeping the R rate down. That is the only way in which we can proceed—with baby steps, rather than giant strides—and make sure that we are keeping safe and preserving lives, but at the same time doing all we can to open up the economy further.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
Aviation is one of the industries worst hit by this crisis, and it will be some time still before those affected are able to return to work. The Government have also announced new quarantine measures, but with no detail about how they are going to work. In the north-east, we rely on Newcastle International airport as key to our regional economic growth, and we need certainty from Government on the way forward. The extension of the job retention scheme to October is welcome, but will the Government work urgently with aviation to plan a way through the quarantine measures and provide further support, such as business rates relief, for this crucial sector?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady of course raises an important point. First, may I thank her for acknowledging the welcome extension that the Chancellor has set out for the job retention scheme? She will also know that the Government have put in place a range of other measures to support businesses large and small. There is a corporate finance facility and the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme run through the British Business Bank. When it comes to the aviation sector, we are of course continuing to have discussions with it, as we do with other sectors, but I would say to her that the primary intention is to provide a broad set of support that everyone across the economy can get access to.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As the Business Secretary will be aware, these are challenging times for commercial landlords, a group that includes many charities. They have increased costs at the moment, which have been compounded by a fall in their fundraising, and at the same time are facing increased challenges with the collection of rent from their commercial tenants. I am not asking my right hon. Friend about the package of support for charities, but what is the Government’s message to commercial landlords who have tenants in receipt of rate relief and various linked grants as a result but who cannot collect rent or even a contribution of the rent due?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the challenges facing commercial and other landlords. I recognise that many landlords are working closely with their tenants and following best practice, and we are closely monitoring the three-month moratorium on rents. As I said, the CLBIL and CBIL schemes are available for landlords, and people are taking advantage of them in some numbers.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
How do the Government intend to ensure that the shielded group of people and their household members do not face an impossible choice between returning to work and breaching public health advice? Will the Secretary of State advise employers to use the job retention scheme for this group when needed?
Alok Sharma
Our guidance makes reference to employers having to consider those who are particularly vulnerable and in those sorts of categories—expectant mothers and so on—and we want them to make sure those people are being taken care of and catered for. None of the equalities legislation has changed; at the end of the day, this is guidance, but overlaid by the current regulatory regime in place across the country.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) [V]
Businesses in Eddisbury planning on reopening will want to get covid-secure as soon as possible but also as safely as possible, too, especially where, as we just heard, they might interact with the most vulnerable. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when developing this guidance the vulnerable customers and staff who might come into contact with those businesses are fully taken into account?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Yes, the guidance has been prepared with those individuals in mind. As I have said, we obviously require employers to adhere to existing equalities legislation and are also asking in the guidance for employers to monitor the wellbeing of their employees, particularly those who may be working from home, and to take into account the protection of those who may be at higher risk.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The discussion around return to work is very welcome, but in areas such as Cambridge with above-average rateable values, many quite small but vital businesses, such as pubs and restaurants, are really struggling just above the £50k threshold. Much loved cafés such as The Copper Kettle and Benets in King’s Parade and businesses such as the innovative Rainbow Rocket climbing centre all face that problem, so could the Secretary of State remind us how that £50k threshold was arrived at and what would have been the costs and benefits of a different threshold? Would he now consider a higher threshold, particularly for areas with above-average rateable values?
Alok Sharma
I understand that the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors face a particular challenge right now. The Prime Minister has set out a road map for how we might get to opening them, but we have to keep a tight grip on the R factor. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a one-year rates holiday for businesses of all sizes in the sectors he is talking about. I hope that businesses will also take advantage of the loan schemes, particularly the Bounce Back scheme.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
Coming out of lockdown, it will be critical to encourage the public to support local small and medium-sized businesses, to help to revitalise the economy not only here in Bosworth but across the country. Will the Secretary of State consider a positive advertising campaign to get the public to back their local businesses?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. As he knows, we are already running digital campaigns across Government at this particularly vital time. Of course I agree that this is an opportunity for us to back local businesses in the heart of our communities.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
Protecting jobs and businesses is important, but the Chancellor’s announcement on the covid job retention scheme—[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry, Patricia; there seems to be a fault on the audio. We will see if we can correct it and come back to you. In the meantime, I call Maria Miller.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for all he has done to help to safeguard jobs during the pandemic. May I ask him to look particularly at the problems still facing some pregnant women who have been contacting organisations such as Working Families and Maternity Action? Will he confirm to businesses that all pregnant women are currently classed as vulnerable, and that if they are unable to work as a result they should be suspended on paid leave or furloughed? Will he consider clarifying the guidance, to help those employers who want to do the right thing?
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend is a champion for the rights of women—indeed, of all individuals—and she raises an important point about pregnant women. The Government guidance is clear that pregnant women can be furloughed, provided that they meet normal eligibility requirements. I would go further and say, as it does in the guidance, that expectant mothers are, as always, entitled to suspension on full pay if a suitable rule cannot be found within the workplace.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
The 14-day quarantine will have a real impact on aviation and tourism. It seems that it will be possible for people to fly into the Republic of Ireland, then cross into Northern Ireland and then to the UK mainland. Indeed, they will also be able to fly into France and take the ferry across to the mainland. This underlines the problems that we have. What impact assessment has been carried out in reference to the connectivity between Northern Ireland and the UK mainland in terms of business and tourism and the impact on airports and airlines? Will the 14-day quarantine be temporary?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman, who speaks with huge passion for his community and his area, raises an important issue about quarantine. He will understand the reason that we are looking to do this, and more details will be set out in due course, but I would say to him that businesses that previously felt that people had to be physically in the same place for meetings are now finding new ways of conducting business. Indeed, there are millions of people who are continuing to work from home, even during the pandemic.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
Small and medium-sized enterprises working within the construction and home improvement sectors—plumbers, electricians, window fitters—will welcome the guidance that they can undertake work in customers’ houses subject to sensible precautions. Is it my right hon. Friend’s advice that now is the time for our trades to get back to work, to help the economy to bounce back?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend has made his point crystal clear. He has talked about a set of workers who are the very backbone of the small business community across all our constituencies. He will also know that the Federation of Master Builders has warmly welcomed the guidance. Yes, absolutely, we want people to get back to work, but to get back to work safely.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are going to try Patricia Gibson one more time.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Protecting jobs and businesses is important, but the Chancellor’s announcement on the jobs retention scheme—[Inaudible.] Although the scheme has been extended to October, the Government’s contribution to the scheme is to be cut. Can the Secretary of State explain why he thinks it is fair that 200,000 workers have been entirely excluded from the scheme just—[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Secretary of State, were you able to get anything that you could give a response to?
Alok Sharma
I was not able to catch much of what the hon. Lady said, but she will know that the Chancellor just set out his statement. I will commit that if she writes to me or the Chancellor we will, I am sure, provide her with some answers.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am sorry, Patricia, but we did have real audio and video problems there.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
Many businesses in my constituency offering health services, such as dentists and physiotherapists, have been excluded from other forms of Government support yet are offering absolutely vital services that we will need when the shut- down ends. Does the Minister have any specific guidance for businesses such as these?
Alok Sharma
I would not say that businesses have been excluded. Indeed, if we look at the range of what is available in terms of loan schemes it covers the smallest businesses right to the very largest. We are seeing significant take-up particularly of the Bounce Back loan scheme. I made an announcement about the top-up to the local business grant fund scheme that we already have—almost £9 billion has gone out. This is a discretionary fund that is being set up to support businesses as well.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is looking at how certain tourism and leisure facilities might open safely as and when the covid alert level is low in all parts of the UK?
Alok Sharma
I know that my hon. Friend is a champion for businesses in his constituency and he will be concerned for them. The Prime Minister has set out a timeline, but, as he has said, we also have to be cautious about how we proceed. We are currently looking at hospitality opening at some point in July, but that is entirely dependent on making sure that we keep the R factor down. In the meantime, as my hon. Friend knows and has heard from the Chancellor, additional support is being provided.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
The future of many small businesses in my constituency of Bedford and Kempston hangs in the balance because owners have been unable to access the Government grants as their business rate classification does not qualify them for it. Local authorities have some discretion, but will the Government issue clearer guidance and have a speedier declassification process to ensure that legitimate businesses do not fall through the net and go to the wall?
Alok Sharma
We have put in place the sort of measures that we have precisely because we want to support as many businesses as possible. We want people to be ready, and to be retained in the workplace so that when we get past this pandemic we can bounce back. In an earlier answer, I talked about a discretionary fund to support businesses that local authorities will administer. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will be happy to provide further details.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) [V]
I know that my right hon. Friend will join me in thanking all businesses in Hyndburn and Haslingden for their work in responding swiftly and efficiently to the lockdown. Many of them have adapted their services to support those who need it. Can he assure me that the businesses and workers in Hyndburn and Haslingden will be both supported and utilised in the recovery process and that their safety will be paramount in the decisions made?
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend for everything she is doing to support businesses in her own constituency of Hyndburn and Haslingden. I have already set out a whole range of measures of support that the Government are providing, and I know that she will welcome what the Chancellor said at the Dispatch Box earlier about further support for the furlough scheme.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
On Sunday, the Prime Minister announced plans for workers to return to work if they were not able to work from home, giving businesses less than 12 hours to put any plans in place. The guidance issued by the Government on Monday places all the obligations on employers—for example, for social distancing and cleaning. Will the Secretary of State check to see whether these guidelines are being followed by employers? The £14 million uplift to the HSE is welcome, but this does not compensate for the £100 million budget cut and the two thirds reduction in staffing over the past decade. Will the Secretary of State commit to put the needs of working people first, properly resource the HSE to increase the number of inspectors, work with unions and not allow businesses to reopen until their safety measures have been approved and verified?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady raised a number of points. Let me address two of them. She asked about the HSE funding. I am pleased that she welcomes the extra £14 million. Over the years, the HSE has absolutely maintained its regulatory activities. It has invested in updating IT systems and other infrastructure, and has reduced reliance on taxpayer funding through growth in its commercial activities. Absolutely everyone in this House and across the country wants us to keep people safe in the workplace, and every employer I have spoken to wants that to happen. That is why we have produced guidance through a process of consensus, and we will continue to monitor that.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) [V]
Across my constituency, we have an incredible business community that is supported by groups such as the Watford chamber of commerce. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that employers build confidence with their workers and customers, and that all businesses should aim to publish their risk assessments online wherever possible to reduce concerns, showcase their transparency and keep workers safe?
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend and the Watford chamber of commerce for everything they are doing to support local businesses. He will know that the British Chambers of Commerce has worked with us and welcomed the guidance. I agree that we should be encouraging all employers to make available the results of their risk assessment, and we have made it very clear that we expect all employers with more than 50 workers to publish the results of their risk assessment on their website.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are going to do the last two questions and then we have to move on to the next statement. I apologise to Members who were unable to get in.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
As secretary to the all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing, I know that this £6 billion sector is crucial to our economy, with many businesses on our UK high streets. By nature, it is a very hands-on industry, so can the Secretary of State assure me that clear guidelines on PPE will be issued well ahead of these businesses reopening, so as to protect both staff and consumers?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point on behalf of a sector that he is working to represent. We will continue to work collaboratively to come up with further guidance on sectors and industries that are not currently open.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for allowing garden centres to reopen from tomorrow; that is very welcome in West Worcestershire. As he thinks about allowing more of the retail sector to open, is he considering relaxing the rules to allow a levelling up of our high street to the same sort of opening hours as we have on the internet?
Alok Sharma
I, too, welcome the fact that garden centres will be open from tomorrow. It will be an opportunity for us to continue to restart our economy. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will continue to keep the situation under review.
Covid-19: Transport
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the new transport guidance for passengers and operators that has been published by my Department today.
Coronavirus has cast a shadow over the lives of everyone in this country. As we all know too well, for some it has caused unimaginable heartache. For millions more of our fellow citizens, this crisis has meant an enormous sacrifice in the national effort to beat this disease. The Government are immensely grateful to the British people for the profound changes that they have made to their lives over the last few weeks.
I also extend my thanks to transport workers and the wider freight sector for their immense efforts to keep Britain on the move during this crisis. We will always remember the way in which the industry has served the country during the most challenging of times. Public transport operators have ensured that all those frontline staff have been able to get to work and fight the virus, while freight firms have delivered vital goods and kept super- market shelves stacked.
However, it is now time to consider how together we emerge from this crisis. On Sunday, the Prime Minister set out the first careful steps for reopening society and a roadmap for the weeks and the months ahead. Undoubtedly, transport is going to play a very central role in that recovery. It will be the key to restarting our economy and in time will enable us to renew and strengthen those precious ties that are so deeply valued by us all.
As I said last week, our nation’s emergence from this crisis will not be a single leap to freedom. It will be a gradual process. We cannot jeopardise the progress achieved over the past few weeks by our shared sacrifices. We therefore remain clear that those who can work from home should continue to do so. However, as those who cannot start to return to their jobs, the safety of the public and of transport workers must be paramount. That is why the Department for Transport has today published two new pieces of guidance for passengers and for operators.
These documents aim to give passengers the confidence to travel, and they seek to give operators the information they need to provide safer services and workplaces for passengers and for staff. We encourage operators to consider the particular needs of their customers and workers as they translate these documents into action.
The first document is aimed at passengers. I will summarise some of the main points contained in the advice. First, as I mentioned, we continue to ask people to go to work only if they cannot do their jobs from home. That is because even as transport begins to revert to a full service, the 2-metre distancing rule will leave effective capacity for only one in 10 passengers overall. It is therefore crucial that we protect our network by minimising the pressures placed on it and ensure that it is ready to serve those who most need it.
As a result, we are actively asking those who need to make journeys to their place of work or other essential trips to walk or to cycle wherever possible. In order to help us do more of that, last week I announced an unprecedented £2 billion investment to put walking and cycling right at the heart of our transport policy. The first stage is worth £250 million and will include a series of swift emergency measures, including pop-up bike lanes, wider pavements and cycling and bus-only corridors. That money should help protect our public transport network in the weeks and months ahead. It is my hope that they will eventually allow us to harness the vast health, social and environmental benefits that active forms of travel can provide. If people cannot walk, but have access to a car—I appreciate that I will be the only Transport Secretary to have said this for very many years—we urge them to use the car before they consider public transport, avoiding where possible any busy times of day.
I do, however, recognise that for some people using transport is a necessity. In this case, passengers should follow the guidance we have set out today in order to keep themselves safe. It recommends that travellers must maintain social distancing by staying 2 metres apart wherever possible to prevent the virus. We also advise that as a precautionary measure, particularly where that is not possible, people wear face coverings when using public transport. That could help protect other travellers from coronavirus where someone has perhaps unwittingly or unknowingly developed the illness, but they are not showing any symptoms. We urge passengers to avoid the rush hour and replan their visits, to use contactless payments where at all possible and to wash their hands before and after their journeys.
In addition, the guidance also reminds us that at this most challenging of times, it is more vital than ever that we think about the needs of others. Our transport operators and their staff are doing an incredible job to keep everyone safe. Please follow their advice. In stations and bus interchanges, be patient and considerate with fellow passengers and staff. In particular, we should remember the needs of disabled passengers, those with hearing and sight impairments and older travellers, too.
As I mentioned, we are also publishing a second document, guidance for transport operators, today. Those organisations really are at the forefront of the national recovery effort. They know the insides and out of the needs of their customers and their workers, and they understand like no one else their industry’s specific needs. That is why I have no doubt that the operators are best placed to implement the safety processes that work best for their businesses, their employees and their customers. The guidance we are publishing today advises operators across all forms of private and public transport on the measures they can take to improve safety. The steps include ensuring stations, services and equipment are regularly cleaned, and that passenger flows are clearly communicated to try to avoid crowding to try to keep everyone on the network, passengers and staff, two metres apart wherever possible.
The guidance will develop over time, in line with our increasing understanding of how coronavirus is spread and how it is contained. In addition, it is likely that there will be no one-size-fits-all approach to implementation. It will need to be tailored and localised, based on plans of local specific transport needs. In preparation for that process, yesterday I wrote to local authorities to set out how we can work together to prepare transport networks at a local level for restart and ensure public safety.
The documents I publish today will help ready our transport system to support our country as we seek to control the virus and restart the economy. We will inevitably encounter obstacles along the way as we embark on the next stage of our national fightback against the virus. There is no doubt that we need to continue to work together to overcome those challenges. On that note, I would like to express my gratitude to our partners in the devolved Administrations, the local authorities, the Mayors, trade unions and transport operators for their work over the past few weeks. I look forward to continued collaboration in future, because co-operation will be key to setting the country on the road to recovery.
If everyone plays their part, and if we continue to stay alert, we can control the virus and save lives. If we all follow the guidance on making essential journeys, I believe that together we can harness the power of transport to build a new and revitalised nation. I commend this statement to the House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I also thank him for the way in which he has maintained communication and shown a willingness to work together in the national interest.
I know that everyone in this House and at home will join me in sending our thanks to all transport workers across the country. As with all our frontline workers, they are the very best of us. It is so important that we give a voice to those workers. Even today, the official advice is found wanting and it will lead to confusion. The scenes we saw yesterday on public transport were unsurprising when the Government ordered a return to work with 12 hours’ notice but without the guidance being in place on how people can be kept safe. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State why his announcement was not made before the Prime Minister’s statement on Sunday?
Secondly, the Government have produced guidance for bus passengers and operators, but it leaves too much to chance and fails to protect frontline workers. It risks a postcode lottery on standards and protection, and there is far too much “should”, “could”, “not always possible” and “as much as you can”, rather than clear, directive guidance. For bus drivers, for instance, the guidance is that PPE should not be used, but instead reserved for health and care staff. That is despite shocking figures released by the Office for National Statistics that show professional drivers, including those operating taxis, private hire vehicles, buses and goods vehicles, have some of the highest covid-19 fatality rates in the country. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State for the evidence base to support the position that the provision of PPE should not be provided for frontline staff on transport? What discussions have taken place to ensure co-operation across our devolved nations to offer clear and consistent standards for transport, such as buses and rail that, of course, crosses from nation to nation?
When the Secretary of State says he announced last week a £2 billion fund for cycling, it sounded awfully familiar. Will he confirm that that actually is not new money, but was instead announced pre-lockdown back in February? In that context, can he confirm whether it has now been paid to local councils?
The Secretary of State touched on the aviation sector in the guidance that has been produced. A number of airlines have already announced a significant number of redundancies, affecting tens of thousands of jobs directly and throughout the supply chain.
Even as we transition to a green economy, protecting jobs now so that people can be reskilled for the future is critical. It will be far easier to transition from a point of strength rather than of weakness. The Government have failed to offer a sectoral deal for aviation. There is a real chance to set conditions on staff wages, payments to UK-based suppliers, a shift to green technology, demand that those who seek our help pay fairly into the tax system, as well as halt the payment of shareholder dividends. Why have the Government failed to act?
Aviation is not alone. We have seen this with ferry operators and the announcement of more than 1,100 jobs at risk with P&O. The Prime Minister’s 14-day quarantine proposal is a total mess. It states that everyone must be quarantined, unless they come from anywhere in the world via France, which is one of the worst affected countries in Europe after the UK. Will the Government produce the scientific advice that justifies why France should be exempt from that policy? Why have the Government decided that now is the time to implement this measure, two months after other countries introduced it? More than 18 million passengers have entered the UK since January. Will the Government publish the scientific advice that led to that change now and not earlier?
Finally, we urgently need a comprehensive plan for transport. The public rightly demand an end to the chaos surrounding the exit plan. The risk is not just that more lives will be lost needlessly, but that the economic damage will be far deeper, hurting our communities for a generation to come. The Opposition will continue to work together in the national interest, but the Secretary of State must take a message back to the Cabinet table: no more confusion, no more reckless briefings, and no more delay. This is a national crisis that needs a Government who are fit to respond to it, and we hope for the country that that comes sooner, rather than later.
Grant Shapps
I welcome the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his new post. He is right to raise a number of those issues, in particular the extraordinary work being done by our transport workers. I thought it might be worth updating the House on the latest information I have about the number of those who have sadly died with covid-19, although that was not necessarily through their jobs—we do not know. The latest number I have from Transport for London is 42 people, and on Network Rail, including train operating companies, the latest number I have is 10. Our thoughts are with all their friends and families at this difficult time.
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention concerns about overcrowding, and I contacted the office of the Mayor of London regarding Transport for London. We are working closely with him to try to ensure that the number of services is ramped up quickly. As I said in my opening comments, however, we can have 100% of services, but that will not prevent overcrowding because social distancing now requires much more space. I am working proactively with the Mayor to try to bring in as much marshalling as possible by TfL, and elsewhere, including on Network Rail. We have been working with the British Transport Police who even yesterday deployed several hundred people. Most of all, I appeal to the public to listen to our message, and to please avoid public transport unless they absolutely need to take it as a key worker. People should look for alternative means of travel, either active, or by using their car if they have one available.
The hon. Gentleman said that the advice is not specific enough, and I hope he has had a chance to read it. Other commentators have said that it is surprisingly specific and detailed across all the different sectors, including the two pieces of advice that have been provided today. I do try to provide the balance. His wider point seems to be that the advice is not specific enough, for example on what bus operators should do. Buses look and feel different throughout different parts of the country, depending on the make and model, and on the systems run by local bus operators. It is not possible to provide that level of advice company by company, operator by operator, because TfL will be very different to a Metro tram operator. We have provided very good overall advice. Our officials are working closely with the operators, unions, and others, and much of the advice is very similar. We all know about social distancing, washing hands, and the basics.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the evidence base, and I would be happy to organise a briefing for him on that. Public Health England, and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, have been very clear that there is no case for the use of medical level PPE in transportation. It depends, of course, on what someone is doing. Sitting in a cab driving a train is a fairly solitary activity, so there is no requirement in such a situation, but if someone has more contact with the public, things will vary. I extend to him, as I have done to others, the offer of a briefing on these matters. In fact, either tomorrow or Thursday we are giving a joint briefing to which I have invited unions and operators of buses and other forms of transport.
The hon. Gentleman also queried the £2 billion for cycling. I made this point clear when I announced the money. He will recall from before his time in this role that we announced £5 billion for bikes and buses. Some of this money—£1.7 billion—is part of that funding, as I said when I made the announcement. We have brought it forward so that we can get on with it, particularly given the emergency situation and the need to widen pavements and provide thoroughfares for cycling.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the airlines. I welcome the shift in tone from that of his predecessor, who never once encouraged me to support aviation. I agree about jobs, but he is wrong to say there has not been the support there. Almost uniquely, the aviation sector has enjoyed something that has not been widely advertised, but I will let him into it: not only can the industry access the very generous support provided by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer, which he extended further an hour or so ago from this Dispatch Box, but, in addition to all the other Government support, aviation can enter into a process of discussion if the existing types of support are not sufficient. Without breaching commercial confidentiality, I can tell him that a number of such discussions between the Department and aviation organisations, be they airlines, airports or ground support companies, are taking place.
Similarly, on P&O, perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not spot it, but we have supported a range of maritime freight—in some cases, that has included P&O—to provide connectivity, not just from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but between Great Britain and 26 other ports in Europe.
The policy of quarantining for 14 days is a Home Office lead. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but I can tell him quite straightforwardly that, going into this crisis, the advice was not to instigate quarantining, mainly because we had millions of Brits to bring home, but also because, according to the scientists—I had this very conversation with the chief medical officer before the lockdown began and he explained it to me—it would at best have delayed things by three, four or five days; sadly, it would not have prevented us from experiencing the epidemic. Again, he is very welcome to see that advice.
As we come out of this, as we control the virus in this country, with the facilities now in place to track and trace and the number of tests that can be carried out, of course we very much need to stop it continuing. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that as well.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and all the work that he and his team have done. He seems to be saying that self-distancing on public transport is best practice but not an absolute requirement and that PPE should be the fallback. In that regard, does he think we will have enough PPE supplies to protect our key workers and travellers? Also, seeing as we are a stoic bunch and perhaps not used to wearing face coverings, will he consider giving them away free at terminal stations and places where people use transport to ensure people use them?
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for giving me an opportunity to clarify two things. First, we are not advising that medical-level PPE be used—that would go completely against Public Health England advice; rather we are advising that people make their own PPE at home, using the information on the gov.uk website, which shows how to make it from an old T-shirt or to sew one. The reason for that is that it is critical, from a medical point of view, that we do not compete with medical applications for PPE. People should make their own PPE, which in this case means a face covering rather than a mask.
Secondly, on social distancing, it is of course true that there will be times when people cannot maintain 2 metres, such as when walking past somebody. The Government are doing a number of different things. The advice we are publishing today explains that if people are not face to face but are instead side by side, the risk factors are different. We are working with app companies—including Google, Microsoft and the British companies Citymapper and Trainline—to work on crush data, which would be published to enable people to see where the busiest parts of the network are and to actively try to avoid that. All those steps are in train.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Gavin Newlands, with a two-minute limit.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Although many businesses across the transport industry are fighting for survival, I note that this is the first time since this situation began that we have seen a Transport Minister in the Chamber delivering a statement or responding to an urgent question. With that said, I welcome the accelerated investment in active travel schemes, which follows a similar announcement by the Scottish Government back in April.
The guidance for England highlights the serious challenges that operators will face in the implementation of the guidance for the foreseeable future and the real and understandable anxiety facing the travelling public. In the section that deals with vulnerable workers—those with medical conditions for whom coronavirus is a serious risk—it says that employers “should offer support”,
“should consider the level of risk”
and should consider
“the guidance on clinically extremely vulnerable”
people and so on. The word “must” does not appear once. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the language is too weak and needs to be strengthened, lest some clinically vulnerable workers be put at risk?
The running of regular services with capacity cut by up to 90% is unsustainable without Government support. Has the Secretary of State estimated how much the implementation will cost and when his Department will start to fund the support required by operators and local government? Given that I am still waiting on a response to any of the letters that I have emailed to the Secretary of State, dating back to the start of April, on the support—or rather, the lack of it—offered to sectors such as road haulage, coaching, roadside recovery, holiday travel and aviation, when does he plan to make a statement covering those issues?
In Scotland, aviation businesses such as airports, Loganair and baggage handlers are exempt from business rates for a year, but people are losing their jobs right now, with businesses folding or being forced to restructure and downsize, and some, such as IAG British Airways, sadly seeing an opportunity to force through changes to workforce terms and conditions that they had been trying to implement for a decade. The extension of the furlough scheme is welcome, but with social distancing likely to be with us for some time, the aviation sector requires more support; when will the Secretary of State introduce such measures?
Grant Shapps
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was able to catch the previous statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; he answered some of the questions about what employers should be doing.
One of the main characteristics of the UK’s response to this crisis, unlike in other countries, has been that we have asked people to do things—for example, to stay at home—and that has been very widely followed and accepted. In the same spirit, we expect—indeed, we anticipate—that businesses will behave in the same way, as my right hon. Friend Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said not half an hour ago. He has increased the amount of money provided for inspections, for example, to make sure that that happens, but we do look to employers to make sure that they behave in a sensible way. Of course, employees will have all the usual routes—including ACAS, local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive—available if they do not feel that that is happening.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that a massive amount of support has now been provided to public transport in particular to keep it going. In England, that has involved support to all the train operating companies and to the bus operators. I realise that the finance is separate in Scotland and goes through the Scottish Government; some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions seemed to me to be more applicable to them. I do, however, think that the support provided across the United Kingdom is an indication of where we are all much better off working on these things together, and I welcome that partnership as we seek to save, where possible, aviation companies, bus operators and the others he mentioned.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers that I provided to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), on the support that is not necessarily publicly exposed, but is none the less available, to the aviation sector and that few other sectors of the economy enjoy—it can run out of all the different schemes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided, and now extended, and still have additional discussions beyond that. I can confirm that we are in those discussions, including with Scottish companies.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) [V]
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Prime Minister said that aviation is crucial for our country and our economy. I received a letter yesterday from the Secretary of State telling me that aviation supports more than half a million jobs, and about 1,700 of those workers are in my constituency. Aviation underpins the global reach of our economy, yet that global reach is currently stymied and might be about to be cut off. What are the Government doing with our allies, including the United States and other European countries, to ensure that we get aviation going again safely, without a negative impact on our economy, and that the global reach of our UK economy can be maintained.
Grant Shapps
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question. I absolutely agree with her, as a passionate supporter of aviation, and indeed a qualified pilot, about the importance of the industry. The reach of the sector, in all the ways she described, is immense. The UK has the world’s third biggest aviation industry, and it is very important that we support it through this crisis.
The sector has enjoyed enormous support from the Chancellor—I received a letter only in the last day thanking us for the support so far—and the extended furlough scheme will be hugely welcomed. As I said, there is a process that enables aviation companies, whether they are ground support, airlines or airports, to use the various schemes available and, if that is not enough, come to the Department for Transport and work with us and the Treasury to see what else can be done.
For the benefit of the House, I should say it is important that we do not find ourselves in a situation where shareholders benefit through the good times but the taxpayer picks up the tab in the bad times. It is very important that we get the balance right, with shareholders also being asked to contribute. However, I absolutely reassure my right hon. Friend that I have daily situation reports. We are tracking it carefully and working extremely hard to do whatever we can, even though, as she rightly points out, the global aviation market has now shrunk to a tiny percentage of what it would be ordinarily. The best way to resolve that is to beat this virus, which is why it is so important that people follow the guidance.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
First, may I pay my respects to the dozens of transport workers who have sadly died as a result of covid-19, working for us as public servants? They are the real key workers, and we should never forget that. Workers across the country need our protection.
The Secretary of State mentioned the funding to support cycling and walking to work. That is long overdue in my constituency, but we must understand that for many people in our communities walking or cycling to work is virtually impossible. Many of my constituents are entirely reliant on the already very poor public transport to access their employment. Those employed in unionised workplaces, with responsible employers, might just have the flexibility to access safer transport services at varying times throughout the day and evening. However, those working for unscrupulous bosses might not—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry; that is going on way too long. Secretary of State, can you answer the points already made?
Grant Shapps
Yes, very quickly. It might interest the hon. Member that 44% of all journeys outside London are less than three miles, so there are a lot of people in a lot of circumstances who may be able to switch to cycling or walking. As I mentioned, we intend to introduce fast-tracked trials of e-scooters as a useful way of getting around. It will not be possible for everybody in every circumstance; we completely understand that. But even if a small proportion of people start to cycle—a 5% increase, say—it would relieve the equivalent of 11 million train journeys. The maths mean that you do not have to be the person cycling. If more people are cycling overall, it will help.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am not saying this because Dr Julian Lewis is to be called next—it is a general point—but I ask Members to make their questions brief, because we have great time constraints.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) [V]
As an alternative to using public transport during the crisis, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the desirability of ageing bikers like me once again using motorcycles for travelling to work, and will he be taking any steps to incentivise motorcycle usage as the lockdown is gradually eased?
Grant Shapps
I am not sure I accept the entire premise of my right hon. Friend’s question. Motorcycles are an enormously important way of getting around— 2.7 billion miles were travelled by motorcycle in 2018, the last year for which we have data. We are working on a number of projects, including sorting out potholes, which are a huge problem for people on motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. I also encourage him—at whatever age—to adopt the electric motorbike.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Given the perilous state of the travel industry, should Ministers not take much greater care with what they are saying? Words matter, and they can have an immediate impact. Not only do we have the chaos of the 14-day quarantine, but the Health Secretary this morning all but ruled out summer holidays, saying that they will be impossible. Are the Government, like European Governments, working towards European summer holidays happening this summer, or do we need to cancel them? If it is neither, can Ministers be a bit more careful with their words?
Grant Shapps
Words do matter—the hon. Member is absolutely right about that—but they matter in both directions. The more that people try to confuse what are actually pretty straightforward statements, the less that helps the public as a whole. The situation with regard to transport, and summer holidays in particular, regrettable as it is, is pretty easy to understand. We know that, as things stand, we are unable to go ahead and do these things, because most countries are not allowing people in, and in any case, the Foreign Office advice is not to travel. It is hugely sad and regrettable, but it is the fact. As we progress and get through phase 2 and phase 3, as we hope to in June and July, the situation may change, but it is not possible to give people a sense of false hope. We need to be realistic about this, and I am certainly keen to use very precise language in order to provide every possible direction to the public, but it will be a wait-and-see game, I am afraid.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Quarantine at ports of entry is a useful public health tool for preventing diseases spreading from high-prevalence to low-prevalence populations. Sadly, the UK now has a relatively high prevalence of covid-19, especially in London. In the light of page 29 on international travel in the plan published yesterday, will the Secretary of State publish the evidence base for quarantining people travelling here, especially from relatively low-prevalence countries, which is to say most of the rest of the world?
Grant Shapps
In terms of where we are at the moment, the last information I saw was that the central estimate is about 130,000 covid-19 active cases in the country. That is coming down all the time, as people have seen from the graphs that are shown every day. We hope to get to a position where the prevalence is relatively small. It would be crazy to then ask the British people to continue to make quite significant sacrifices through social distancing, staying at home and the rest of it, while allowing people to come here for holidays and move around who are not British citizens returning here, as was the case with people coming into the country until now. That would not be practical. There will be a number of measures in place, and there will be some exemptions. There will be much more detail on this before it comes in, which is why it is not coming in instantly. It is more likely to be towards the end of the month, but that depends on the progress we make on defeating this virus.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
With regulations on travel currently differing in Scotland and England, what discussions is the Minister having with his counterpart in the Scottish Government to ensure that those regulations can be effectively enforced on all cross-border rail services?
Grant Shapps
I have sat in all the Cobra meetings and I have always found, from the First Minister to all the devolved Administrations, that working with them has been extremely constructive. I do not recognise most of what I have seen in the newspaper reports of that process. We agreed that there would be times when things were different; for example, the R rate is slightly higher in Scotland, so it is completely understandable that the message there has not shifted from “Stay at home”. That will change over time.
I have been keeping in touch with my opposite number, as have my Ministers, on an active basis, and we look to work together very closely indeed, particularly where rail and other services cross the borders. We have been working very closely with the devolved Administrations throughout.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent, in normal times, is a city blighted by congestion, poor air quality and a lack of good public transport. Therefore, improving buses in Stoke is a major priority, highlighted by our transforming cities fund bid. Can my right hon. Friend provide greater clarity on the £2 billion available to local authorities for local transport—specifically, the process that each will have to go through to secure funding?
Grant Shapps
Although I cannot provide that clarity to my hon. Friend today, because I would want to come to the House first to announce the details of how that money would be divided up, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to him in Stoke-on-Trent North, and to his colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for the extraordinary work they have been doing in securing the transforming cities funding for their residents. I am sure he will be very pleased when we allocate the £2 billion.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), the Government are now urging people in England to use face coverings in confined areas such as public transport. There are many people who commute daily across the Wales- England border to go to work and for other rightful activities. Will the Minister ensure that there is clear information on cross-border public transport—such as in announcements, or on large posters—and proper enforcement by the British Transport police, consistent with the fact that in Wales, wearing a mask is not sufficient, and that people must stay at home unless their journey is absolutely necessary? Will he give us some of the detail, please?
Grant Shapps
I am grateful for that point. We have been careful to make it clear in the guidance—including in the 60-page document released yesterday, but also in the transport guidance—that rules do vary. We have made it clear, for example, that people from England should not be travelling to Wales to take their exercise—that would be wrong, because it does not fit with the “Stay at home” message in Wales. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will definitely take on board his point about ensuring that the cross-border discussion—specifically, how transport works—is fully reflective of that different advice. I will even take his idea about announcements and so on into account as well.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
Rural bus transport is a lifeline for so many people, particularly in rural constituencies such as mine in North Norfolk. We have the oldest constituency demographics in the whole country, with many older people who cannot drive and, crucially, rely on buses as their only form of transport in isolated areas. Given the Government guidance that we should avoid using public transport wherever possible, what reassurance can the Minister give the bus operators, and those vulnerable people who rely so heavily on buses, that routes can be operated safely and financially viably to maintain services?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right to point that out. I want to be completely straight with him and with the House: there is a basic dilemma. We have a situation where, probably for the first time ever, I, a Transport Secretary, am encouraging people not to use public transport, which rubs against the bus operators’ need to have income. That is why, at or soon after the beginning of this crisis, I announced a multimillion-pound deal as a bus support grant, to ensure that my hon. Friend’s and other hon. Members’ local services could continue. As he knows, we are very keen indeed on buses—as is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is why we have a very large, multibillion-pound fund for buses, particularly to look after left-behind communities during this Parliament.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
I welcome the Government’s intention to encourage walking and cycling, and I recognise the need to minimise the use of public transport during the covid crisis. However, the experience of countries easing lockdowns has shown that there is a substantial increase in car use. What measures are the Government taking to minimise a spike in car use, and what extra freedoms will the Secretary of State give to local authorities so that they can make their own decisions and offer more opportunities for walking and cycling?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Member is absolutely right. On the one hand, we are saying, “Look, use a car if you can to avoid public transport”, but that is why I put so much emphasis on this £2 billion fund to promote cycling and walking. We will expand pavements. We will create new thoroughfares for buses and cycles only, and we will do those things quickly and urgently with guidance that I have already issued to local authorities. In addition, we ask them to use their thinking to create long-term benefits from this. To add to that, I have included things such as new voucher schemes to allow people to get their bikes repaired—to pull them out of the shed or garage, or from the side of the house, and start riding them. All these things come together in what is the biggest single boost to cycling and walking made by any British Government at any time.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. However, many Londoners who need to get to work will still need to use the tube and the suburban rail network. What discussions has he had with the Mayor of London and Network Rail about how quickly the London transport system can be returned to full working, so that we can achieve the most social distancing possible, and has he talked to him about the possibility of introducing temperature scanning at London termini?
Grant Shapps
Ridership on TfL has increased—yesterday, it was up by 8%. I spoke to and communicated with the Mayor and his deputy Mayor over the weekend. I am encouraging them—and working very closely with TfL—to boost those services just as quickly as they can, and there is more to do there. It is worth reiterating that even if those services ran at 100% of pre-covid levels, we would still be able to take—perhaps on TfL—only 15% of usual commuter levels, so it is important that everybody looks for alternative means of transport. In addition, I should tell the House that I am working closely—again with TfL, but also with transport across the country—on marshalling plans using TfL staff, Network Rail staff and the British Transport police, who have already been out in significant numbers, to help instruct and direct passengers where the system is getting full. Most of all, we require the co-operation of Londoners and commuters across the country not to overload the system at this time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am afraid that we are down to the last two Members now, and I have added a bit of time on because one question was way too long.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Many of my constituents in Vauxhall work for BA. They are hard-working staff who have given years of service to the airline, including my constituent, Stephen, who has worked for BA for 31 years. He mentioned to me in an email that he despairs at the thought of losing everything from 15 June—not just the possibility of losing his home and his job, but everything. My constituent is concerned that BA has in the region of £10 billion cash reserves. That is very worrying and I share my constituent’s concerns. It is unacceptable that staff are being laid off. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the resilience of airlines and their finances?
Grant Shapps
This goes right to the point I was making earlier: it is very important that our response to this achieves the right balance between taxpayer involvement and protecting the workforces while recognising that there is likely to be a change in aviation—certainly in the short and medium term, but we hope not in the long term. We must ensure that the shareholders and businesses are doing their bit. To answer the question directly, I have almost daily dealings on this, looking at what everyone is doing. I have daily situation reports and very frequent conversations with the sector and individuals, as does my aviation Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), and we will continue to do so to protect constituents who have worked hard for British Airways and other companies over the years, and to make sure that a support package is in place for them.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to support open-access train operators during the current crisis, and will he take all available action to ensure that these essential providers of transport and the competition on our railways survive the current pandemic?
Grant Shapps
I am keen as mustard on the open-access trains. They are a very good idea. They provide some good competition and tend to have the highest satisfaction levels. The two primary ones have been Hull Trains and Grand Central. Hull Trains has been mothballed for the time being. I have to say that both of them have large train operating companies behind them. We do look to the train operating companies to be clear about what they want to do going forward—I think that, in the case of Hull Trains, it is FirstGroup. They are, of course, currently furloughing staff and we look forward to continuing conversations with them. It is a very important and unique part of our transport system to have that challenge in place.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State. That concludes proceedings on the statement. While the changeover is taking place, may I remind all Members that there is a real need, when asking questions in statements or urgent questions, to make those questions as concise as possible because a large number of Members were not able to ask the Secretary of State a question.
Covid-19
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am now introducing a time limit of four minutes. I advise hon. Members who are speaking virtually to please have a timing device visible because they will be cut off after four minutes, and I shall be very strict about that.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate this afternoon. May I associate myself with the comments made by the Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), at the opening of this debate yesterday? This virus has tested every part of our society, but it has also shown that, when united in a national effort, the British people are a powerful force. It is thanks to the massive collective effort to protect the NHS that we have avoided an uncontrollable and catastrophic epidemic, which could have overwhelmed our health services. That said, I want to offer my sympathies to the families of the 101 people who have sadly passed away in Warrington as a result of covid-19.
On International Nurses Day, may I pay tribute to those community nurses at the Bridgewater Trust in Warrington, who have worked so hard to support people in their own homes, and to the nurses and doctors at Warrington Hospital for the work that they have done throughout this period? It fills me with great pride to see the hospital make headline news for its pioneering work around black boxes. Let me remind Members of what these are: black boxes are normally used for sleep apnoea and doctors have modified them in such a way that they can treat covid-19 patients who are struggling to breathe. That has meant that there has been less need for the more intrusive and invasive ventilators, which has, in turn, led to a far quicker recovery rate, and this has been reflected in the data. Indeed, Warrington’s performance is one of the best in the north-west, and I know that clinicians from all over the world are now looking at this work.
As much as any of this news can be positive, it has been encouraging to see a hospital trust managing these challenging times so well. There are no problems with the availability of ICU beds and, to date, there has even been no significant issues with personal protective equipment. That is mainly due to the great collaboration that has taken place across a number of hospitals in the region to share stocks where necessary. From the conversations that I have had, I am really confident that this challenge is being well managed by the trust team.
I also want to thank those people working in care homes for their tireless efforts, and Warrington Borough Council staff. I pay tribute to locally co-ordinated volunteer groups in the villages across our constituency. I have been so impressed by the outstanding community spirit that has enabled armies of volunteers to deliver food and medicine to self-isolating, vulnerable and elderly members of the community. We even saw a new community radio station launched by volunteers in the village of Lymm to keep everyone in touch.
I welcome the Government’s gradual easing of the restrictions. Getting out of lockdown was always going to be much more difficult than getting into it. The past few weeks have been really tough for the small businesses here in Warrington that make up the majority of employment in my constituency. I have been heartened by their support for the measures the Government have taken to protect employees and the self-employed. I congratulate the Chancellor on his determined efforts, with a welcome extension and increased flexibility of the job retention scheme announced earlier today. If I have one anxiety, it relates to support for owners of small businesses who have taken professional advice and structured their companies to pay themselves through dividends, and those on short-term PAYE contracts.
Local economies are strengthened when we have strong local media—newspapers, commercial radio stations and news websites where advertisers can promote local business and journalists can deliver reliable local news. I therefore encourage the Government to continue to support this important sector as the economy bounces back.
As one constituent wrote to me by email last night, the next few weeks are about personal responsibility, with each one of us taking small, sensible steps to inch our cities, towns and villages back to a new normal, all within the broad guidelines that the Government have now set out.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I speak today as an MP from one of the areas outside London that has been hardest hit by covid-19. Tragically, 246 people in Salford died due to covid-19 in the first two months—a death rate of 95 per 100,000 of our residents. Our thoughts are with their families and the families of everyone who has died due to the pandemic. At the start of—[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We have a problem. Can we please try audio-only to see if that is an improvement?
Mr Deputy Speaker
No, there is still an audio problem. Let us go to Theresa May and come back to Barbara Keeley.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) [V]
First, I pay tribute to all those in the NHS, in care homes and in other settings for working so hard to save lives. But I also pay tribute to all those other workers—the people in local authorities and the emergency services, and others, as well as volunteers, including those in communities across my Maidenhead constituency, who are ensuring that the country can keep going.
Let me say to Ministers that having been there, I do not envy the Government the difficult decisions they have to take. There are no risk-free answers. It is not about eliminating risk, because that is not possible; it is about managing and mitigating risk. It is right that science should underpin decisions, but the science can only take us so far, because essential data is lacking. We do not know how many people have had covid-19 in the UK. Although the Office for National Statistics survey is building a better picture, the scientists are still making estimates and debating consensus. The Government are putting an emphasis on R—the rate of infection—but that varies across areas, across different parts of the UK, and across different settings. So there are no absolutes, and both scientists and Ministers have to exercise judgment.
As I say, it is not possible to eliminate risk, but in assessing the risk to be managed and mitigated, it is necessary to assess other risks to lives and livelihoods from covid-19. While the number of people dying from covid-19 has been falling, we see lives being lost prematurely not from covid but because people have not been going to hospital and treatments have been postponed that could impact their prognosis in future. And that is without thinking about all those whose mental health will be affected by this lockdown, increased domestic abuse, and the impact of loneliness. So dealing with covid has unintended consequences.
Protecting the NHS for the future, and protecting our public services for the future, means ensuring that we have an economy that can provide the taxes that pays for them.
Without that, as The Sun commented this morning, many more lives will be lost. As well as listening to the science, the Government need to apply common sense and, as I said earlier, judgment. To do that, I hope that alongside assessing the science and assessing the rate of infection, the Government are also looking closely every day and assessing the wider impact of the lockdown on lives and livelihoods.
This is about judgment. As we pull away from lockdown and as we take those steps to return to a more normal life, we need to ensure that we are being driven not just by an absolute science, which is not there, but by an assessment of the wider impact of covid on people’s lives and their livelihoods. I trust the Government are making those assessments, because it is only by making those assessments that we can ensure not only that we restore our economy to a normality that will supply taxes for our NHS and public services, but that people are able to return to a more normal life.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
Last week, I held a roundtable with small businesses, facilitated by the Federation of Small Businesses. A number of issues arose.
On nurseries, Miss Houghton, who owns Highmeadows nursery in Bolton, has not been able to access the £10,000 rates relief because the rates on her business premises are too high, although it is in fact a small business. Nurseries cannot access the £25,000 grant that is available for those in the retail and leisure sector. They cannot furlough their employees, as the Government have said that as they receive state funding, they must use that money. The Early Years Alliance says that one in four nurseries will go out of business in the foreseeable future, which is a real shame. We rely on key workers to be able to go out to work and we need to ensure that their children are safe and being looked after. Wales has given nurseries 100% rates relief, and I believe we should have that in England as well.
Another issue that arose was for those who rent serviced offices. They are not able to get the rates assistance that other people that are in their own physical building can. That is particularly unfair for small businesses and new start-ups, which often use serviced offices.
Sole-person limited companies are another issue. Many are self-employed people who put money into their business, and pay themselves through dividends. Under the scheme for the self-employed, the income that they receive through dividends cannot be counted so they are not able to take advantage of the security available for self-employed people. Will the Government reconsider and allow dividends received through their companies as salary?
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) wrote to the Chancellor about the Asian wedding and hospitality industry, which is worth about £3 billion. It has its own unique challenges, because Asian weddings tend to be very big. To date, it seems that many of those businesses have not been able to get any assistance from the Government’s aid programmes. I ask the Chancellor and the Prime Minister—anybody who is listening today —to please ensure that the hospitality industry is funded, and in particular the Asian wedding industry.
I have received emails from people who work as freelancers for the BBC on the pay-as-you-earn system. They are not being furloughed and they cannot get self-employed benefits either, because they are not self-employed. They are caught between the two. Will the Government look at that issue again and ensure that they are properly looked after?
Recently, the Government have said that where the person who owns a premises is claiming rate relief, but the small businesses that operate within that large premises are not, local authorities should perhaps use some of their surpluses to pay and to help those people, but no guidance has been issued. It would be great to have guidance on that as soon as possible.
Many people have fallen into a trap and are not able to be helped by the various Government schemes, so will the Chancellor or the Business Secretary join in a roundtable discussion with my constituents, in order to hear from small businesses and people who are working but who have now lost their income—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I wish to make a few quick points. First, I wish to welcome the Chancellor’s statement today, because this is an area where a lot of us have been pushing him to give some security to businesses as they go forward. The idea of the furloughing scheme going on and, we hope, reducing as it does, as businesses go back to work, is an important one. However, we must bear in mind that there is a huge cost to it, at some £13 billion every month. He is right to say that he is prepared to extend the scheme, but we must be careful that we do not end up spending so much money that it makes it difficult for the economy to thrive.
I also wish to raise with the Government a few areas where I have concerns. The work they have done so far has been remarkable, and they have rightly received the full support of people in this House and, I believe, in the country at large, but I wish briefly to raise some issues with them. They say they have been guided by the science, but a number of people have concerns that this is not just about the science alone; there needs to be a much broader sense of where we are—the balance between the economy and covid. Some of the language has been loose on that, with the idea that it has been a choice—this is a false choice—between saving lives and saving the economy. Both are about saving lives; the point is when one becomes so big that we need to deal with it. I think we are at that moment now, and have been for a little while, in terms of the economy.
My concern is that we seem to have been wedded in the early days to the Imperial College model, which has had some quite significant criticisms and a poor record in the past of forecasting in these areas. I am glad that the Government have now widened this out. I note that Sweden ran the figures on the Imperial model and found that it was wrong by about 15 times, overestimating the number of deaths as against what they had witnessed—the same applies in respect of what Edinburgh University and others had managed to do. I am therefore concerned that there is a deal of pressure on that, but I am also glad the Government have moved on from there.
Another point to make is about testing, where the Government have had to shoulder a lot of difficulty and blame, but quite a lot of that should also be targeted, in due course, at Public Health England. The big mistake they made early on was the decision not just on having more testing, which they should have done from day one, but the decision not to include all the private laboratories. They should have done that straightaway; even though they were building their own and getting their own, we should have maximised and gone out to the private laboratories, which would have helped enormously.
The other thing I do not understand at the moment is that at the beginning of lockdown we did not close the airports but now we are looking to make coming into the airports more difficult as we come out of lockdown. It is a puzzle why it was not right at the beginning but it is now right as we try to open the economy. I am particularly concerned about that.
I just want to say to the Government that for four weeks I have been arguing that they need to open the economy and be talking to the public to bring them with them and give them a sense of what is coming. The paper produced yesterday and the statements that have been made at last are the right indication. I am with the Government: people should use their common sense. There are going to be areas and times when we cannot always meet that argument and that deal about social distancing. I want to ask one question: why does every other country have a lesser distance than we do? That makes a big difference on things such as public transport. Ours is the only country that has a 2-metre rule—Germany’s rule is 1.5 metres, some countries use 1 metre and the World Health Organisation says that 1 metre is enough. Such an approach would help enormously with public transport—on the tube and so on—where there is a great problem. I urge the Government to get on with opening the economy and with giving people the opportunity to get back to their livelihoods. We should trust them, with their common sense, to be able to implement these sets of guidance and to make sure they do the right thing as they go back to work.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will now try to go back to Barbara Keeley—[Interruption.] Oh, we have video as well. We will try video and audio, and see if that works.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I speak today as an MP for one of the areas outside London that has been hardest hit by covid-19. [Inaudible]—with their families and the families of everyone who has died due to the pandemic. At the start of this crisis, the Government said they would do whatever it takes to defeat covid-19. [Inaudible]—council took them at their word and has done a fantastic job in supporting vulnerable people, our care system and our local businesses, but now the Government seem to be backtracking and expecting councils to foot not just the bill, but the crisis response. Across—[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but that has not worked. Can we move on to Neil Gray?
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I start by paying tribute to all those who are working on the frontline in the battle against this virus. In my area of Airdrie and Shotts, they are the fantastic staff of NHS Lanarkshire, North Lanarkshire Council and other key workers who have been doing the essential work to keep us all safe and well, and also the many wonderful community groups that are doing what they can to help others. I pass on my condolences to all those in Airdrie and Shotts who have lost friends and family to covid-19.
Some of the issues I wish to discuss today have emerged since the lockdown. The first is the impact on people. The UK Government schemes to support individuals, businesses and the self-employed have left millions behind. Millions have had to apply for universal credit, with some who will be encountering the social security system for the first time and who will be facing hardship. The self-employed scheme falls way short and needs to be looked at again. Basing it on profit rather than turnover is a basic flaw in the experience of my constituents.
The furlough scheme needs an independent arbiter for employers unwilling to furlough. Those who had only just started a new job before the lockdown are still being neglected; a contract of employment should have been enough to qualify. There is also a need for the UK Government to provide certainty that they will phase the end of the furlough scheme to ensure there are no redundancies. Where is the help for company directors who take their wages via dividends? This is how so many small family businesses in Airdrie and Shotts derive their income, and it has gone.
The impact the lockdown is having on people’s mental health—for some because they have lost their livelihoods, others because they have lost social contact or because they already had underlying problems—needs much greater attention. The Scottish Government have looked at this, and are increasing funding, but it is a long-term issue that is going to need greater attention.
Staying on the topic of welfare, sadly, the mixed messages of last week and the reckless unpreparedness of the Prime Minister’s announcement the other night— basically, it was to get back to work—have put at risk the relative success of the lockdown in starting to get the virus under control and therefore put lives across the UK at risk. The lockdown has not ended, and the message is still crystal clear in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: stay home, protect the NHS, save lives. However, some people have already been in touch with me to ask if the Prime Minister’s statement means they can do this, that or the other. For how many more has the Prime Minister’s easing of the lockdown and change in message meant a licence to take more risks?
The Prime Minister did all of this without consulting the devolved Governments or, apparently, the Cabinet. This is not a time for making it up as you go along. A crisis like this needs clear, consistent messaging and support packages that ensure that nobody faces hardship. In another world before this lockdown, the Prime Minister promised that nobody would be punished for doing the right thing. Tell that to the millions of people who have been forced on to universal credit or the families in Airdrie and Shotts who are part of the reported 47% increase at the Airdrie food bank.
The UK Government need to do much more listening before doing their talking, and that will be as important in the long term as it is now. Society is going to change, and some changes are already happening. Some are positive and others negative, but there will be opportunities to harness change to deliver a more prosperous society with greater wellbeing. Areas such as the environment, waste and recycling, social security, employment and industry will need radical change and investment. That is for the future, but we need to start thinking now about the good society we want to see emerge. It cannot be what we left behind before the lockdown.
The focus right now has to be on containing and ending the health crisis, but there will be opportunities to make things better when that is resolved. I just worry, after this last week of chaotic and irresponsible mixed messages and anonymous briefings from Downing Street, that it will take longer than it should for us to get to that point.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) [V]
First, I would like to relay messages of thanks to the Treasury from a plethora of businesses in my constituency of Wrexham. Without the Government’s generous package of support, we would now be facing business closures and job losses. I would also like to put on record how the people of Wrexham have stepped up to support one another during this crisis. Small cottage industries, community interest groups and neighbour groups have sprung into action to check on the vulnerable people, keep morale high, and deliver food parcels and prescriptions. Wrexham, you have answered the call and I am proud to serve you.
Wrexham sits on the border with England. Life for us involves weaving between England and Wales, and we look to the UK Government for advice during this national crisis. However, here in Wales, under a devolved Welsh Labour Government, we have seen disjointed plans; delays in the delivery of shielding letters, the 111 service and shopping delivery slots; confusion over public health data collection; and, latterly, the abolition of targets against which successes or failures can be measured. Testing and analysis have been chaotic, which has had a particular impact on our care homes. The organisation of volunteering on a national level was also slow to get off the mark, with the Welsh Government taking weeks to decide to delegate the co-ordination of volunteering to statutory agencies or charities.
As a former nurse, I joined the covid-19 temporary register to support NHS Wales nurses on the frontline. After two months of waiting, I have now started back to the floor, and have been overwhelmed by the resilience, spirit and determination of the hospital staff at Wrexham Maelor Hospital. Tonight at 8.30 pm, we will be asked to shine a light through our windows to show support for our nurses—our ladies with lamps. I encourage everyone to do so, and to show our appreciation on this International Nurses Day.
The UK Government have confronted this virus as one United Kingdom. Our Prime Minister has set out a road map to rebuild the United Kingdom for a world with coronavirus. It is a plan that will give the United Kingdom hope. However, the virus has spread at different rates across the country. Therefore, parts of the UK are beginning to move at slightly different speeds. It is this progression of the virus and its consequences that has now caused us, who live on the border with England, some practical challenges. Should people drive the few miles over the border to go to work if that work is not possible from home? Should they drive a few miles over the border to drop their children off at school when schools in Wales are closed? Are our neighbours in England aware that they cannot drive the few miles here to enjoy our countryside for their recreation without risking a fine? This is why a one nation approach to monitoring and managing the R number is vital.
I hope that the trial of the UK Government’s contact tracing app is successful. When it is available, it is essential that the Welsh Government waste no time in deploying this app across Wales—the same app as in England. To design their own will only cause further delay. However, if this route is taken, I request that the Welsh app at least communicates with its English counterpart; otherwise, it will not serve us who live in a border constituency, nor will it benefit the national monitoring of this pandemic. The UK Government have introduced a cautious and measured recovery plan—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, but the four minutes are up. We now move on to Jamie Stone.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Greetings from the far north of Scotland. I want to talk about tourism in the highlands.
Visitors and tourists from the UK and overseas are always very welcome in this most beautiful part of the UK, and our hospitality and tourism industry is critical to the local economy. It is an industry that is sustainable in the long term, and which, most importantly, provides local jobs for local people. As long as we have a high-quality tourism product, by which I mean landscape, culture, top-quality food and drink—that sort of thing—we can attract tourists to come back again and again to a truly special part of the world. But we are in the midst of the current pandemic. People leaving home and moving about simply increases the risk of the disease being spread. Many in the highlands and many of my constituents are concerned that visitors will look at the map of where the virus is most common and think, “Oh well, the highlands looks pretty free. Let’s go there.” The trouble is that in the highlands, health services are at best limited. The NHS staff and care workers are doing a fantastic job, but they work with limited resources and that is why we have taken the lockdown rules so seriously in the highlands. That is why we have taken every precaution to look after one another and that is why we continue to “stay home, safe lives and save the NHS”.
The health and safety of my constituents is my greatest concern during this difficult period, so I say this to potential visitors. In normal times you would be really, really welcome, but right now please stay in your usual homes, wherever they may be. Please, please wait until the medical advice says that the risk of you spreading the virus to my constituents has gone. Surely those who truly care for the highlands and highland people will respect the need to prioritise our health and safety.
Despite our strong feelings about the need to keep safe, we in the highlands also know that the longer the pandemic goes on, the more the long-term damage our local businesses will suffer. The absence of visitors paying money to our tourism businesses possibly for weeks and months could actually cause many businesses to go under. It is a vicious circle. For every business that goes under during the pandemic, the highlands becomes all the poorer in what we can offer visitors when it is safe for them to return. It is worse than that, however, because unlike many other enterprises tourism businesses are seasonal. The money taken in during the tourism season has to be sufficient to see that businesses have enough in the bank to get through what we call the dark cold months in the highlands. That is why I suggest that the present pandemic is so particularly dangerous for those tourism businesses. Even if the pandemic were to end in a few months, much of the tourism season will have gone. That is why I support the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for the UK Government to introduce a 12-month financial support package to secure the survival of the tourism industry until summer 2021.
To conclude, my plea is to both the UK and the Scottish Governments. Those tourism businesses are doing all they can just now. For instance, selling vouchers that can be used at a later date when travel is absolutely safe is a seriously good idea, one which we should all wholeheartedly endorse and support. But I believe that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government owe it to those tourism businesses to go a specially tailored extra mile for them right now. Otherwise, they will go under and we will have a disaster on our hands. I believe that all of us really owe the tourism businesses that hand of help—nothing less than that.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) [V]
I, too, would like to thank all for the hard work to get us to this point, particularly those in Hyndburn and Haslingden. I welcome the document released by the Government that sets out the strategy to both return to a normality for people, while maintaining that the overriding priority remains to save lives and move with caution.
I, and many others, still have concerns about the minority who are still flouting the social distancing measures, while so many have sacrificed seeing their loved ones. That is why I welcome the news that the Government are examining more stringent enforcement measures for non-compliance. We also need an assurance that the supply chain for PPE is consistent and efficient, and that testing is readily available for those who need it and results are returned in the timeframe specified. There has been a momentous effort, but as the Prime Minister said, there remains much more to do.
Many communities and areas went into this fight less resilient and less able to take the economic and social hit needed to win, with disadvantaged communities the worst affected. That is all the more reason why the levelling up agenda is now more important than ever, so that we in the north can bounce back from the hardships that will follow. That is not out of a need for charity, however. We here in east Lancashire are ready and able to play our part when it is right to do so. With the right investment and incentives, we can play a leading role in the recovery. We have already shown that in the role we played in the response. I am proud to say that I worked closely with my council in Hyndburn to make sure business grants were issued swiftly, which resulted in Hyndburn being placed in the top three of over 300 councils.
That was a huge joint effort by all, but let us go further here in east Lancashire. Some very credible figures make a compelling case for investing in green and sustainable infrastructure as a way of boosting the economy as we come out the other side of this crisis. Where better to start than in the heart of east Lancashire, where we have some of the finest manufacturers and businesses that the UK has to offer?
To put it simply, I would like to see our engineers and plumbers out there installing insulation and new boiler technology, and working on new technology for cars, solar farms and wind power. I want to see northern advanced manufacturers, who have done so much in the field of aerospace, turn their attention to next-generation sustainable technologies and infrastructure. They just need the boost, and then we can let those amazing entrepreneurs do the rest. That will increase employment and put money back in the pockets of our local residents. Help us to help you. Let us level up as promised and let the north lead.
In order to do that, we have to beat the virus. As we enter the next phases of the Government’s plan, individual responsibility to do the right thing will become ever more important. It is on each and every one of us to be alert to the threat that is still posed and to make sensible and responsible decisions. Please, let us consider Hyndburn and Haslingden, and east Lancashire, as part of the process of this country’s recovery from covid-19.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
I start by saying an enormous thank you to everyone in my constituency. The community spirit has been extraordinary. We were told to socially distance, but I always thought the phrase should be “physically distance”. In some ways, we are now closer than ever socially, and I do not want to lose that.
As we emerge, there will be elements that we do not want to lose—communities connecting more; less air pollution; the return of wildlife; the fact that every single person who is homeless has a bed for the night if they want it; more time to engage in creativity, and more time with family—but it has not been the same for everyone. Although some call covid the great leveller, I would argue that it has been more of a common backdrop, against which the stains in our social fabric have become even more obvious.
We are all in this together, yet the lifeboats have not been evenly spread. Someone is twice as likely to die from the virus if they live in a deprived area where housing is more overcrowded and it is harder to have any personal space. Deprived children struggle to access education because they do not have broadband or a device, and they are falling behind. That is secondary, of course, to whether they are eating or even safe. People from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities go to work knowing that they are more at risk than others.
This has been a time of reflection. As we look in the mirror, we must ask ourselves whether we are comfortable with what we see. Do we want to go back to how it was, or do we want to negotiate a new social contract that nurtures individuals and respects nature? The time is coming to make a decision, and I sincerely hope that we choose to seize the opportunity that we have been afforded.
Before that, however, we have the small matter of easing out of the current state of lockdown and the confusion of the Government’s most recent announcement— and it has been confusing.
My inbox was inundated last night by constituents asking questions about their jobs. Do they have to go in or not? Will it be safe? And schools are much of the focus. Given the age groups that the Government are allowing to go back—they include nursery age children, who cannot socially distance at all, but not secondary schools, where studies show that the disadvantage gap is likely to be widening—it is clear that the Government are prioritising the economy over learning. No doubt many parents will be pleased at the prospect of some peace and quiet to enable them to get on with work, but not all. Opinion is mixed.
After reading the Government’s guidance carefully last night, I remain very sceptical of how this will work in practice. The economy is one thing, but what about safety? I am especially concerned about the lack of scientific evidence presented alongside the plans to reassure us that it is safe for children to mix in this way. Are we sure that they will not spread the disease? How do we know? Some heads are saying that they will not open because they do not feel that it is safe. And what of the teachers? Chris Whitty has said that we need a “proper debate” about teachers’ safety as schools reopen. I believe that it is irresponsible to not have had that debate before Sunday’s announcement. I am therefore immensely grateful to the Speaker for granting us the opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Education tomorrow in an urgent question on this matter, and I will save the rest for then.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
What a good job the Prime Minister is doing. He is showing superb leadership in the most terrible of times, but the Government cannot win. So many of my constituents are emailing me to say that the Government have eased the lockdown too much, and an equal number are saying that they have not eased it enough. The Opposition used to say that they wanted a grown-up conversation about the future, but when the Government provide just that, the Opposition scream, “It’s too confusing!” It seems that the Opposition are facing both ways at the same time.
But that does not excuse how badly the Government communicated their message this weekend. The television presentation by the Prime Minister was plain wrong. Too many of the Prime Minister’s special advisers and aides think they are running a presidential Government, where the Prime Minister goes on television and announces all sorts of Executive orders without any reference to Parliament. Many of them have clearly been watching too many episodes of “The West Wing”. They just do not understand how government works in this country.
Let me run through some of the reasons why Sunday’s television address was wrong. First, the Speaker had warned the Government twice not to do it. He made it clear that the Government should announce new policy in the Chamber of the House of Commons first. The Government decided to disobey the Speaker’s wishes. That is not how our parliamentary democracy works.
Secondly, the Government clearly breached the ministerial code. On page 23, under the section “Ministers and Parliament”, it says in bold type:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
Clearly the Prime Minister’s television address breached the ministerial code.
Thirdly, every Member of Parliament knows in detail the concerns and issues raised by the coronavirus pandemic because we have hundreds and hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls from worried and concerned constituents. MPs would have been in the best position to constructively question the Prime Minister when the change in policy was announced.
Fourthly, the fine details of the change in policy, which has now been published in a 51-page document, should have been published at the same time as any change in Government policy. That would have enabled people to understand the exact detail of the changes, but it was not published, and therefore uncertainty and confusion reigned.
Fifthly, with parliamentary scrutiny of Government policy severely hampered by the hybrid nature of proceedings, the Government should have gone out of their way to give the utmost opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise changes to the most important issue facing the country.
What should have happened was that a statement should have been made in the House of Commons first. The Prime Minister should have been questioned by MPs. The Command Paper with the details should have been published at the same time, and there should have been absolutely no media briefing in advance. That would have given the best launch to the changes to Government policy.
I would like the Minister who winds up the debate to confirm that what happened on Sunday was a mistake and that in future, all new Government policy will be announced in Parliament first. In conclusion, spin and presentation do not make good government. It is Parliament that makes good government.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), but what he said about the need for the Government to show proper respect to Parliament and to this House is correct, and I hope that it will be heard on the Treasury Bench.
I welcome the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his intention to extend the furlough scheme. For businesses in the Northern Isles that will provide welcome clarity, which is very much needed. It will also allow us time to work out how we can build sufficient flexibility into the scheme in order to see a glide path coming out of it. However, my welcome for the announcement is very much tempered by my regret that so much of the provision that remains for self-employed people is wholly inadequate. We still have no answer for those small business people who rely on dividend income rather than a salary for their income. Although it would be complicated, surely it is not beyond the wit of man if the political will were there.
The Government are allowing too many self-employed people to be left behind. Here in the Northern Isles we particularly see that in the visitor economy, which is crucial to us. The assistance for bed and breakfast operators, or operators of self-catering accommodation, leaves too many people without the assistance they need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said earlier, the seasonal nature of our provision means that a support scheme that finishes at the end of August, or September or whenever it will be, simply will not be adequate in parts of the country such as ours. Those parts of the country that have seasonal tourism require a 12-month programme, or else the tourism industry that will be left to be resurrected at the end of this process will be that much weaker, and the rebuilding and recovery that much more difficult.
We all know that at some point we will need some sort of inquiry into this. I do not suggest that now is the moment to start that—obviously, the important thing at present is to deal with the job in hand—but we should be thinking about how the inquiry will be done. Without prejudging the outcome, it is pretty clear that when we look back at this time, we will realise that the response to this pandemic has been at its strongest when all four Governments of the United Kingdom have been able to work together. I commend them all for embarking on a four-nations approach right from the start, although we saw the first divergence from that this weekend, with the Prime Minister changing his messaging away from staying at home, to being alert. That is an intrinsically problematic message. It lacks clarity, but worse than that, it also lacks credibility with the population as a whole. I hope that as we go ahead, the four Governments of this country will see that not as an opportunity to score points against each other, but as a warning about the need to keep a unified message. Only with that unified message can we possibly hope to bring all four parts of this United Kingdom successfully through to the other side of this outbreak.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I speak as an MP for one of the areas outside London that has been hit hardest by covid-19. Tragically, we know that 246 people in Salford died due to the disease in the first two months—a death rate of 95 per 100,000 of our residents. Our thoughts are with their families, and the families of everyone who has died due to the pandemic.
At the start of this crisis the Government said that they would do whatever it takes to defeat covid-19. Local authorities such as Salford City Council took them at their word, and have done a fantastic job in supporting vulnerable people, our care system, and local businesses. The Government now seem to be backtracking and expecting councils to foot the bill for the crisis response. Across Greater Manchester, Government support for local authorities is already £400 million lower than the costs our councils have incurred, with Salford Council spending £33 million extra in the first six months of the year.
Can the Minister confirm that Government Ministers meant what they said and that all additional costs incurred by councils will be covered by Government funding? Will the Government look carefully at the suggestion from our Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham about English regional representation at Cobra meetings?
On the sustainability of local businesses, I have heard from businesses across my constituency that are not eligible for the funding support that they need—from private limited companies to veterinary businesses, from dentists through to the Veterans Garage, which operates in a shared space to provide vital support for veterans.
Given that none of the businesses that I have highlighted are eligible for any support apart from loans, what reassurances can the Minister give them about their situation? Ministers also need to look again at the need for support for self-employed people in the creative industries. I have been contacted by many constituents working at MediaCityUK in Salford quays, who are not eligible for support.
The Prime Minister’s announcement on Sunday, and the guidance published since, have led to confusion about what is and is not allowed. Many of my constituents now fear that they will be forced back to work before it is safe for them. I have heard from one constituent whose son has been told to report back for work this week, despite the fact that he lives with his mother and she has been told to shield. The son has been on furlough but was asked to go back to work yesterday, even before the covid-19 secure guidance had been published.
Will the Minister confirm that businesses will be required to put the necessary protections in place and that no staff will be expected to go back to work until they can be sure it is safe to do so? Will the advice on shielding cover the issue of how that can work when another family member has to go out to work, increasing the risk?
Finally, I want to talk about family support. The Prime Minister set out a plan for getting people back to work, but the only concession for family contact was allowing one person to meet one member of another household outside, while maintaining social distancing. I was contacted after the Prime Minister’s speech by a new mother who had given birth to her baby during lockdown. None of her family or friends has been able to meet her baby or support her, and she is now feeling exceptionally isolated.
My constituents are being directed back to work, where social distancing is advised but is not even guaranteed. Why is it acceptable for someone to meet large numbers of people at work, but not get the support they need with a new baby from family members? Can the Minister clarify when we will see updated guidance for that new mother and when she will be allowed to meet family members to get the support that she needs with her baby?
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) [V]
The people of the United Kingdom have done a great job in looking after our communities and our country during this difficult time. They have, in very large part, followed the rules on social distancing, which has enabled us to get to the stage where we can start to look at easing the lockdown and turn our focus towards economic recovery.
It is immensely sad that people have died during this outbreak, and my heart goes out to everyone who has lost a family member or friend to this dreadful disease. We should not forget a single life taken early, and we owe it to those people and our hard-working NHS and care workers not to allow the virus to rise up again.
In a Zoom meeting the other day, the CBI discussed the need to focus now on renewal and the idea of rapid recovery. The Bank of England monetary policy committee has also recently predicted a V-shaped economic recovery. That is something that we must strive to achieve, as it is only by ensuring that our industries are thriving that we will be able to maintain and create the jobs that people need to support their families and get ahead in life.
Unfortunately, it is inevitable that some businesses will not survive, and we must ensure that those that do can grow and take on those who now find themselves unemployed. Undoubtedly, the action that the Government have taken over the past decade to restore the health of the public finances has meant that we have been in a much better position to support businesses and their employees over the course of the first phase. I particularly thank the Chancellor, Her Majesty’s Treasury and HMRC, who have been working tirelessly to ensure that businesses and individuals have access to vital funding, which I know has been a lifeline for many.
The work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, through local councils, has also been exemplary, with grants to support many of our small businesses, so that we can start up their operations once again with vigour. In the new discretionary grants, I would ask that small businesses in multi-tenancy buildings, and dentists, are also included in the scheme.
As a country, we have learned some notable lessons over the past couple of months, which need to be taken forward.
Many small businesses have been adapting their business models to meet the needs of the current climate and produce the goods and services in highest demand. These businesses will need to be agile again coming out of the lockdown, to capitalise on their strengths and meet the needs of the markets in the new normal.
The hard work and dedication of those businesses should not be forgotten: businesses such as JRE Precision in Loughborough, which made the decision early on to start making ventilator parts to ensure that the NHS has the equipment it needs to save so many lives; Tarmac, based at Mountsorrel Quarry, which donated PPE to our frontline workers; and shops such as Bradley’s in Quorn, whose hard work providing essentials for the local community should be rewarded for many years to come with patronage from local residents.
If we are to achieve a rapid recovery, we need to implement the right policies to ensure that all sectors can mobilise and ramp up activity as soon as possible, from farmers, who are the very backbone of our nation, to universities, which drive innovation and provide young people with the skills needed to support the economy tomorrow, and our largest home-grown businesses, which provide people with opportunities and generate huge amounts of revenue for the Exchequer. This is the best case scenario for our country, and I would ask that the Government continue the fantastic work they have done to date and do all they can provide a route for rapid recovery.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
It is a great privilege not only to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), but to participate in this debate. I wish to add my support to the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the opportunities that are there and the importance of approaching this pandemic and our country’s response as one nation, recognising of course that our devolved areas will have distinct differences, but that they should operate within this United Kingdom, drawing on the bonds and support we can give one another.
It is also important during this general debate to praise the enormous warmth and enthusiastic support that members of my local community in east Belfast have been offering their neighbours, from the network centre in the East Belfast Community Development Agency, through the BT16 covid-19 community response team and the Ballymack centre, where they are making meals every day, to those in Connswater community centre. It has been heartwarming and encouraging to see just how many people within our community are prepared to step up and support one another.
Can I also, given the day that’s in it and the statement from the Chancellor, recognise the importance of extending the job retention scheme? My colleagues and I, particularly those with airports in our constituencies, have been concerned about the cliff edge proposed for the end of June. Belfast City airport is in my constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you will recall that a fortnight before this pandemic really took hold Flybe went into administration, representing 80% of all the passengers who travel through our local airport and 67% of all routes. As we approach the end of the job retention scheme and that cliff edge in June, there is huge concern, even though it has been extended, that the aviation and tourism sectors will struggle to recover from this pandemic. Although the extension is welcome, I hope that there will be further and sustained engagement not only for tourism and aviation but for all the associated sectors in the aerospace industry.
I am particularly concerned, even though there has been an extension of four months today, that we have yet to hear from British Airways that it is prepared to delay its redundancy plans, for example. The plan is not only to make 12,500 employees redundant, irrespective of Government support, but to cruelly assault the terms and conditions of those workers who will be retained after the pandemic. That is totally wrong.
I want to make mention of the self-employed income support scheme and highlight my concern that those who have accessed the portal thus far have found that their Northern Ireland driving licence is not sufficient to satisfy the ID requirements. Nor is an Irish passport, even though many residents of Northern Ireland are perfectly entitled to hold one under the terms of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. I hope that that will be challenged and changed by HMRC in the days to come.
May I raise my concern about health sector capacity? It has been noted that in Northern Ireland there has been a 40% increase in non-covid-19-related deaths compared with this time last year. It is important that we have capacity within our health service, but it cannot be at the cost of healthcare in other sectors or for other individuals. There are huge strides being made not only to protect our community but to do what is best for it in the light of the pressures we face. The resolve needs to continue, and I know that the Government will work with all the devolved Administrations in ensuring we fight the pandemic and that we, as a country, succeed.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) [V]
The plan that the Prime Minister set out yesterday shows the difficult choices involved in creating a pathway on which we can continue to suppress the virus while easing some of the restrictions. I will focus my remarks in three areas. First, I pay tribute to the key workers in North West Norfolk, and particularly those in the NHS and care sector. Two weeks ago, I joined staff at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn to pay respects to their friend and colleague Chrissie Emerson, who sadly died from coronavirus. The dedication that the staff show every day deserves to be recognised with capital investment to modernise this acute hospital as part of the health infrastructure programme. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the proposals put forward. As well as mortality figures, the QEH publishes data on patients who have recovered and been discharged. Such figures could helpfully be published nationally.
A quarter of the care homes in my constituency have now reported outbreaks. While that is below the national average, there is no room for complacency. It is vital that care homes have access to testing and PPE to protect residents and staff.
Secondly, the bold package of support for businesses and individuals has been rightly welcomed across west Norfolk. My area relies on tourism, and the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—grants and bounce-back loans in particular—have so far been the difference between businesses surviving and not. However, the lockdown has come a time when pubs like the Crown Inn, restaurants, hotels and attractions in Hunstanton and across the coast should be bustling. As the plan sets July as the earliest date at which hospitality businesses could start to reopen, those firms need help. I am therefore pleased that the Chancellor today extended the furlough scheme and introduced a more flexible approach, including part-time working. He has also responded to calls that I and many other Members made for new funding for local authorities to assist businesses that did not qualify for the earlier schemes. As well as that grant support, insurance premiums, holidays and other steps would help firms be ready for the day when we can safely welcome visitors again.
On that, Norfolk police has done a great job of enforcing the current social distancing rules, in difficult circumstances. I share the concerns that travel changes in the plan may make the police’s job harder and see people flocking to the coast. Everyone must act responsibly and follow the rules. If there is a repeat of the overcrowding at the coast that occurred before lockdown, stricter measures must follow. Please, let us use common sense, stay local, only make reasonable journeys and not overcrowd the coast.
Finally, the response to the crisis from voluntary groups, including on rough sleeping, has been incredible. When I worked in the Cabinet Office, the advice was that it would take years to end rough sleeping, yet in the space of a few weeks there has been a fall of over 90%. That is thanks to the great work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with local authorities, charities and hotel chains. It is now crucial that we seize the opportunity to move people into long-term accommodation rather than see them return to the streets. According to Purfleet Trust, a charity in my constituency, that means long-term funding and a focus on prevention.
We have a road map to ease restrictions in a measured and controlled way. Everyone who has followed the rules so far has helped us get this point. Now we must continue to stay alert, and together we will come through this.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]
I begin with an observation: there had been a consistent approach across the four nations, but, at a time when clarity is critical, we find ourselves in a situation where three of the four nations of the UK are still trying to be clear, consistent and cautious in their approach to tackling and beating the coronavirus pandemic; it is a great pity that the Prime Minister muddied the waters so badly over the weekend. While it is absolutely the Prime Minister’s right to change from a very clear “Stay at home” message to the imprecise “Stay alert” message for England, it is irresponsible to spread the change in the media as if it applied collectively across the entire UK without even consulting the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Governments. This is a public health matter that is rightly being considered by the devolved Administrations on the basis of scientific evidence. It seems that the UK Government’s idea of a four nations approach is less about working respectfully together and more about, “Do as we say.”
The advice in Scotland remains clear. For the avoidance of any doubt, I will reiterate it here: stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives. While the pandemic has undoubtedly brought challenges, it has also brought out the best in our communities. From fundraising to helping neighbours to the willingness of our communities to help, it has been incredible, nowhere more so than in my own Midlothian constituency, with resilience groups in Bonnyrigg and Lasswade, Dalkeith and Woodburn, Danderhall, Eskbank and Newbattle, Gorebridge, Howgate, Loanhead, Newtongrange, Penicuik, Roslin and Bilston, Rosewell and the Tynewater area. I make particular mention of the Mayfield and Easthouses community resilience team, which has so far delivered more than 3,550 hot meals to elderly and vulnerable members of our community. There will undoubtedly be other amazing examples of help and support, and Midlothian Council’s #KindnessMidlothian campaign is certainly well-named to reflect that.
I also for the most part welcome the Treasury’s response to this pandemic, although there are many areas that still need to be addressed. I welcome the business support that has been put in place by the Chancellor and his efforts so far to resolve problems that have emerged with the schemes, but a lot more urgently needs to be done to help those still left behind. I have many constituents who have yet to receive any support and who had a viable business but cannot get a loan to see them through. The business interruption loan scheme is too cumbersome, and too many banks are still failing to lend. While the bounce-back scheme tackles some of those issues for smaller businesses, the reports that I have heard suggest that it remains far from a streamlined process, and there are only five accredited lenders compared with 50 for the interruption loan scheme. There is also still the issue of support for the self-employed, particularly those who left a good job to run their own business.
I welcome the extension of the furlough scheme announced by the Chancellor earlier today and the suggested flexibility. I am keen to see the detail of that much more clearly. As we move forward, we need to ensure that protection remains in place for those who need it. At the end of the day, I argue that the best and most flexible support that could be put in place would be for the Government to introduce a universal basic income and genuinely ensure that nobody is missed through these tough times.
Protecting people’s lives while they are protecting their livelihoods is a complex matter. One size does not fit all and a degree of flexibility to suit differing circumstances is needed from Government—flexible support and flexibility over strategy in the different parts of these isles. I welcome the more cautious approach from the Scottish Government in easing lockdown. I advise the UK Government to take a similar approach. I appreciate that they would choose not to, but they must respect the devolved settlement and not undermine the clarity of message we have here in Scotland.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
The covid-19 pandemic has affected all our lives in so many ways. First, I offer my condolences and prayers to all those who have lost loved ones during this crisis. I pay tribute to all those on the frontline in our NHS and the care sector who have been working tirelessly to look after people and to keep us safe. I also thank the key workers who have kept society going, be that in looking after children, supporting our food supply lines or working in our vital public services.
I thank all those who have come together in Cumbria to support our local communities: our local resilience forums, local volunteer groups, emergency groups, churches and the like. It has been so heartening how people have rolled up their sleeves and are looking out for their neighbour and providing much needed help and support, especially to the vulnerable at this time.
I very much welcome the unprecedented support measures that the Government have put in place during this crisis, which have provided the lifeline and bridge to allow jobs and businesses to be there on the other side. I also thank the Government for listening to feedback from me and other colleagues and adapting the support schemes so that more people can be included.
In my constituency of Penrith and The Border, key changes that have helped our tourism sector include the expansion of business grants to bed and breakfasts. I am also so grateful to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for responding to our calls for a dairy hardship fund. I hope that the Government can further and widen the support to include directors of companies who have paid themselves a salary through dividends, to expand the flexibility of the furlough scheme —I very much welcome the Chancellor’s announcements today—and to widen the business grants and rates relief strategies. That will really help vital businesses such as vets and dentists.
As a vet, I pay tribute to the profession of which I am a proud member. Vets, nurses and their allied staff have stepped up in this crisis to provide necessary care for our animals and support for our food supply chains. In addition, the veterinary sector has transferred much needed medical equipment, such as ventilators, into the NHS, and veterinary staff have stepped up in large numbers to volunteer in the NHS and in their communities.
As we are now looking ahead to the transition phase, it is important that support is in place and is targeted at businesses that may be slower to recover, such as those in the tourism and hospitality sectors, which are so important for Cumbria. [Inaudible].
The covid pandemic has thrown into sharp relief the importance of food production and security, and the critical areas of health and social care. Newton Rigg College in Penrith has over 1,000 learners and 130 staff, and provides education in vital areas such as agriculture, land-based studies, and health and social care. The college is now the subject of a local provision needs analysis by the Further Education Commissioner’s office, creating uncertainty over its future. It is critical that the Government work with local stakeholders to try to secure a viable and sustainable future for this important institution. Now more than ever, we must look after colleges such as Newton Rigg, that play such a big role in supporting our vital farming industry and providing important career options for our local communities. Covid-19 can and will be overcome, but we must make sure that our communities, businesses and institutions are supported to be there for the long term.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
I start by sharing my huge gratitude to all the key workers in East Renfrewshire, who are doing such important work, and to the brilliant volunteers supporting our local community at this difficult time. I also pass on my condolences to those in East Renfrewshire who have lost loved ones.
For the UK Government to be described as “reckless” by the British Safety Council in the midst of a pandemic should make even this Prime Minister pause. It was a disappointment that he did not share his planning or consult—not just with the devolved Administrations, but with local authorities, trade unions, employer representatives, and even, reportedly, his own Cabinet. Having set his announcement for Sunday to allow people to get going with the measures on Monday, it emerged that no preparation had been done with regard to transport, childcare and many other issues. Confusion reigned, even among the Ministers set out to do the morning media rounds. Most announcements applied only to England—although you would struggle to tell—but many in the Prime Minister’s party are demanding that all four nations march towards the cliff edge in lockstep. The response from Scotland is firm: no chance.
Is it really time to stop protecting the NHS? If not, why is that disappearing from the heart of the campaign in England? And why was the “Stay Alert” slogan launched with green imagery? It is not difficult to see the signal that that is designed to send. As the Prime Minister prevaricates and blusters, it is clear that he is trying to nudge the population into an ill-considered move. Telling people to deal with the pandemic by staying alert is an abrogation of responsibility. A crisis of this magnitude demands leadership; thank goodness for Nicola Sturgeon and her fellow First Ministers.
But there is no going back to the same old, same old—even if we wanted to. The Prime Minister’s enthusiastic but vague encouragement for people in England to hop in their cars and get back to work is neither sensible nor realistic. It displays a lack of connection to the reality of people’s lives, never mind their working lives. The Prime Minister needs to remedy that as a matter of urgency if he has any interest in workers’ safety and wellbeing.
I applaud the UK Government for bringing in the furlough scheme but, as ever, the devil is in the less publicised detail. There will be disquiet at the impact on jobs of the employer contribution that the Chancellor announced today that he is looking for. I and other colleagues have been calling for flexibility in furloughing, and the Chancellor said today that there can be flexibility from August; we need to see partial furloughing before that. The Scottish Chamber of Commerce asks that flexibility takes account of a company’s ability to contribute, which will differ depending on location and sector. I hope that the Chancellor will take that on board.
Despite the recognition of the vulnerability of pregnant women at the start of this crisis, it took until yesterday for half a sentence of guidance to be produced. Women have had to take sick leave or annual leave because the UK Government failed to listen when the issue was highlighted to them. If we are to achieve an orderly end to lockdown when the time is right, listening will be vital, and fair, safe, flexible work will be key. The Government should focus on not only sustaining jobs but enhancing fairness and employment rights as we look ahead. They must properly examine how a universal basic income could underpin a sustainable and fair recovery, which will be so important in the months and years ahead.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to see you looking resplendent in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I wish to take the opportunity to thank all my constituents, who have done the most amazing job rallying around and looking after each other—that is what makes my part of the East Sussex coast so special. I also wish to recognise and thank the Government for the support that they have given and the lead they have taken in these difficult times.
As MPs from all parties will be aware, we face day-to-day challenges. For the past few weeks, my daily challenge has been to try to get our Bexhill testing centre plugged into the central link. We have a frustrating situation whereby we have a testing centre, but it is not plugged in. If anyone from Deloitte is following proceedings, I ask them to plug our local centre in to the national link so that local people can use their local testing centre.
In my few remaining minutes I wish to focus on the Transport Committee’s inquiry on coronavirus and the implications for the transport sector. We have been looking at the aviation sector, which is clearly on its knees right now and needs our assistance. I note the Government support and welcome it, but recent days have seen us looking towards quarantine. My question to the Government is why now? If it is required from a health perspective, why was it not introduced at the start of lockdown? If it is required now, what help will there be for the aviation sector so that it can pick up? It is important not just for jobs and travel, but for our imports and exports. Some 40% of all imports arrive in the belly of airliners arriving at Heathrow, and it is important that we support them.
The aviation sector itself needs to do more to support its staff. Yesterday, the chief executive of British Airways’ parent group, Willie Walsh, appeared before the Select Committee. Almost a third of BA staff are facing redundancy, and those who remain have been told that their terms and conditions will be lowered and altered. Some of those terms and conditions have nothing to do with costs—for example, they may relate to grievance procedures. It feels as if BA is using this as an opportunity to undertake long-held reforms of terms and conditions. I asked the chief executive whether he would be willing to allow those employees to share the proceeds of growth if things return back to normal times, but he refused to give that assurance. Thousands of BA staff have contacted me and other members of the Select Committee. They are clearly the best of employees—they care about their carrier and they care about each other— and I hope that BA will use the welcome extension of furlough to put the redundancy plans back in the hold, where they deserve to be.
I also want to talk briefly about Gatwick, my local airport. It is—or has been—the busiest single runway airport, handling 46 million passengers each year. It is an important national asset, and I really hope that it will survive.
The next Committee session for us will be on buses and trains. We are very concerned about the worker situation. There are 9.9 coronavirus deaths per 100,000 UK males, yet in the bus sector the figure is 26.4 deaths. Clearly, more needs to be done to protect those workers. I support the measures that the Government have brought in today regarding passengers using their own PPE, although I note that, in France, PPE is being handed out on a more professional basis by workers. In Germany, the transport system is back operating as normal because it recognises that social-distancing just does not work in practice. As we move out of lockdown, I hope that we can be more flexible so that we protect our economy and our transport sector.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this general debate on covid-19 and to be a voice for the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill in these unprecedented times. This pandemic has presented completely new challenges for us all, demanding responses that have no precedent, but this is by no means an excuse for the response of this UK Government.
This is not the first time that these nations have been faced with a crisis. Indeed, just last week, images of world war two were again broadcast into our homes. It was a time when our nations fought bravely together and when strong leadership provided the ultimate protection against our enemy threats. Today, we face a new fight and a new enemy, but there is no protection in the leadership of this Prime Minister. Where we looked for leadership, calmness, and direction, we found stand-ins, mixed messages and confusion. Covid-19 is no more a natural disaster than a famine; both are highly politicised events. We can waste time blaming the outbreak of disease on global agribusiness, but it would be an insult to the intelligence of the people of these nations if we do not recognise that the true failure in preparation lies at the very heart of the UK Government. For years, this Government have tried to fool us into thinking that their austerity-driven attack on our vital public services has been a societal necessity. Yet the current crisis has magnified the absurdities of these complacent assumptions. Will they now admit that austerity has always been an entirely political decision from which we are all now suffering: hence, the failure to implement immediate isolation and contact tracing for all those entering our borders; hence, the fatal delay in implementing lockdown; hence, the vast shortages of PPE in our hospitals and care homes; hence, the failure to meet revised testing target after revised testing target; and hence, the thousands upon thousands of lonely, untimely deaths that could and should have been prevented.
Despite those vast failings, a vague optimism has been added to proceedings: a vague optimism that people can go back to work but only if their work is open; a vague optimism that we can travel as far as we desire for exercise, but as long as public transport is not involved; and a vague optimism that we can meet with another outwith our household, but only if we do not plan to meet up with them beforehand. This vague optimism has become the epitome of the UK Government’s message. It is a strange pretence that everything is suddenly normalised: that witnessing the news of hundreds of deaths on our TV screens every evening is just to be accepted and that we can continue with life as we did in the past. A de facto muddling-through has emerged in this UK Government, one that is concentrating on maximising market power rather than on prioritising public health. It is quite disgraceful.
My constituents, like many others up and down these countries, are bearing the brunt of this confusion. No one should be forced to risk their health or the health of their loved ones in order to maintain their employment, and yet that is the very dilemma that my constituents are facing after this Prime Minister, on Sunday night, chose, as he always does, to prioritise one-nation Conservatism over a four-nation approach.
Let me finish by saying this, Madam Deputy Speaker: our death toll is nothing short of catastrophic. Our daily counts have far surpassed that of our neighbouring countries and somehow there is a determination to cloak this in the illusion of a Great Britain; a mythology built on inflated pride and lowered expectations. It is not this Government who are great—far from it—but the people of these nations who make it so. It is the health and social care workers, our security officers, our emergency responders, our till operators, our delivery drivers, and our teachers. It is to them that I give my thanks and appreciation. Those people are the backbone of our society and only when this UK Government begin to prioritise human life over economic prosperity will this country have something to be optimistic about.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) [V]
In addition to placing on record my gratitude to everyone in the NHS and on the frontline, I would like to pay tribute to the many of my constituents who have gone above and beyond. From the community hub set up by Buckinghamshire Council, the support network on Facebook for the town of Buckingham, St Laurence’s church in Winslow delivering meals to the most vulnerable, and the Haddenham Scrub Hub sewing garments for the NHS and care staff, every corner of my constituency is playing a part.
In particular, I would like to highlight two schemes: the incredible Risborough Basket, set up by Councillor Matt Walsh and the team at Princes Risborough Town Council, which delivers orders from local shops and has its own fruit and veg service for isolating households; and Bernie the Bus, set up by Councillors Paul Irwin and Ashley Waite, which collects food bank donations from people’s driveways. It blasts out music, bringing a note of cheer as it passes through the villages, and on the days I volunteered with it in Quainton, Ashendon, Wescott, Marsh Gibbon, Grendon Underwood, Oakley and Brill, I was blown away by the generosity that so many people showed through their donations. Once we are through this crisis, I hope we can capture the very best of the great British spirit shown by these community heroes, and ensure that we can strengthen our country’s strong record of voluntary service for the long term.
I have also been proud of the many businesses that have adapted, including farm shops doing deliveries and pubs doing takeaways, and even the drive-through beer service at the Chiltern Brewery. So many businesses have done their very best, and I encourage everyone to shop local to support them. One business, sadly, has completely failed to follow the guidance. HS2 Ltd’s contractors have worked throughout the crisis, not social distancing and causing great alarm in villages such as Steeple Claydon. Contractors have been refusing to follow the rules on staying on site, instead using local shops and making residents fearful of the virus being spread. The chief executive of HS2 Ltd gave me many assurances on this at the Transport Select Committee, but the gap between promises and reality continues to be wide. I am hopeful that the HS2 Minister can use the evidence I am sending him to hold HS2 Ltd fully to account.
On business support, the speed with which the Government put in place financial support and security for people’s jobs, including today’s extension of the job retention scheme, has been incredible. That was no small or easy task. With an economy as diverse and dynamic as ours, however, it was inevitable that not every eventuality would be covered, and I am grateful to the Government for listening and adding support throughout the crisis. An example is the additional £10,000 grants announced for the hardest-hit dairy farmers, which I and other colleagues argued for.
However, a couple of pieces of the jigsaw need to be put in place if we are to complete the picture. Many owner-directors of small businesses—the backbone of our economy—who perfectly legitimately pay themselves through dividends are becoming increasingly desperate. They are facing uncertain futures. I accept that there is no easy solution, but for those who continue to be unable to trade, support needs to be made available. Secondly, many suppliers to the events and hospitality sector do not have the support that the companies they serve have received, despite their inability to trade being the same. I am hopeful that councils will use their new discretionary grants to support them, along with other firms that have contacted me, such as coach companies, kennels and hauliers. With those two calls heard, I commend the Government for their continuing strong response to this crisis.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate today, as I look out of the window at this beautiful day in Edinburgh. Although the past few months have been tough and we have come through much, the people of this city and my constituency know that it will take every ounce of our energy to preserve what it is that makes Edinburgh such a wonderful place. Traffic at our airport is now almost negligible, the Royal Highland Show, which contributes £65 million to our economy, has been cancelled, and that shining gem in Scotland’s cultural calendar, the Edinburgh Festival, will not bring the world to our city this August. Across Edinburgh, myriad small, medium-sized and international companies are concerned for their future—a future of challenges for which they are not responsible.
For us here in Edinburgh West, as in most constituencies up and down the country, perhaps the biggest task is looking after the thousands of people concerned about their health, their jobs and their financial future. We calculated yesterday that during this period of lockdown we have dealt with around 1,000 pieces of individual casework, every one a personal emergency.
Much of this crisis has been managed by the UK Government, but also directly, here in Edinburgh, by the Scottish Government. The issues that they face are exactly the same; but in tackling them I would appeal to both our Governments to work together. Much has been said this week about mixed messages, uncertainty, a lack of clarity about what the UK Government were saying about lifting lockdown. Imagine what that is like for the people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, with advice that is often contradictory—not just different: completely contradictory. Can I go out? Can I go to work? Which Government do I listen to? Which advice do I follow? Which guidelines are appropriate if I am out walking my dog? That is ridiculous. It is also not good enough for my constituents, or for any other constituent in any other part of the devolved nations. And for those organisations and companies that I mentioned earlier, any uncertainty is a potential recipe for disaster. In Scotland, our businesses have now had more than eight years of debate about our future. Will our economy be in an independent Scotland? Will our economy be in the UK? Will we be part of the European Union or not? All the uncertainty they have had to deal with seems small now in comparison to the emergency that is Covid-19.
I would ask both our Governments to work together, so that our airports and our airlines, which are so vital to our economy, are able to build a strategy in which they know that they will be speaking to not just the devolved authority but the UK authority and wider authorities, so that companies like Diageo, based here in Edinburgh West, know which framework they are falling into, and the people of Edinburgh West, Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom have a clear path- way out of this crisis—a clear, united pathway, with their Governments walking in lockstep for everyone’s future.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
It is nice to have the chance to put on record my thanks to constituents in Bosworth and the key workers. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote to the GPs, the pharmacies, indeed the police, the schools, the care homes, to congratulate them on the work they are doing, and continue to do. I am most grateful for all that they do.
It is fair to say that the virus reaches all areas of our lives, and in turn all areas of Government, and that brings pain—pain with the loss of businesses, pain with the loss of jobs, but, most importantly, pain with the loss of lives. However, out of crisis comes opportunity, and there are some positives. I would like the Government to take those forward. I envisage that in the form of a time-limited department called the “department of virus legacy”.
At the end of April, I wrote to the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister, because I think it is so important, as we have heard in these debates, to encapsulate and draw on all the positive aspects that have come out of this crisis. We have had a revolution overnight, rather than the usual evolution. In my sector as a GP, literally overnight everyone has begun teleconferencing. That is something that the industry has tried to do for over a decade, and has not been able to achieve—and just like that, it has happened.
Pharmacies are now all digital, with electronic prescribing. In my role on the Health and Social Care Committee, I asked all the witnesses we have had what positive aspects had come out of this. Those in cancer care talked about how they were able to bring 10 teams into one hospital to deal with a patient, and maternity talked about the fact that they have actually had more contact because they can do remote teleconferencing. It is the same with mental health. There are positives out there, and that is just in the sector that I come from.
More widely, we have looked at remote working. We have looked at the societal benefits of now knowing your neighbour, caring for your neighbour and caring for your community. These are absolutely critical things, which we need to embed into our society. To do that, I urge the Government to consider establishing such a department.
Legacy planning, as we found in the Olympics, is absolutely critical. Now more than ever we have the time-limited opportunity to enshrine, post virus, the positive changes in the fabric of our policies and, in turn, our Government and society. To the Minister listening I say, “I hope you will take this on board when you hold discussions with the rest of Government.”
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
I would like to begin by saying that nothing is more important than people’s lives, health and safety—nothing. Every death from covid-19 is a death too many. Every person or family suffering hardship right now is a person or family too many. No one is expendable.
Protecting people in the first and utmost duty of any Government, and the primary function of our economy should be to serve the interests of our communities. This is why so many of us are simply appalled by the Government’s statement on lifting coronavirus restrictions. Workers’ lives are being put at risk by the call for them to be pressured to return to work. It has further demonstrated that we have a callous, cold Government who have chosen to put big business above the welfare of the country—and above the people of my constituency, Poplar and Limehouse, who are already forced to endure the highest rate of child poverty in the entire country.
New local figures today show that Tower Hamlets residents of Asian background are twice as likely to be showing signs of covid-19, yet shockingly this is not news per se, but confirmation of what had already become increasingly clear. Many of us have been raising concerns about the disproportionate effect of covid-19 on black, Asian and minority ethnic people for weeks and weeks now—right since the onset of this crisis. The Government finally announced that they were launching a review of the impact of covid-19 on BAME communities, but what has actually happened since—what actual steps have been taken? I am forced to continue to say it again and again: urgent, immediate and robust steps must be taken to address the unequal health and economic impacts of covid-19 on black, Asian and minority ethnic groups—not tomorrow but today.
On top of this, we are seeing how the hostile environment has resulted in many migrants being left destitute and at greater risk of infection. Undocumented migrants, particularly in my constituency, are contacting me daily in despair, calling for an amnesty and support in order to survive.
I pay tribute to those delivering public and essential services, and especially to our NHS staff on the frontline, but it is clear that our public services as a whole are ill-prepared for dealing with this large-scale health risk because of spending cuts on a scale not seen for generations. Today, as we celebrate International Nurses Day, the Government should honour nurses with the pay rise they so desperately need. They should take urgent action to ensure the safety of public safety workers, particularly those in the NHS and care staff, and those from BAME backgrounds—because what do our tributes and gestures actually mean to those literally dying on the frontline?
Sadly, at least 65 education staff have died with coronavirus, of whom 43 were women and 22 were men, as of 20 April. How can the Government not see that schools must not be reopened until it is safe to do so? There has never been a more important time to either join or become active in a trade union when trade unions are forced to step in to take action against bosses who put their members’ health at risk. The unions will have our full and unwavering support. This includes supporting the National Education Union’s call for the Government to rethink their risky and dangerous approach.
It is truly shocking how the Government have dragged their heels every step of the way regarding the greatest health crisis of our generation. We have had to push for PPE, push for testing, and push for daily updates on covid-19 deaths so that older people are not airbrushed out of the death toll. Despite securing promises around testing and tracing, particularly in relation to the horror and tragedy of those in care homes, there is still much more to be done. Yet not only are the continued delays and lack of urgency incomprehensible, but there is talk about things going back to normal. The UK has suffered the second-highest number of recorded coronavirus deaths in the world and the fourth-highest number of recorded new cases in the world. Official figures confirm that the number of UK deaths during the coronavirus pandemic over and above normal levels has exceeded 50,000. Fifty thousand people have died—50,000 deaths. Now is clearly not the time to ease the lockdown, and I fear for us all if the Government continue with this risky and reckless disregard for people’s lives, wellbeing and safety.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Like so many Members who have spoken in the Chamber and by video link, I want to start by paying tribute to all the work that has been done in my constituency over the last few difficult months. In particular, I want to put on record my thanks to everybody at Chesterfield Royal Hospital who has dealt so brilliantly with such a challenging time, to the healthcare workers in the community, to the people working in our GP surgeries across the towns and villages of North East Derbyshire, to the pharmacists who have been in touch and are working hard, and to everybody working in our care homes and social care settings across north Derbyshire. My thanks go out to all those who are working so hard at this incredibly difficult time.
And it goes beyond that. I also want to thank the people working in our jobcentres in Chesterfield and Staveley, those who are helping in our schools to allow the sons and daughters of keyworkers to continue, and our local councils. Derbyshire County Council has been ensuring that the people who need to shield—of whom there are 1 million across the country—by staying out of the community for their own safety get the medicines and food that they need. North East Derbyshire District Council has done some wonderful work over the last few weeks, contacting those who are self-isolating to make sure that they get the support and help they need and to check up on people where necessary. I am incredibly grateful for all the work that has been done.
The little acts of kindness are particularly important, and I want to mention a few that have come through my inbox in the last few days alone—the PPE that is being created by Dronfield Henry Fanshawe School and St Mary’s at the moment; the pupils of New Whittington Community Primary School who have done a video to say thank you to their teachers; Mrs Shelagh Cheetham and her friends, who have made thousands of pieces of PPE for local hospitals and healthcare settings; and James Cutts from Wingerworth, who goes on his daily run around the village not in normal running wear but in a Batman or Superman suit, to cheer up local children when he goes past their windows. I am grateful for all that they are doing, and I hope that they continue.
In the time I have left, I want to spend a few moments looking at the broader challenge that we face. Members have raised many different questions today. Some are fair questions. Some, in my view, are unfair questions, but I understand why they are being asked. A series of broader truths has come forward over the past few weeks. We live in unprecedented times. There is no absolute certainty in decisions, and fundamentally, it reminds us all of the frailty of humanity. We think that we control our environment. Actually, our environment controls us. However brilliant our science, however able our politics and however fantastic our communities, ultimately, decisions are sometimes beyond us.
We have done so much over the past couple of months to get on top of this virus, and I am confident that we will do more in the coming days, weeks and months. This is the first pandemic in a century that we have had to deal with, and it is the first pandemic in a globalised world. We are seeking to do something that has never been done in the history of humanity: to turn back the tide of a pandemic and stop it overwhelming us. We have made huge progress, and I am grateful to everybody for the work they have done. Together, we will continue to do that work, and together, we will get through this, to a better world at the end.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to be beaming into the Chamber this afternoon. Like every other MP, I want to pay tribute to my community in Richmond Park and the way that they have stepped up to the challenge of coronavirus. On International Nurses Day, I want to talk in particular about the nurses at Kingston Hospital and those nurses and midwives who are taking time out from their training at the hospital to serve on the frontline. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts for everything that you are doing.
I also want to take this opportunity to highlight our transport sector and, in particular, the extraordinary contribution that our transport workers have made throughout this crisis. They have kept our buses and trains moving to get our frontline workers to their places of work, and they have had to face the same dangers. I pay tribute to the 29 Transport for London workers who have died during this crisis, including 23 bus drivers, and I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Belly Mujinga, a ticket checker at Victoria station who died after contracting coronavirus from a traveller who spat at her.
We are asking a huge amount of our transport workers. We are now asking them to keep us safe as we return to work. We can all appreciate how enormously difficult it will be to maintain social distancing on public transport, and I acknowledge the efforts of all those who will be charged with keeping us safe. With the support of MPs from across the House, I wrote to both the Secretary of State for Transport and the Mayor of London last week to call for PPE for transport workers to protect them as they go about their essential work. When we think of the families of those who have already died, we know that this is the very least we can do.
The Government need to think now about the future of our transport network. We have the opportunity that we have been waiting for to drive through real change to achieve a greener transport network and to meet the challenge of climate change. The massive drop of cars on our roads has led to massively increased air quality, and I know that this is a benefit that my constituents and those elsewhere will want to maintain. It was extremely encouraging to hear from the Secretary of State for Transport about his support and game-changing investment in cycling and walking solutions, not just for our cities, but for communities elsewhere. It is beyond time that the Government threw their support behind active travel for all the environmental, financial, mental, social and physical benefits that it offers to every traveller. It will be not just a crucial part of getting people back to work, but part of a long-term solution for our cities and towns as we adjust to the challenge of the climate emergency, because as long as we understand that we need to avoid public transport, our bus and train companies will continue to see a catastrophic loss of revenue. The Government need to start thinking now about how public transport networks can be maintained so that they are ready to support our workforce as they make a full return to work, as we all hope one day to do.
We also need to think long term about essential economic infrastructure and how we move freight around our country and internationally. Hauliers and the aviation industry are also facing disaster. They make an essential contribution to our critical supply lines, such as food and medicine, and we need to think long term about how we support those supply lines. I have been calling on the Government to address this; if they feel that it is necessary to support those industries with a Government bail-out, this is the opportunity we have been waiting for to force the pace on meeting the challenge of climate change and to ask those industries to really start embedding greener forms of fuel and movement into their industries.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this most important debate. Covid-19 is a devastating enemy and it is right that parliamentary time should be given to debate its causes and effects. Given that so many people remain on the frontline, I wish to pay my own tribute to key workers right across the UK and beyond who continue to serve others. I also wish to pay my respects to the families and friends of those who have been so gravely affected.
In my constituency, I have been proud to witness the superb provision of life support to those in isolation. Within Wokingham borough, the hub at St Crispin’s leisure centre has been a beacon of community spirit, and I have been privileged to deliver food to families who cannot venture out. Well done to everyone at Wokingham citizens advice bureau, Link and all the volunteers, who have done so much. In Bracknell, many others have come together to support Healthwatch Bracknell Forest and involve Community Services. I say thank you to them and to both Wokingham Borough Council and Bracknell Forest Council for underwriting this vital provision, and for their fiscal responsibility.
As for central Government, there has been a commendable and entirely conditions-based approach to the pandemic. The word “unprecedented” is often overplayed, but it is quite true that there is no policy precedent for covid-19 and the Government have rightly needed to feel their way on medical and scientific advice. Now is not the time for media hysteria, nor for political point scoring. Indeed, the time for a public inquiry will come and the benefit of hindsight is a powerful weapon, but it is time for an incremental approach to easing the lockdown, based upon common sense. As I stated yesterday, it is not down to the UK Government to regulate every aspect of people’s lives, nor is it for the media to seek definitive clarity on every permutation of what we can and cannot do. It is in fact for us as individuals to follow the guidelines, maintain social distancing, respect others and hence prevent further loss of life.
In the short time I have left, I urge the Government to think carefully about further mitigation in key areas. First, the decision to impose 14 days of quarantine upon entry to the UK by air will have a devastating effect on individuals, businesses, our global ambitions and the airline industry, particularly in constituencies such as mine that are closely to major airports. At a time when we need the economy to start breathing again, we must consider whether testing before or immediately after arrival will suffice, and ensure that we do not disincentivise air travel. Getting our children back into schools and our staff back into work is also essential. For our country to pay for our public services and enviable support measures, we need to re-stimulate the wealth creation that comes from a vibrant economy. Although many in the Cabinet are conflicted, it is our duty to keep people safe, while we also ease lockdown, and I believe that social distancing remains the key. If people are given the personal responsibility to ensure that the virus does not spread, we will all be able to carry on with our lives as before.
Lastly, formalised testing arrangements need to be rolled out more widely into care homes. Councils need to know whether they will be reimbursed in full for the expenditure incurred as a result of covid-19. We must find a reliable antibody test, and of course money can be no object in our exhaustive hunt for a vaccine.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
I wish to put on record my warmest thanks to all our doctors, nurses and care workers here in Bath, to the police and emergency services, key workers and council workers, and to everybody else who has helped us keep going during lockdown.
The covid pandemic has forced us all to change our lives in ways we would not have imagined only a few months ago. In all of the hardship and tragedy of this time, one of the brightest points has been the improvement in our air quality, because many fewer cars are on the road. As we have adjusted to lockdown, many people have commented that they have thought about the benefits of talking a walk or going for a bike ride, because it is much more relaxing and there is more time to reflect. Walking and cycling contribute greatly to our wellbeing. We have talked at length about social distancing measures and the space we need to give each other when we are socially distancing. In this country, safety has always been a barrier to cycling, but now, as our towns and cities are less congested, cycling has become a much safer option. Of course, we want to restart the economy as soon as it is safe to do so, but when we do we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to look at our streets with fresh eyes. We need to think about what did and did not work before lockdown, and at what we want to achieve as we put in place the conditions for a new normal.
For decades we have been overdependent on cars, and that must change. I have also spoken before about the need to tackle emissions from surface transport. We have been having these discussions in my city of Bath, which has suffered from severe air pollution, for many months now. As we slowly emerge from lockdown, we need to look at ways to avoid a dramatic resurgence in car use, particularly as many people may be nervous about using public transport. Other countries are already looking at ways to rebalance the priority given to cars over cyclists and pedestrians in urban areas, through segregated cycle lanes, speed reduction zones or new and widened pavements. I welcome the Transport Secretary’s new guidance to local authorities. Early action will be crucial, in order to embed changes in behaviour This is a great moment for change, and we must ensure that our economic recovery is focused on the need to get to net zero.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I now call the shadow Secretary of State to wind up for the Opposition and ask that he speaks for no more than eight minutes.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard many fine speeches over two days, and I hope Members will forgive me for not being able to mention them all. Throughout this outbreak, our paramount concern has been to save lives and minimise harm. That means suppressing the virus, not managing its spread. We are tracking towards one of the worst death tallies in the world, with more than 40,000 deaths, every one a tragedy, and this House cannot ignore the disproportionate impact the virus is having on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities—a thorough inquiry is a necessity. Today’s debate is not an inquest. No doubt there will have to be, in the future, a full and proper public inquiry, with access to an abundance of material and data. However, the Government must understand the concern, grief and anguish of our constituents who have lost loved ones or suffered great harm.
Ministers should expect searching questions. For example, did we enter lockdown too late? Ministers tell us they were following the science, but a SAGE paper from February on social distancing concedes:
“It is a political decision to consider whether it is preferable to enact stricter measures at first…or to start with fewer measures”.
As the Chair of the Health Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), said yesterday,
“Ministers have to take responsibility for their decisions.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 59.]
This virus exploits ambivalence. It demands clear public health messaging. Points about confused messaging have been made eloquently throughout the debate, but fundamentally the point is that nobody should be asked to go to work or send their children to school without it being safe to do so, and many do not believe that the Prime Minister’s instructions on Sunday evening yet meet that test. The Government must work with the TUC to ensure that strict safety measures are in place. No worker should be forced to put their health at risk. I hope the Minister can tell the House what the impact of asking people to go back to work will be on the R0.
The lockdown has been a powerful tool to bring down transmission, and easing lockdown too soon risks a dangerous second wave, with unacceptable further loss of life, so we support its continuation. But lockdown has a cost. It has an economic cost, certainly. It has a detrimental cost for children who spend months out of school; UNICEF has warned that children are not the face of this pandemic but risk being among its biggest victims. It also has a cost for health. We talk about protecting the NHS, but the extra surge capacity in the NHS has been built on the back of 2 million operations cancelled, cancer treatment delayed, unquantifiable mental health problems left to fester, and falling A&E attendance. There will indeed be long-term mortality and morbidity as a consequence of this lockdown. Ministers need to fund the NHS for that growing burden of unmet clinical need.
However, we cannot leave the lockdown safely unless thorough public health measures are in place. We need case finding, testing, tracing and isolation, which have been vital to the success of nations such as South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Testing and surveillance are crucial to properly understanding prevalence and the estimates of the R0.
The former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), put it well yesterday when he said:
“A lack of testing has caused a lack of data, which has meant that too many of our policy decisions have been taken with a self-imposed blindfold.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 84.]
I agree. We were doing tracing in February, and then we abandoned it on 12 March. It took until 29 April for adverts to start appearing to recruit tracing call centre staff, a service that is to be handed over to the private sector. I do not believe that that tracing should be done by Serco. Instead, we must use the expertise in local public health services, our environmental health officers and our strength in primary care, and GPs should routinely be sent the test results of their patients.
Given the levels of significant asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, we need a proper targeted testing strategy too. All healthcare workers must be screened regularly. A study by Imperial suggested that that would reduce transmission in healthcare settings by up to a third. Because Office for National Statistics data show higher mortality in more deprived areas, with those in lower-paid occupations at greater risk, inequalities in accessing testing must be stamped out, and people must be provided with the means to self-isolate. That should include making use of hotel rooms and providing decent, more generous statutory sick pay if people cannot isolate at home.
We need to take other public health measures too. We support the quarantining of arrivals for 14 days at airports, but why did the Government not implement that earlier, and why is there still a lag in enforcing it? I am sure I am not the only Member struck by the curious irony that a party that promised to take back control of borders has conspicuously failed hitherto to enforce any border restrictions at a time of a devastating global pandemic.
We need to minimise outbreaks in vulnerable settings. Exercise Cygnus warned about the risks in care homes. The Government document published yesterday proclaimed that
“the Government will continue to bolster the UK’s social care sector”.
Today we learned of 8,312 tragic deaths in care homes. Why did Government official guidance until 12 March say:
“It remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected”?
Why were patients discharged from hospital and transferred into the hands of social care without a test? And why still today, when we know that all staff and residents should be tested, are the Government promising to deliver that testing only by 6 June, a month away? This is not swift action. In many ways it looks like utter negligence.
Today is International Nurses Day and many will light a candle or shine a light from their windows at 8.30 pm to thank and pay tribute to every nurse. We will remember them and every health and care worker who has paid the ultimate sacrifice to this horrific disease. Our NHS staff and care staff, many of whom are exhausted and fearing burn-out, need more than Thursday evening clapping. They need our full support, safe staffing ratios, PPE and decent fair pay. They have been asked to give so much. They too often get so little in return. We hope that they are recognised for their true worth at the end of all this.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries) [V]
Coronavirus presents the most serious public health emergency that our nation has faced for a generation. I thank Members for the many contributions made in this debate, which have showed vividly the impact that the pandemic has had on our constituents and our country as a whole. Today, on the international day of the nurse and as a former nurse myself, I echo the sentiments of Members and express my gratitude for the crucial work and commitment to duty shown by our nurses everywhere in all that they are doing to care for others at this important time.
With regard to the devolved Administrations, we have taken a four-nation approach and have worked closely with the devolved Administrations every step of the way, but, as the Prime Minister set out, part of that four-nation approach will be acknowledging that the virus may be spreading at different speeds in different parts of the UK. I assure the House that at all times we will be guided by the science, which the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) has himself just mentioned.
On the science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) queried the 2-metre distancing rule. Modelling data supports the view that large droplets expelled during breathing and talking, which are the main droplets associated with respiratory viruses, in the main drop to the ground within a 2-metre radius of a person. The distribution of droplets is influenced by a very large number of factors, including humidity, temperature, ventilation, velocity, size and composition of the droplets. There is general agreement that large droplets are unlikely to spread beyond 2 metres.
Members have raised the benefits for the green economy and our environment and the increase in wildlife and cleaner air. As people return to work, we have encouraged flexible working. We have asked people to work from home if they can, and to get to work by foot or by bicycle, which is a greener way to travel.
Several hon. Members have raised the impact of coronavirus on BAME communities. It is critical that we find out which groups are most at risk so that we can take the right steps to protect them and minimise that risk. We have commissioned Public Health England to better understand the different factors that may influence the impact of the virus on these communities.
We have also heard widespread support from across the House for our care sector. We have overhauled the way PPE is delivered to the care sector, ensured that residents and staff are tested and have supported local authorities with £3.2 billion of additional funding to help frontline care services.
Another common theme during this debate was the supply of PPE. It is important to recognise that there have been real challenges in this area, given the sudden and high global demand for those products and the need to establish new supply chains from scratch. Despite that, since the beginning of the pandemic, we have still managed to deliver more than 1.2 billion items of PPE. We are continuing to source more PPE through our new Make strategy, which is headed up by Lord Deighton.
We also heard several contributions about testing. The Government’s ultimate goal remains that anyone who needs a test should be able to access one and we will continue to expand our capacity until that is achieved. As our capacity has continued to increase, we are now able to test all essential workers and those who are unable to work from home and everyone over 65 and members of their households, if they have symptoms. We are also ramping up testing for NHS staff and patients and social care staff and care home residents, both with and without symptoms.
Some have suggested that Public Health England should have involved private testing companies earlier. Unlike some countries, we did not enter this crisis with a major private diagnostics manufacturing industry to call on. However, over a very short period of time we have seen our life science companies and pharmaceutical giants step up. Working with our world-leading but smaller diagnostic companies, they have built an impressive British diagnostic industry at scale.
Some Members asked about the transparency of scientific advice. At all times during this pandemic, we have been consistently guided by the scientific advice. All advice put to the Government by SAGE has been published online and the membership has also been published online.
Members asked about returning to school and pay for key workers. I note that that will be covered in a debate tomorrow. However, there are ongoing discussions on the issue of schooling. We will be setting out detailed guidance on that shortly. Regarding pay for key workers, we are incredibly proud of our social care workers and are determined to do everything we can to show them that they are valued. The national minimum wage and living wage apply across social care, and we expect local authorities to work with providers to determine a fair rate of pay.
The healthcare situation regarding non-coronavirus patients has been raised. Thanks to the efforts of NHS staff and the success of social distancing, the NHS has not been overwhelmed. We have been able to start the reopening of several important NHS services, for example fertility services. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage anyone who needs urgent care to seek help as they normally would do. If you experience chest pain, feel a lump or have any health worry whatever, please come forward and seek help.
Members paid tribute to the NHS workers who lost their lives. Nothing can replace the loss of a loved one, but we want to do everything we can to support families who are dealing with this grief. We have recognised the sacrifice that health and care workers are making by setting up a life assurance scheme for NHS and social care frontline colleagues who contract coronavirus during the course of their work.
Members rightly stressed the need to avoid a second peak of cases. The Prime Minister reiterated that we will not make major changes to the lockdown rules until we are confident that we can avoid a significant second peak of infections.
Members raised the issue of support for the charity sector. Last month, the Chancellor announced that charities would receive a £750 million package of additional Government support.
Every single Government Department is engaged in tackling coronavirus. As the Minister with responsibility for mental health, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all mental health trusts. The Government recognised the mental health impact of covid-19 very early in the pandemic and the support has been there for those affected, including the rapid establishment of 24-hour open access telephone lines for those in need of urgent support, and, in addition to that, a confidential helpline to support the health and wellbeing of frontline workers who have also been affected. The NHS is there for everyone and continues to provide the very best care for all.
This has been an important debate that starkly confirms the impact of coronavirus on all our lives. I am grateful for all the points raised today. I can assure the House that the Government are committed to defeating this invisible killer once and for all.
Mr Speaker
Before I put the Question, I remind hon. Members that the Question is to be decided by a remote Division in accordance with my provisional determination announced earlier. There is therefore no need for me to collect the voices or for Members present in the Chamber to shout Aye or No. The Clerk will initiate the Division on the MemberHub and Members will be invited to record their votes using the remote voting system. Hon. Members will have 15 minutes to record their votes.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a remote Division.
Mr Speaker
The remote voting period has now finished. I will announce the result of the Division shortly.
We will now proceed to the next business.
Hybrid Proceedings (Extension of Temporary Orders)
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I have not selected the amendment.
I call the Leader of the House, who is asked to speak for no more than five minutes.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I beg to move,
That the Orders of 21 April (Hybrid scrutiny proceedings (Temporary Orders)) and 22 April (Hybrid substantive proceedings (Temporary Orders) and Remote voting (Temporary Orders)) shall have effect until 20 May 2020.
The motion extends the decisions of the House on 21 and 22 April to allow the continuation of remote participation in proceedings of the House and remote voting until the Whitsun recess on 20 May. I shall not dwell on the detail of those motions, but rather use my time to explain, briefly, the reason for their extension.
The current arrangements have allowed scrutiny of the Government to continue and, remarkably, remote voting to be carried out for the first time today. The motion allows the House to agree a short extension to the current arrangements. The Government have been consistent in saying that the arrangements are temporary. As yesterday’s Command Paper set out, it is only right that Parliament has set a national example of how businesses can continue in these circumstances. We have done so admirably, thanks to the patience and commitment of both staff and Members, and will continue to do so until the Whitsun recess, but it is clear that soon Parliament must set an example for how we move back, gradually, to a fully functioning country again. Our constituents would expect nothing less.
Although we must move in step with public health guidance, it is vital that when we are asking other people to work and to go to their places of work if they cannot do so from home, we should not be the ones who are exempt from that. Indeed, we should be leading by example. It is my expectation that I will not have to renew the temporary Standing Orders again. I am grateful to the House for developing the temporary procedures, and for the immense amount of work by staff here to make the arrangements work. However, it is my belief that this House cannot be as effective in carrying out its constitutional duties without Members being present. Debates are inevitably stilted; they lack interventions. I cannot think of any previous occasion when I have spoken for so long without receiving any interventions. I begin to fear that I am boring the House, and I can think of no greater sin.
Mr Rees-Mogg
No, I am not allowed to give way under the current arrangements.
Debates are inevitably stilted and time is restricted by the understandable limits of the technology—although the people operating the technology have done a truly fantastic job in getting us to where we are. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know that the feeling is shared across the House. All these factors restrict our ability to conduct effective scrutiny and to pass the volume of legislation required by the Government. I therefore think it essential that we move back to physical ways of working as quickly as possible.
I understand that some Members have concerns about how long we keep these measures in place, and that is why it is so important that we agree only a short extension. It is essential that we move back to physical proceedings as soon as practicable in order that this House can do what it does best: the cut and thrust of debate and the flexibility to hold the Government to account and to legislate on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Leader of the House, who is asked to speak for no more than 5 minutes.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab) [V]
May I thank the Leader of the House for setting out the Government’s position? The motion before the House today will mean that the temporary orders of 21 and 22 April have effect until 20 May, which is until we rise for the Whitsun recess. The hybrid scrutiny proceedings, the questions, statements and urgent questions, the substantive proceedings which apply to legislation and the remote voting, which was tested earlier, will continue to operate for what is effectively a week and a day.
The hybrid proceedings in the House seem to have progressed. I know that right hon. and hon. Members are becoming expert at talking to themselves, effectively. As the Leader said earlier, there are no interventions. We have had a vote, and I want to place on record my thanks to the Procedure Committee, which published its report on 8 May. It has informed the process, and I will pick out a couple of points it made. It was satisfied with the “robustness and security” of the system and the safeguards in place to allow you, Mr Speaker, to intervene where you felt there was cause for concern. In all the practice sessions, I have voted successfully. I voted, was informed that I had voted and received a text to that effect.
These are temporary orders. We want to be here in Parliament, but we want to make sure that everyone is safe. Many Members are finding it frustrating that they cannot ask supplementary questions or even intervene, and there is no scope for debate. The essence of parliamentary debate is the fact that we are listening to each other and can take part in those debates. Similarly with Back-Bench debates and Adjournment debates, we find it difficult to raise issues on behalf of our constituents, but the orders are only until 20 May.
In any event, it should not take a crisis such as this pandemic to make sure that we reform ourselves, and I hope some of the new procedures that have been brought into effect might be carried over. I place on record the remarkable feat that has been undertaken by the Clerks, the staff of the House, the broadcasting unit and the digital services all working together. If they were producing a car, that car would have gone from zero to 100 mph in about five seconds. It has been absolutely amazing. Mr Speaker, you have ensured that that has all progressed. The Opposition are grateful to all those people. It showed that Parliament could continue and safely, so Her Majesty’s Opposition support the motion.
Mr Speaker
I call Karen Bradley, Chair of the Procedure Committee, who is asked to speak for no more than three minutes.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
This is my first contribution under the hybrid proceedings. It was a shock to me not to be bobbing up and down to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, but of course we do not do that anymore, because we have equality of treatment between people in the Chamber and those who are contributing virtually.
I put on record a thank you to everybody who has been involved in allowing Parliament to restart, Members to contribute from wherever we are in the country and all Members to be part of proceedings. I know what a mammoth task it has been to develop the proceedings that we have and to allow people to be able to contribute virtually, as well as physically in the Chamber. I thank you, Mr Speaker, in particular for the work that you have done leading on that very important matter.
There is no doubt that the situation we are in today is sub-optimal, given the lack of interventions and spontaneity and the restrictions on the period for which the House can sit. These are not issues anyone wishes for; there are technical reasons why we cannot sit for more than two hours at a time and need breaks to allow the technology to be reset. We have to agree, however, that given that it was from a standing start, what we have brought into place has been remarkably successful, albeit that we all agree that it is not as effective as the physical presence of Members in Westminster who can do the jobs that they were elected to do here in Parliament.
It is also important to make the point that these will be decisions for the House. These are decisions that the House will make, and it will be for Members to decide what they want to see happen in the future. I welcome the fact that the orders are being renewed, and I want to remind Members that the Procedure Committee is holding an inquiry at the moment and would welcome contributions from Members, particularly in light of the announcement from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the intention not to renew the orders after 20 May. It will be very important that we hear from Members. I also know, Mr Speaker, that in any event you and the teams in the House service are looking to improve how we manage this, including the fact that we have gone from a 30-minute break to a 15-minute break and are looking to have longer for scrutiny.
The Procedure Committee supports the renewal of the motions today and we look forward to looking further at the work that is going on and to hearing from Members.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
I begin by acknowledging the efforts of our staff in digital services and elsewhere. They have worked tirelessly—[Inaudible.] But let us not pretend that these things are ideal, or that we have made the fullest use of the technology available to us.
As I have said before—[Inaudible]—this gives Parliament the opportunity for Members to join remotely, if they can. The entire enterprise is centred on a meeting in the House of Commons Chamber, which means that whether we like it or not there is a division between those who are present and those who are not. This creates two classes of Members and it disadvantages those who join remotely. This is, of course, compounded by the fact that the final link in the digital chain is a domestic broadband connection that often fails, leaving Members unable to participate fully or at all. The way around this would be to take proceedings wholly online and to have a virtual meeting, as has happened in many other legislatures, including the national Parliament in Scotland. This creates a level playing field with everyone getting the same access, so I cannot understand why there is such resistance even to trying it on a pilot basis while we have the technology in situ.
The fact that things are not working as well as they might should provide an impetus for improvement, innovation and development. Sadly, though, there are some who experience schadenfreude at the imperfections of the current system. Their conclusion is to abandon it altogether. The constant insistence that these measures are only temporary and the hankering after getting back to how things used to be undermine the efforts of those who are trying to live in the 21st century.
I, too, hope that the public health emergency is temporary, but I want to see what part of these necessary arrangements can be used to improve our procedures in the long term. One of these is the process of voting. It seems that we have now perfected the technology to allow Members to vote in a manner that is safe, simple and secure, yet there are those who insist that we must be allowed to vote in the way that they always have, by queueing in a Lobby corridor and manually being counted by a Clerk. They want to do this no matter if it puts themselves, their colleagues and their staff at unnecessary risk. They think they are defending the right to vote, but in fact they are making a fetish out of a 19th century tradition rather than a democratic principle.
I say let us look at this through the other end of the telescope. If electronic voting works, why can it not be available to Members even when the emergency is over? Providing they sign in to the Estate, why not vote from their offices? Why not group votes together at the end of a session, making it quicker so that MPs have more time to discuss their constituents’ concerns rather than idling in corridors.
We should also change how we hold the Government to account. Today, our business comprises two statements, one urgent question and one debate, but all about the same thing. This is the way things used to be: different Departments doing different things, a multitude of concerns and each with their allotted slot. But everything has now changed. Now there is only one issue. All Departments are focused on the pandemic. Everything we do and say from now is conditioned by that reality, and it is time that we had a more ambitious approach to reforming how we discuss these things.
Finally, I note that we are being asked to agree this extension for one week, and I see later on the Order Paper that the Government intend to go ahead with the Whitsun recess. I ask the Government to consider the wisdom of this and how it will look to the public. If Ministers are encouraging people to go back to work, is this really the best time for MPs to have a holiday?
Mr Speaker
I remind Members that we have a lot of staff here who have been working under a lot of pressure, and that we should take them into consideration when we make statements.
Debate interrupted.
Remote Division: Covid-19
The House divided: - Ayes: 363 / Noes: 248 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I can now announce the result of the remote Division that has just taken place.
Question, That this House has considered Covid-19.
Hybrid Proceedings (Extension of Temporary Orders)
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The time limit for speeches is three minutes. I advise hon. Members who are speaking virtually to have a timing device visible.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Along with others, I pay tribute to your efforts, Mr Speaker, and to those of the House staff and the Procedure Committee, in bringing in these temporary virtual arrangements and putting into place the practical measures here in the House of Commons to improve safety for those who are present in person.
The virtual proceedings have served a purpose during the most acute stage of the crisis, but as the nation gradually returns towards normal life, as the Leader of the House rightly said, it is important that this place moves back towards normality at least at the same pace. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), which was not selected for technical reasons, sought to bring in hybrid voting mechanisms, and I thought that it was also an important recognition that we ought to be able to return gradually. Not only is this about the leadership that this House owes to the country; it is also, as has been said by both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, about the quality of scrutiny and the effectiveness of Parliament. So much of what we do here depends on personal contact—however socially distant—and on the ability of Ministers to sense the strength of feeling.
I strongly endorse the comments of the Leader of the House. I very much welcome his commitment to bringing this temporary measure to an end on 20 May. He may not know this, but I can tell him that that is my birthday. I am profoundly grateful for this early gift that he has promised me, and look forward to supporting it.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
May I place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and to all the staff across the House Commission and the Clerks for all the work that they have done? I have been intrinsically involved as a member of the Procedure Committee and as an Opposition Whip, so I have an inner knowledge of the scale of the work that has taken place, and am truly grateful for it.
It has already been made clear by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House that we are in favour of extending the motion. I am just confused by the announcement of the Leader of the House. May I ask when he planned to consult the Procedure Committee about not extending the motion? It would have at least been courteous, and up to now he has been extremely courteous in consulting the Committee. Would he approach the Chair of the Committee to ensure that we have perhaps a private discussion with him to understand his rationale?
What equality impact assessment has the Leader of the House done regarding Members being able to come back to the House, given that they may have childcare or caring responsibilities? Right across the UK, we have seen people struggling to go back to work following the Prime Minister’s announcement—in England, I stress, but not in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—because they do not have childcare provision.
What assessment has been made of Members’ health in order that they are able to come back into the Chamber? We cannot simply suggest that we can return on 1 June and that nothing changes. This Chamber is set up for 50 Members of Parliament. How does the Leader of the House propose to manage—in consultation with you, Mr Speaker—to ensure that the Chamber is usable for 641 voting Members? Is he suggesting that the Public Health England advice is going to change for the management of the Chamber? He did not make that clear.
May I also ask the Leader of the House what discussions he has had through the usual channels, or generally with the smaller parties, to explain his rationale for this announcement? It seems that we have jumped from having a procedure that is working—I accept that it is not pleasing everybody and that it is stifling some of the debate, but it is allowing for some scrutiny—to now saying that the House will return in June, when there has been no announcement about such a lifting of restrictions across all the nations of the UK. The Prime Minister, despite ignoring advice from the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Governments, said that he would respect the advice given from those nations.
Are Members from those nations expected not to come to the House? I speak as a Welsh Member who has checked to make sure that I can come here, but the advice in Scotland could well be different. What will happen with travel arrangements for Northern Irish Members? In the earlier transport statement we heard from Members about the pressures on air travel. With great respect to the Leader of the House—I genuinely mean that, because he has been truly courteous to the Committee in recent weeks—I ask him to explain in more detail how, with literally two weeks to go, the practical management of the Chamber, including in the Lobby and indeed where we are now, will work.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
As Chair of the Administration Committee, I have the great pleasure of working closely with you, Mr Speaker, and the wonderful members of the House staff who made this hybrid Parliament a reality. They are to be congratulated and celebrated for their efforts. This is a technically brilliant fix. However, when it comes to holding the Government to account—and the Opposition—it is absolutely hopeless. We need to be in this place, eyeballing Government Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers and holding them to account. When we are not in this Chamber, we need to be discussing and transacting our constituents’ business in the Division Lobby, the corridors and around the Estate. This is where Parliament should be.
I am afraid that we are in danger of bringing ourselves into disrepute. I sat through part of the last debate and saw a co-ordinated and, yes, legitimate attack from our colleagues north of the border on the Prime Minister because he had asked people to return to work. I point out to those colleagues north of the border that, whether they like the Prime Minister or not, and whether they respect him or not, he is not asking anyone to do something he is not doing himself. Whether or not they approve of what he is doing or what he says, day in and day out he is going into work to lead the country. He did that day in and day out except when he was ill.
It does show a lack of self-awareness to sit in your front room and attack the leader of this country for having the temerity to ask that people go back to work. We all have absolute heroes in our constituencies, working at the Co-Op, at Sainsbury’s, at Tesco, in our hospitals, driving our trains, policing our streets and clearing our rubbish. What right do we have to ask them—and teachers—to go back to work if we are sitting in the comfort of our own home, not leading from the front but directing operations from behind? At the end of the day, our constituents—not all of them, but most of them—will expect us to be here, promoting not ourselves or our own agenda but their agenda. There is an economic tsunami heading towards this country and the rest of western Europe. We need to be here day in, day out, in person—physically—protecting and promoting the interests of the people we represent.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
To pick up the point about our constituents’ expectations, I suggest that the constituents we all represent will expect us to order our business in a way that allows us all to contribute on an equal footing. That is the essence of how Parliament is supposed to function, and it must surely have a bearing on how we order our business going ahead.
I too add my thanks to those members of staff and others who have worked so hard to make these virtual proceedings technically possible, while I recognise their temporary nature and limitations. I hope, though, that we will see this as an opportunity to learn lessons and see what might be possible for the future, to show that as a Parliament we are able to accommodate those with caring responsibilities, who are on parental leave or who are suffering from illness, and to allow them to continue to represent their constituents as they would want to but for those limitations.
None of us knows what the future will hold over the next few weeks. If there is to be any suggestion of a renewal of these provisions, I make this plea to the Leader of the House: there should be proper and better consultation with the small parties than there was ahead of the implementation of these procedures. The smaller parties have been able to have a voice through them, but principally as a result of your good offices, Mr Speaker, and for that I place on the record my appreciation and that of my colleagues.
Let us not pretend that this has been an exercise in holding the Government to account in the way that we might normally have expected—and that is principally because of the attitude of the Government themselves. That is exemplified when we consider the Prime Minister’s statement to the nation on Sunday. That should have been made first here to this House; there would have been every opportunity to address the nation after that.
But the biggest limitation and my real concern is the range of business that the House is able to deal with. There are no Westminster Hall debates and the Backbench Business Committee is not functioning, but still the world continues to evolve. Israel is considering the annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories; we have very little opportunity to have a say on that. In Hong Kong, China is walking ever further from the joint declaration. These are all matters of great importance; whatever we do after the recess, this House must be allowed to have our voice in respect of all of them.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I do not take personally at all the fact that my amendment was not selected for debate; I appreciate that I might well need to choose a better modal verb if I am to resubmit it for any future motion.
A rumour is going around that I have been somewhat grumpy over these proceedings. I try my best to cheer people as I go around this place, but sometimes I fail, given the challenges I meet from some Members at least. However, I fully acknowledge the hard work and effort that has gone on—the Herculean effort—to ensure that at least some form of scrutiny and good work can continue in this House. That said, I am afraid that a virtual Parliament is, in comparison with normal times, virtually nothing. We should not be blinded by the technology as an end in itself.
I have made many a poor speech in this Chamber. Perhaps the one I am giving briefly this afternoon will rank among the worst, but at least it has been elevated by the surroundings in which we find ourselves, rather than being part of a series of disjointed monologues given in front of bad curtains. That is the image of Parliament being created today.
It is necessary for us to lead by example and return to our place of work. Many of our constituents are also anxious to do so, even with adaptations in their workplaces. I think of my father, a Hotpoint engineer, who has spent his time going around houses fixing washing machines, getting on with it quietly. It is a nonsense to assume that we can conduct our affairs sat in our living rooms. It is an insult to the public.
I know that certain procedural matters may be inconvenient to deal with at the moment, given these temporary Standing Orders, and I am not necessarily going to test them to their limits this afternoon, Mr Speaker, and leave you in an invidious position. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said. We must return at the pace—indeed, ahead of it, perhaps—that we expect of the rest of the country. But let us not delude ourselves into thinking that these provisions have in any way allowed us to scrutinise Government enough. Think about who welcomed them: those who wish to diminish the Westminster Parliament, as we have seen from some contributions so far, and, just perhaps, Ministers who quite enjoy a lack of scrutiny.
Mr Speaker
I call the Leader of the House to wind up the debate for the Government and request that his speech is no longer than two minutes.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for the support that this motion has and grateful to the shadow Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for all they have done in helping us to ensure that this has worked. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) made slightly the wrong point, because he said that we should be entirely virtual, and it became harder and harder to hear him as he said so. That is one of the reasons we need to come back, because the last bit of private wire may be the bit that cuts people off in their prime, and therefore being back would be advantageous.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) made some important points. I am always happy to speak to the Procedure Committee and have a discussion on how we look to do this. I will make one really important point, which is that there is a fundamental, absolute right of Members to attend this House. It dates back to 1340, and it is improper for anybody to molest any Member coming to this House. Regardless of any rules that there may be, the right to attend this House is a constitutional principle of which we should remind all Members. If we are back physically after the Whitsun recess, there should be no question of any Member being stopped from coming by any authority outside Parliament.
Our coming back will be based on advice from Public Health England and will maintain social distancing. Mr Speaker is working on how we will have Divisions under these circumstances, but I agree with those Members who have said that we have to lead by example. The rest of the country is being asked to go back to work where it cannot do so from home. That is clearly a position that we are in, and we must be alongside the whole of the rest of the country, as long as it is safe so to do.
Mr Speaker
I announced to the House earlier this afternoon my provisional determination that a remote Division would not take place on this motion. I am aware of some opposition to the motion, but I am not satisfied that the demand is sufficient to warrant a remote Division today. I say that bearing in mind that the House will return to this matter next week. My determination that the Question will be decided without a remote Division is final. I will collect voices in the usual way, but the voices will not and cannot trigger a remote Division. Reliance on the voices alone will not be considered with the principle of parity of participation. That is made clear in the new guidance issued to Members today, in which Members are asked to make submissions to my office in advance on whether it is necessary to hold a Division on the Question designated for remote Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)
Day 1 | Day 2 |
|---|---|
15 May 2020 | 12 June 2020 |
12 June 2020 | 26 June 2020 |
26 June 2020 | 10 July 2020 |
10 July 2020 | 11 September 2020 |
11 September 2020 | 16 October 2020 |
16 October 2020 | 30 October 2020 |
30 October 2020 | 27 November 2020 |
27 November 2020 | 15 January 2021 |
15 January 2021 | 29 January 2021 |
29 January 2021 | 5 February 2021 |
5 February 2021 | 5 March 2021 |
5 March 2021 | 12 March 2021 |
Committee of Privileges
Adjournment (Whitsun)
Adjournment
Written Statements
Covid-19: Job Retention Scheme
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government’s economic plan is one of the most comprehensive in the world.
We have provided:
Billions of pounds of grants and loans for businesses
Tens of billions of pounds of deferred taxes
Income protection for millions of the self-employed
And a strengthened safety net to protect millions of the most vulnerable people.
These schemes speak to my and this Conservative Government’s values. We believe in the dignity of work. And we are doing everything we can to protect people currently unable to work.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our plan for the next phase of the public health response. Today I can confirm the next stage of our jobs retention scheme.
The scheme has been a world-leading economic intervention, supporting livelihoods and protecting futures. Some 7.5 million jobs have been furloughed—jobs we could have lost if we had not acted. Nearly a million businesses who could have closed shop for good. And as we reopen the economy we will need to support people back to work. We will do so in a measured way.
I can announce the job retention scheme will be extended, for four months, until the end of October. By that point, we will have provided eight months of support to British people and businesses.
Until the end of July, there will be no changes whatsoever. From August to October the scheme will continue, for all sectors and regions of the UK, but with greater flexibility to support the transition back to work. Employers currently using the scheme will be able to bring furloughed employees back part time. And to change their incentives, we will ask employers to start sharing, with Government, the costs of paying people’s salaries.
Full details will follow by the end of May, but I want to assure people today of one thing that will not change: workers will, through the combined efforts of Government and employers, continue to receive the same overall level of support as they do now, at 80% of their current salary, up to £2,500. I am extending this scheme because I will not give up on the people who rely on it.
[HCWS229]
IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government have today augmented the UK’s 2010 agreement to lend to the International Monetary Fund’s poverty reduction and growth trust by a total of 2 billion special drawing rights (approximately £2.2 billion) to support economic recovery and response to covid-19 in the most vulnerable countries. This takes the total UK agreement to up to 4 billion special drawing rights (approximately £4.4 billion). A copy of the agreement will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses in due course.
[HCWS228]
Service Complaints Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the service complaints ombudsman’s annual report for 2019 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
This report is published by Nicola Williams—her last as ombudsman—and covers the fourth year of operation of the reformed service complaints system and the work of her office in 2019.
The findings of the report and the new recommendations made will now be considered fully by the Ministry of Defence, and a formal response to the ombudsman will follow once that work is complete.
[HCWS230]
Donation to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
It is the normal practice when a Government Department proposes to make a gift of a value exceeding £300,000, for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 27 January 2020 made a formal joint announcement of a donation by the UK Government of £1 million to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation. This donation reflects HMG’s strong commitment to Holocaust remembrance in this the 75th anniversary year of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The donation will be funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government at a cost of £500,000 each. This is a gift donation with no preconditions attached. There is however a precedent for this donation. In 2011 the then Foreign Secretary and then Communities Secretary announced a £2.15 million donation to the foundation over three years. The Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation was founded in 2009 and collects funding for the preservation and maintenance of the grounds and remnants of the former Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II Birkenau concentration camps, which are supervised by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Oświęcim, Poland. The proposed donation has a symbolic value; moreover, preserving Auschwitz-Birkenau contributes to the continuation of Holocaust education. Several thousand UK citizens visit Auschwitz-Birkenau each year and it provides a lasting memorial to the dangers of antisemitism, extremism and racism in general.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS227]
A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
This statement concerns the application for the A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order made by Highways England under the Planning Act 2008, which had been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 23 April 2019.
Under section 98(1) of the Planning Act 2008 the Examining Authority appointed to examine the application must complete its examination within six months. Under section 98(4) the Examining Authority must submit its recommendation report to the Secretary of State within three months of its completion of the examination. The examination began on 8 October 2019 and was due to close on 8 April 2020. The recommendation report would need to be sent to the Secretary of State on or before 8 July 2020.
Under section 107(1) of the Act, following receipt of the Examining Authority’s recommendation report, the Secretary of State must decide whether to grant development consent. A decision in this case would therefore be made on or before 8 October 2020.
Sub-sections 98(4) and 107(3) of the Act give the relevant Secretary of State power to set new deadlines in respect of the above which are later than the statutory maxima. For this application, the relevant Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for Transport. In exercising this power, the Secretary of State for Transport must, among other things, make a statement to Parliament announcing the new deadlines.
The deadline for the completion of the examination is to be extended to 8 September 2020 (an extension of five months) to enable examination hearings postponed in the light of Government advice concerning coronavirus (COVID-19) to be rescheduled and held in a virtual forum. Consequently, the deadline for the Examining Authority to submit its recommendation report to the Secretary of State for Transport is amended to 8 December 2020 and the deadline for the Secretary of State for Transport to take his decision is amended to 8 March 2021.
The decision to extend an examination under the Planning Act 2008 regime is not taken lightly and reflects the exceptional public health circumstances the country finds itself in.
The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant development consent.
[HCWS226]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I apologise for the slight delay, which was due to a technical issue with the transmission of information. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege and that what we say is available to the public both in Hansard and to those listening and watching. Members’ microphones will initially be set to mute, and the broadcasting team will unmute their microphone shortly before we reach their place in the speakers’ list. When Members have finished speaking, their microphones will again be set to mute. I ask everyone to keep questions and answers as brief as possible, so that we can reach as many on the list as we possibly can. Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions will now commence.
Covid-19: Vulnerable Populations
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the measures in place to protect vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, social distancing and shielding measures are in place to protect vulnerable and clinically extremely vulnerable populations. Those identified as clinically extremely vulnerable are advised to stay at home with no face-to-face contact until at least the end of June. Our approach is under continuous review. The Government’s position on shielding and social distancing reflects the latest SAGE and clinical advice from the Chief Medical Officer.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, every person with a learning disability has the right to be supported to live in their community, but Covid-19 is putting already-delayed in-patient transfers at risk. In March some 1,900 adults and 200 children were still locked away in in-patient units, the majority sectioned under the Mental Health Act and staying for five years in facilities intended to be short-term. Can the Minister share his department’s updated assessment of whether the Mental Health Act easements provided for in the Coronavirus Act will be required, now that the peak in infections has been passed and a plan for lifting restrictions is taking shape? Does he share concerns that these easements, if enacted, would risk the delivery of the care needed to support community living and the achievement of the goals set out in Transforming Care?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, asks a searching question. On whether the Mental Health Act easements of which she speaks have already been enacted, I will have to find out exactly what those arrangements are and write to her. However, I assure the House that the care of the most vulnerable is absolutely the Government’s number one, top priority. It is true that some of those caring and providing important pastoral care for the most vulnerable have been worst hit by Covid—the examples she gives are really good ones—but we are absolutely putting the care of the most vulnerable at the top of our priorities.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said of his road map:
“it is a plan that should give the people of the United Kingdom hope.”
But on examination of the plan, I see no hope offered to the clinically extremely vulnerable, who are just told that they must continue to shield beyond June. The Government offer only a future review into the effects on their well-being. Can the Minister say how and when this review will be conducted, and by who?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the advice from the Government is that the clinically extremely vulnerable should continue to be shielded until the end of June. That is under review at the moment. We are seeking to have more refined and more targeted guidance after the end of June, and we will publish that before the end of that month.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister reassure those healthy over-70s that they will not be obliged to self-isolate against their will? Will he also comment on evidence that many care homes were forced to admit Covid-19-positive patients, so causing this pandemic to spiral out of control in those homes?
Lord Bethell
I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are not obliging healthy over-70s to self-isolate. However, the guidance is clear: they are a vulnerable group and the disease targets those who are older. They are therefore advised to avoid all social contact, if necessary. That advice is based on the science of the disease, and we will seek ways of trying to ameliorate that once the disease has fallen back.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the most vulnerable are clearly the residents of care homes and their care workers? Will he confirm the very sad figures of, as I understand it, 10,000 deaths suffered in care homes? Will he also confirm that these figures have now been added to the total? Will the Government now prioritise care home workers for the full kit of PPE, to give them the utmost safety as they look after our most vulnerable people?
Lord Bethell
I reassure the House that deaths in care homes have always been part of the official figures. It is a very sad affair, and it shows how the disease attacks those who are most vulnerable. The arrangements for PPE in social care settings have improved dramatically, and we have put in place measures so that any care home can make its own application for PPE as it needs it.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
Will the Minister tell the House what advice or support local authorities have been advised to give to the more than 100,000 vulnerable adults aged over 70 caring for their adult children who have a learning disability?
Lord Bethell
The advice given to local authorities is spelled out in guidelines. Those who are vulnerable are advised to avoid social contact. Where necessary, those whom they live with, including any children they have with learning disabilities, should also avoid the same social contact.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register. Will my noble friend tell me what work has been done to ensure that public health messaging and advice on access to support for mental health and anxiety issues among the BAME community is easily available to those communities, particularly where they live in densely populated home environments?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, mental health advice is very clearly available, most of all from GOV.UK/coronavirus, where there is a huge amount of practical and pastoral advice, and access to resources.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. How will the Government ensure that emergency departments never again become the crowded places that they were, which act as a source of nosocomial infection—hospital-acquired infection—for the vulnerable and those caring for them, especially child carers, who might present with acute injuries, particularly once they are out and undertaking more activities?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, a strange and peculiar feature of the epidemic has been that accident and emergency wards are, surprisingly, below normal capacity since people have sought to avoid them because of the obvious threat of the disease. That said, nosocomial infection is of grave concern. It is an inevitable and frequent feature of any epidemic, but we are applying new ways of working and seeking to section off those with the disease to ensure that the infection does not spread in our hospitals and from there into the community.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to note that today is International Nurses Day. I pay tribute from these Benches to all our nurses, at home and all over the world, for their work and courage in these dark pandemic times. I will ask the Minister about testing in our care homes. On 15 April the Government announced that they were rolling out testing to all care workers. On 28 April they extended this scheme to all staff and residents in care homes. Could the Minister explain why, then, yesterday’s strategy document set a target of 6 June? Which is it? It looks like the Government failed to meet the promise to provide the tests on time and have now moved the goalposts again.
Lord Bethell
I share the noble Baroness’s celebration of Florence Nightingale Day, which is an important day for the nursing profession and for all of us. We have made huge progress on testing in care homes in the last three weeks. The new portal was made live on Monday and care homes are now massively supported by satellite care home facilities manned by the Army. I am not sure about the 6 June date of which she speaks, but I reassure the House that care home testing is the number one priority of our testing facilities and is benefiting from the large increase in capacity.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, over the course of this crisis we have seen substance misuse and mental health services adapt their provision to better support homeless people facing multiple problems. Could the Minister say what the Government, in particular the new homelessness task force, will do to ensure that these flexibilities remain in place?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is right to raise concern for the homeless—surely one of the groups suffering the most in the current epidemic. We are putting in place facilities for testing, housing and mental health support for the homeless. We envisage that these will continue for the length of the epidemic.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I fear that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Razzall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the operation of the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme for small- and medium-sized businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, as of 6 May, loans worth over £5.5 billion were issued under the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme for 33,812 businesses. The bounce-back loan scheme was launched on Monday 4 May, and nearly 160,000 loans, worth almost £5 billion, were approved in the first three days of the scheme’s operation. The Government continue to monitor the schemes and to work with the financial services sector to ensure that companies receive the full benefit from the support available.
Lord Razzall (LD)
Does the Minister accept that, although the number of loans is quite large, the number of SMEs receiving them as a proportion of the whole is relatively small? Is he concerned that, under the two existing schemes, banks are primarily lending only to people to whom they would have lent anyway in normal times? This is particularly hitting the hospitality and retail sectors.
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord is right that only a relatively small proportion of the total number of SMEs have applied for or received loans. However, it is important to remember that not all businesses want loans, and of course other government support schemes are also available to help them through the crisis.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have to ease people back to work safely, increase the flow of funding to SMEs and avoid scarring unemployment. SMEs employ 60% of private sector workers, and many are now critically dependent on both government-backed loans and job retention schemes. Withdrawing these measures too soon when their very purpose is to keep jobs and businesses going will undermine them. When will the Government publish their road map for phasing out the CBILS and job retention schemes, and what impact will that have on structural employment and the longer-term stimulus package for SMEs?
Lord Callanan
The Government will continue to monitor and review all their business support schemes and make changes where necessary. I am sure that the noble Baroness has noticed that this afternoon the Chancellor will be making a Statement in the House of Commons on the job retention scheme and the Government’s wider economic coronavirus support package. I am sure that she will get more information then.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, under the bounce-back scheme, interest is charged at 2.5%, but under CBILS lenders are charging considerably more. At the same time, banks are paying savers interest of less than 1%. My noble friend Lord Razzall talked about the small number of SMEs taking up loans under the scheme. Does the Minister agree that banks have a different idea of “We are all in it together” compared with the rest of the population?
Lord Callanan
No, I do not accept that criticism of the banks. They have worked extremely hard, as have the British Business Bank and the department, to try to get as many loans approved as possible for businesses that want them. The Government are—certainly through the bounce-back scheme—supporting 100% of the amount of those loans. Therefore, a lot of work is going on in all the sectors to try to help the businesses that require support.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I strongly commend the Government for their support for business during this crisis. Can my noble friend give more detail of the operation of both the business interruption scheme and the bounce-back scheme in Northern Ireland, which is predominantly an SME economy? Will there be regular updates on the number of successful applications, along with their value? Is he aware of concerns among some big players, including the Bank of Ireland, that they have yet to be accredited for the bounce-back scheme? Finally, has any assessment been made of support available in the Republic of Ireland and how it compares with what is on offer to business in Northern Ireland?
Lord Callanan
I know that my noble friend takes a close interest in matters in Northern Ireland. These schemes are available to businesses across all regions of the UK, and many lenders acting in Northern Ireland have received accreditation. However, we are working to get more lenders fully accredited as quickly as possible. Fourteen lenders have now been accredited for the bounce-back loan scheme and we are seeking to get more approved as quickly as possible.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
Smaller companies will rely on the future fund for support, yet the Government have said that companies are required to have already raised £250,000 to be eligible. This will put both diverse funders and locations outside of the south-east at an enormous disadvantage. How will the Minister ensure that the future fund will neither deepen existing inequalities nor perpetrate new ones, particularly when, as I understand it, all 13 advisers to the fund are men?
Lord Callanan
We have introduced a comprehensive package of measures designed to support any business facing difficulties in this period, including the various loan schemes and grants and support for the self-employed. Start-ups may be able to access CBILS or the bounce-back loan scheme if they fulfil the eligibility criteria. We keep them constantly under review to ensure that as many businesses as possible receive the support that they need.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, unlike the pubs that they supply, most of our small breweries are not eligible for grants or business rate relief. As a consequence, over half of them have not been able to access any financial help from the Government. Two-thirds have stopped brewing completely and there have been many redundancies. Will the Minister agree to meet urgently with officers from the small independent brewers association to see whether a satisfactory solution can be found to this problem?
Lord Callanan
Small breweries are a subject close to many of our hearts. We are responding rapidly to feedback to ensure that all eligible businesses, including breweries, can feel the full benefit of support that is available through the package. I would be very happy to join the noble Lord in meeting representatives if that is required.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I do not expect the Minister to agree with me but it seems to the business community that the business interruption loan scheme has largely failed SMEs because the banks were not prepared to take the risk. Now, the Government are taking the risk with taxpayers’ money through the bounce-back scheme but small businesses applying for a bounce-back loan are still expected to take the full risk, which many are hesitant to do. What difference to take-up do the Government estimate that the introduction of the bounce-back scheme will make?
Lord Callanan
As I said in an earlier answer, a huge number of loans have been approved—160,000 in the first three days of the scheme—so I am afraid that many small businesses do not agree with the noble Baroness.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
CBILS is much criticised for being slow due to the many checks. This approach is much more suitable for equity investment. Will the Government create such a vehicle instead, to help create new ways of working and particularly to help those firms already overloaded with debt?
Lord Callanan
As I said in earlier answers, there are a number of different support packages besides CBILS, including the furlough and direct grant schemes. A number of supports are in place for all businesses. I do not accept that the systems have been slow to operate. As I said, 160,000 loans were approved under the bounce-back scheme in the first few days of operation.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my interests as listed on the register. I congratulate the Government on their package of measures to support both businesses and individuals during this difficult period but, as my noble friend the Minister will appreciate, time is of the essence for businesses. Does he therefore have an average figure for the time between applications for business investment and bounce-back loans and the arrival of funds into company accounts? Secondly, on the furlough scheme, I understand there will be an announcement later today by the Chancellor. Has any consideration been given to the minimum furlough period for employees and whether it would be appropriate for a more flexible approach to be taken for those companies—many businesses—which are working week-on, week-off to cope with ad hoc business conditions?
Lord Callanan
I can tell my noble friend that many bounce-back loans are being approved within a day. We are getting the money out to companies as quickly as possible. I am sure she will understand that I do not want to give out information in advance of what the Chancellor might say in Parliament this afternoon.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, ethnic minority business owners have historically found it more difficult to access bank loans and other finance. In many cases, they operate microbusinesses where they would have to be almost a prophet to accurately forecast their profit. Have the difficulties faced by ethnic-minority business owners been factored in?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord raises a good point but CBILS is open to businesses across all sectors in all parts of the country. We continue to monitor and review the implementation of all our loan schemes and we will not be slow to make any necessary changes. If the noble Lord has any specific information about difficulties being experienced by ethnic-minority businesses, I would be very happy to see it.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Schools: Relationships and Sex Education
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ability of schools to deliver the new compulsory elements of relationships and sex education curriculum from September 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have worked extensively with schools, teachers and experts throughout the development of these subjects. This has included working with over 1,500 early adopter schools to support their journey, learn lessons and share good practice. The department also conducted an impact assessment as part of the consultation. We are committed to supporting teachers, which is why we are investing in a programme of support featuring training materials, case studies and support to access resources.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that relationships and sex education fosters self-esteem and social skills in children and young people as well as enhancing academic performance, and that those skills will be important when pupils return to school after a long absence? I welcome the Government’s decision to include RSE in the compulsory curriculum, but how is this commitment supported precisely with resources and training? Could she give an example?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that health and relationships education will be an essential part of re-socialising children as more go back to school from 1 June. A central school support package will be on offer, which will include training materials—both online and face-to-face where appropriate—and will be based on the “train the trainer” model. Schools can also access additional training support if they need particular help.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register as chair of the National Society. In November, the Church of England produced a charter to support schools in preparing for the new compulsory elements of RSHE. It is important to us and our schools that we consult parents on how best to deliver this new material, to ensure that we provide a sensitive education enabling all pupils to flourish. Will Her Majesty’s Government reassess the delivery date of the new elements of RSHE to accommodate the current constraints on schools’ time and energy due to Covid-19?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I am grateful for the support, and in particular the charter, outlined by the right reverend Prelate. We are aware that there are a number of curriculum decisions that schools need to take. I reassure noble Lords that due consideration is being given to RSHE implementation and its implications for schools. We are working closely with the RSHE working group, which includes the teachers’ unions and faith organisations. I undertake to keep the House updated.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, three issues greatly concern me, which I have spoken about in the United Kingdom and during my visits abroad: FGM, forced marriages, and honour abuse. Can my noble friend say whether schools in certain areas will be able adequately to discuss these issues and whether teachers have appropriate knowledge and sufficient training to do so? Furthermore, what support is available centrally to assist them?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, all aspects of safeguarding are covered in the statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, and issues to do with violence are considered, particularly within health education. We have also given specific guidance about sexual violence between young people to assist schools with that very delicate matter.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. What support is being provided to special schools? Are teachers in special schools well prepared to deliver relationships and sex education in a developmentally appropriate way and in a way that will support pupils’ social, emotional and mental health?
Baroness Berridge
Yes, indeed, the attitude of the department is to embed SEND in every strand of the RSHE work, and we are working closely with the Sex Education Forum and NASEN to ensure that. We have also employed SEND experts to help with the development of the curriculum so that there will be specific resources in the school support package that I have outlined to assist teachers, most of whom have a child with SEND in their classroom.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the guidance issued by the Department for Education last year stated that relationships and sex education should be
“part of the basic school curriculum … which allows schools flexibility in developing their planned programme”.
But last week the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, stated that the department was giving due consideration to the implementation of the statutory relationships and sex education curriculum in the context of Covid-19. That suggested the possibility that implementation could be delayed due to the coronavirus, even if schools have returned by September. What process of due consideration was the Minister referring to and what additional support will the Government explore to ensure that RSE can be taught online if schools have not returned by September?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate outlined, parents are required to be consulted as part of the process before a school introduces its policy to teach these subjects. I reiterate that we are prioritising operational discussions in relation to the curriculum and I will keep the House updated on any further developments.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, according to the government guidelines, parents need to have been consulted about the new relationships, sex and health education curriculum changes, so what expectations will there be for schools that have not been able to consult parents about the changes due to the coronavirus school closures?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the school support package that we will issue will enable schools and give them examples of best practice in order to consult parents. We have specifically produced leaflets so that they have the confidence to distribute that resource. In terms of the operational decisions in relation to the curriculum, I will update the House when there is any further information
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I commend the department on producing sensitive and helpful guidance. The guidance makes it clear that from September, schools, in consultation with parents, will determine what is age-appropriate. Thus teaching explicitly about LGBT+ matters is not mandatory for primary schools. But current Ofsted guidance and the practice of inspectors does not reflect that. Numerous primary schools have been downgraded in at least one category for not teaching LGBT. Will my noble friend confirm that Ofsted will inspect in line with DfE policy and not its own self-generated policies, and that primary schools will not be penalised if they do not teach LGBT, according to the wishes of the parents of a particular school?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, Ofsted has welcomed the department’s guidance on RSHE and, when it is implemented in the next academic year, Ofsted will use it as a guide for assessing part of the personal development section of inspection. As my noble friend outlined, the guidance is clear that secondary schools should include LGBT content but,
“primary schools are strongly encouraged and enabled”,
when teaching about different types of relationships within families, to include families of same-sex parents. That is clearly a move from mandatory to permissive language. Obviously, the Equality Act is also enforced in schools and schools are required to take into account the other protected characteristics, including of course the religious background of students in the school.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Does the Minister share my anxiety that the opting-out provisions of the new law are so wide that children in faith schools may well be taken out of the sex education classes that they sorely need? All children need to learn to respect a variety of lifestyles, and learn how to look after themselves and avoid harmful practices such as FGM. Children in very religious schools are the ones most vulnerable to ignorance and prejudice. What steps will the Minister take to avoid large numbers of parents removing their children from this education, and how will the Government help teachers contend with protesting parents?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, as relationships education in primary schools does not usually include sex education, there is no right to withdraw your children from that provision. However, at secondary school, when sex education is part of the content, parents have the right to withdraw their child from that education up until three terms before the child is 16, and the school is required to outline that right to parents. The balance is struck by allowing this only until three terms before the child is 16. Obviously, at that stage, when approaching the age of legal consent for sexual relationships, it is appropriate to provide some sex education if the child wishes to have it. The balance is between supporting parents’ rights and giving children their own right to request sex education as they develop.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to say that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We move on to the fourth Oral Question.
Covid-19: Vulnerable People
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the £76 million funding to support vulnerable people during the COVID-19 pandemic, announced on 2 May, will be distributed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the £76 million government package of support to charities supporting vulnerable people, which is targeted at several different groups, will be administered by the MHCLG, the DfE, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. Departments are working hard to get the funds to where they are needed as soon as possible. Details on how domestic abuse charities can access the vital funds they need were set out by the Communities Secretary on 7 May, and the application information is clear that the department aims to announce successful grantees by the end of May.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
The Minister will be aware that the £76 million is a reannouncement of part of the £750 million announced for charities on 8 April, nearly five weeks ago. Charities are reporting that very little of that money is getting through to the coalface—in other words, to them—and many are financially on their knees. Why did the Government take until last Thursday to announce that domestic violence charities must bid for £10 million of the already announced £76 million of the already announced £750 million, for housing? Why, according to the application form, must they contribute something from their own resources towards the additional costs they are facing when they are already stretched beyond their limits?
Baroness Barran
The noble Baroness is right that these charities perform an absolutely critical role. The Government and all departments are moving as fast as they possibly can to meet these needs and make sure that this funding gets to the right place as quickly as possible.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the announced funding—I think it will do good—but I have one question. How do we promote the routes out of risk for those who are experiencing abuse? By what means can we encourage that promotion and how much of this funding will go towards ensuring that those who are most at risk have routes of escape?
Baroness Barran
My noble friend is quite right that we need to think about the long-term position of people who are experiencing abuse. In providing this funding, we will work with specialist charities, which are the real experts in this, to understand the perspective of victims and address their need for both immediate safety and long-term freedom from abuse.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
Covid-19 is making the task of identifying victims of human trafficking even more difficult. Some victims may have gone underground and perhaps are in grave danger. Providing essential and practical support has become even more challenging. It has become very difficult because charities which normally provide practical support are under resource constraints. How are the Government ensuring that support and funds are reaching those charities in a timely manner and that every effort is being made by authorities to seek out such victims?
Baroness Barran
The noble Baroness touches on an important area. The lead here is the Home Office, which has been working through the modern slavery victim care contract to make sure that government-funded safe accommodation and ongoing support are made available to victims of modern slavery as quickly as possible.
Lord Desai (Lab)
Will the Minister bear in mind that asylum seekers are among the most vulnerable groups in society? They currently receive only £37 per person per week, which is 72% below the poverty line. Will the Government do something for asylum seekers in these very difficult times?
Baroness Barran
The Government are very aware that particular groups, including asylum seekers, are especially vulnerable. We have a voluntary and community sector emergency partnership involving organisations such as the British Red Cross, and we are getting regular intelligence, feedback and advice on how to respond to those particular needs.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
I am sure that we all agree that the voluntary sector needs our immediate support, and we plead with the Government to do that, but we must avoid increasing the number of vulnerable people. One such increase is unemployment. Even last September, the Governor of the Bank of England said that a hard Brexit could mean half a million more unemployed people. However, it is worse than that: we face not a hard Brexit but an impossible Brexit, an impossible deal. We must do everything we can, including extending the transition period from the end of December, because we cannot have fruitful ongoing discussions under the threat of the virus. Will the Government look again and extend that transition period?
Baroness Barran
The Government are keeping all those issues under review. Their commitment to supporting people to stay in employment remains undiminished.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
Voluntary sector workers with type 1 diabetes have been pressured to go back to work even where their doctor has advised otherwise. Is there some way in which this funding could be used to deal with what is an anomaly in current practice and policy?
Baroness Barran
I am unclear as to whether this fund would be applicable, but the Government’s advice on going back to work is clear: people should go back to work only if it is safe to do so, and, clearly, an existing medical condition could impact on that. As the noble Lord knows, detailed guidance is being produced. I recommend that those in the situation that he describes refer to it.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a relief that the Government have recognised the urgent need for funding for domestic abuse charities. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, I am concerned about their having to match some of the contributions. I know that the Minister understands this issue well, so can she assure the House that the Government now accept that those organisations are essential and will never again face the levels of uncertainty over their funding which they have experienced over the past 10 years?
Baroness Barran
The Government have been absolutely clear. Like me, the noble Baroness recognises what a huge issue domestic abuse is, not just for women but, critically, for children growing up in homes where fear and coercion are the norm.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, one of the strands of funding is through the Department for Education to support vulnerable children, but it has become clear through the discussion this morning that there will be new cases of domestic abuse. How does the Department for Education identify new cases of vulnerability if there is not regular sight of children going to school?
Baroness Barran
The noble Baroness raises a crucial point. A number of organisations, including the Department for Education and charities in this field, are finding new ways to make sure that they have regular contact, whether by phone or online or, where safe to do so, face to face, to support those children.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, asylum seekers waiting for asylum decisions are expected to live on £37.75 a week. Can the Minister assure the House that either a generous portion of the £76 million for vulnerable people can somehow find its way to these particularly deprived people or, better still, that asylum support rates will be lifted by £20 per week in line with universal credit?
Baroness Barran
It is up to individual departments to decide exactly how the funding for vulnerable people is distributed, but I acknowledge what the noble Baroness said. This is a particularly vulnerable group.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret that the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. That concludes the Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions. Virtual Proceedings will resume at 12.15 pm for the Private Notice Question on public transport.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, Virtual Proceedings of the House of Lords will now resume. The Virtual Proceedings on the Private Notice Question will now commence.
Covid-19: Public Transport Safety
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the announcement made by the Prime Minister on Sunday 10 May, what steps are being taken to ensure the safety of passengers who have to use public transport to travel to and from work.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in his statement to the country this Sunday, the Prime Minister said, “Get back to work if you cannot work from home.” He also said, “Don’t use public transport, use cars or bikes.” I commend the Government for encouraging cycling and walking. However, many lower-paid essential workers travel long distances and do not have a car, so they have no choice but to use public transport. I recently received a paper from SOAS at the University of London, which said that security staff, construction workers, bus drivers and other essential workers are up to eight times more likely to die from the coronavirus compared with someone in a professional occupation. These essential workers fear that if they do not go to work using such so-called unsafe modes, they will lose their jobs. Passenger Focus has come up with some good ideas on this. Will the Government commit that those who cannot travel to work safely and be safe at work within the Health and Safety Executive guidelines will be able to retain any current benefit entitlements they may have at the moment?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The Minister will answer the Question and the noble Lord’s supplementary question combined.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, passenger and transport worker safety is absolutely paramount. To help make journeys safer, my department has today published new guidance for both transport operators and passengers. If people must use public transport, two-metre social distancing and hygiene should be practised and a face covering is advised.
I turn now to some of the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We are of course very concerned about some of the characteristics that seem to be seen in those people who are the most susceptible to the coronavirus, and work is going on across government to investigate that further. For example, we have seen what appears to be a higher than average death rate among bus drivers. This is a tragic loss and we are working closely with bus operators to make sure that we do what we can to keep those workers safe.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, it has at long last been acknowledged that the obesity epidemic is a very dangerous situation, especially now with Covid-19. In fact, 75% of people with this infection are obese. Would it not therefore be wise to advise them not to use public transport because it is such a dangerous thing for them? If anyone is tempted to say that calling someone obese is judgmental, perhaps I may point out that it is simply an accurate diagnosis.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for his observations. The Government recognise that there is much to be done from a transport perspective to help the nation’s health. That is why we have come up with a £2 billion boost for cycling and walking, which we believe are critical elements in helping people reduce their reliance on public transport. That is why we are encouraging people, if they are making journeys of three miles to five miles, or fewer, that they should consider walking or cycling. That is good for public transport and good for their health.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
On Sunday, the Prime Minister said, “Go back to work”, yet the Department for Transport did not publish its guidance to travel operators until this morning. I have read that guidance, and it is still very vague on key issues such as face coverings, screens and the handling of money. It is not prescriptive, but simply suggestions. That is not good. Why have the Government failed to provide the co-ordinated leadership needed by the bus industry throughout the UK?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I would challenge the noble Baroness in her assertion that the operator guidance is vague. It sets out the key elements that the operators must consider, but the important element is that each operator will be coming up with their own specific risk assessment which is suitable for their environment and their workforce, and, equally importantly, they will be consulting their workforce to ensure that the risk assessment is appropriate and that workers feel safe.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister acknowledges the importance of ensuring that transport workers are safe. However, any substantial return to work is bound to increase the vulnerability of transport workers and staff; she has cited the case of bus drivers. I regret to say that one of the London bus drivers who died was a friend and former neighbour of mine. Would it not have been more sensible to precede any general encouragement to return to work not with advice but very clear rules: on numbers, on social distancing and, above all, on face masks for passengers and staff on public transport? If not, and if there is nobody to enforce those standards, we will see a continuing problem with many transport workers.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the guidance for transport operators and passengers sets out clear expectations for two-metre social distancing. At some stages that will not be possible: on busier routes and at busier times, and at certain points on the journey. The Government also advise that people should use face masks or face coverings in enclosed spaces, particularly on public transport. I am not sure how much clearer the Government can be on that.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, what assurance can the Minister give to disabled passengers who require assistance—of course within the safety considerations for all—that the current situation will not be used to dial back “turn up and go” or prevent disabled people travelling to work?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness for raising this really important issue. In the operator guidance, there are clear points for those with protected characteristics, be they disabled, elderly or pregnant. We have been very clear with the transport operators that there must be no dialling back on the ability for all passengers to get a safe and reliable service. Travel may be slightly problematic for everybody, and therefore people are advised to plan their journey ahead where they can, to buy their tickets in advance and, most of all, to be patient. I reassure the noble Baroness that services for disabled people will continue as they did previously.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, as well as issues of safety when using public transport, many people in rural areas are worried that the already infrequent services in the countryside are now at further risk. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that public transport will be maintained to support communities and the economy in rural areas?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Rural transport is absolutely key to being able to provide for more vulnerable groups who have no alternative but to use public transport so that they are able to access the services they need. The Government have already provided funding to support the services during the lockdown, and we are in discussions with the Treasury regarding supporting more services as they ramp up. As I am sure the right reverend Prelate will understand, those services will be suffering from a revenue loss, which the Government will seek to make good to ensure that rural services can be restored to what they were before.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, as the former chairman of the APPG for cycling, I am thrilled that the Government are keen on people bicycling. However, without decent public transport, the economy cannot recover. Could my noble friend please tell me what discussions she has had with the Mayor of London? The reduction in Tube services has had a major effect on people being unable to travel, and people on the Underground are therefore much closer to each other than they should be.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I reassure my noble friend that we are in close contact with Transport for London. I speak to it probably every few days to assess exactly where it is on its restart plans—I have a call with it later on today. We are absolutely clear that the Mayor of London needs to ramp up services as quickly as possible and put in place protections such that transport workers and passengers feel safe.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
First, while public transport is a devolved issue, railway services and bus routes cross the borders between UK nations; I think that a few stations in England are also managed by Transport for Wales. It is therefore vital that the different UK nations develop public transport, passenger and staff safety guidance together and in line with each other. Can the Government give an assurance that the guidance that has been announced has also been agreed with the Governments of the devolved nations? Secondly, I am not sure that the Minister answered my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s question about existing benefits being maintained for bus drivers; for example, those who decline to continue to work because they feel that their safety is being compromised.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Each devolved nation is responsible for its own guidance. However, I reassure the noble Lord that we are of course in contact with the Administrations in the devolved nations to make sure that our guidance is appropriate. Where there have to be changes or where they are desired, local considerations can be taken into account but without confusing passengers. I will have to write to the noble Lord on benefits for bus drivers.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. The Virtual Proceedings will now adjourn until 1 pm for the debate on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Virtual Proceedings on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, will now commence. The time limit for the debate is one and a half hours.
Census (England and Wales) Order 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I declare an interest as a member of the Society of Genealogists. In fact, last night I looked at the 1891 census online, which illustrates that a population census has been taken across the UK every 10 years since 1801, with the sole exception of 1941.
Subject to the approval of the House, this draft Order in Council provides for the 22nd census of England and Wales to take place on Sunday 21 March 2021. The draft order was laid before both Houses on 2 March 2020, under the provisions of the Census Act 1920. It prescribes the date of the census, the people to be counted, the people responsible for making a census return, and the information to be given in those census returns.
Under the terms of the Census Act 1920, delivery of the census in England and Wales is the statutory responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority and its executive arm, the Office for National Statistics. The draft order gives effect to the independent recommendations of the Office for National Statistics set out in the December 2018 White Paper, Help Shape Our Future: The 2021 Census of Population and Housing in England and Wales.
The ONS’s recommendations for the 2021 census have been informed by an extensive programme of consultation, research and engagement. Comparability of data between censuses is important, so the majority of questions will remain the same as in 2011. New questions or response options are included only after research and consultation that provide compelling evidence for their inclusion. For 2021 there will be new questions on past service in the Armed Forces and new voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity for those aged 16 and over.
The Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 enables two of the new questions, those on sexual orientation and gender identity, to be asked on a voluntary basis. As confirmed during the debates on that Act, the census questionnaires will clearly indicate which questions are voluntary, and the form of those questionnaires—both the online and paper versions—will be prescribed by law in the census regulations that will be made following this order. I express my thanks to noble Lords for their support for the Act during the debates in this House, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for steering the legislation through the House.
This draft order is subject to a composite procedure. Under the terms of the Census Act 1920 the order is principally subject to the draft negative procedure, but some questions—those printed in italics in the draft order—may be included in the census only if they are approved by affirmative resolutions of both Houses. Unusually, questions subject to the affirmative procedure may also be amended by Parliament, if agreed to by both Houses. I express my thanks to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose 9th Report of this Session set out clearly the special procedure for this statutory instrument.
Noble Lords will be aware that this draft order was debated last week in the House of Commons, and that the Motion was approved by that House without amendment. There was considerable focus in the Commons debate on tick-box response options that have not been recommended by the ONS; notably, Cornish national identity and Sikh ethnicity. As my honourable friend the Minister of State, Chloe Smith, was clear to emphasise, it is absolutely no reflection of the ONS’s or the Government’s recognition of or respect for any ethnicity, religion or national identity that it does not have a specific tick-box response option on the census. It is simply not possible to include a tick box on the census for every group that has asked for one: to do this would make the census forms, whether paper or online, long, cumbersome and confusing.
For the ethnicity question alone the ONS received 55 requests for new tick boxes and, as I am sure noble Lords will understand, it is necessary to prioritise what is included in the questionnaire. This the ONS has done through an extensive programme of consultation, research, engagement, testing and assessment. People will be able to record their ethnic group, religion and national identity however they wish in the 2021 census, including as Cornish, using the write-in boxes. An online search-as-you-type functionality will assist people in answering these and other census questions. There will continue to be a specific Sikh response option in the census question on religion. Despite being a voluntary question, the response rate on the religion question is very high—over 92%—and the ONS is confident that religion data from the census will provide high-quality data for public bodies to inform service provision and equalities monitoring.
The 2021 census aims to be the most inclusive ever. For the first time it will be predominantly online, making it easier for people to take part when and how they want. Paper questionnaires will, however, be available for those who need or prefer to complete the census this way. There will be a wide range of help, including a contact centre offering support through various channels and services to assist people with hearing or speaking impediments. There will also be a large-print version of the paper form, language support and translated materials, and information in Braille or British Sign Language for those who may not otherwise be able to complete the census. There will be national and local promotional campaigns to encourage and help people to complete the census. This will include work with community groups, by field staff on the doorstep, and through face-to-face assistance at completion events that will be arranged, where possible, in local settings such as libraries.
To be successful in its aims, the census relies on the willing support and participation of the public, on whose behalf the information is collected. Key to this is trust that people’s personal data will not be disclosed in ways they do not wish it to be, whether deliberately or accidentally. It is made clear to respondents that their data is protected in law, and leaflets to accompany the census form sets this out in more detail.
The ONS is working with the National Cyber Security Centre to ensure that processes and systems for collecting or handling census data are secure, and appropriate measures are in place to prevent unauthorised access. Census security will adhere to, and where possible exceed, the minimum set of cybersecurity standards. The information collected during the census is held by the ONS for 100 years, and by law data can be used only by the ONS for statistical and research purposes. Personal census data cannot be used to make decisions about individuals.
It is clear from useful and informed discussions with noble Lords ahead of today’s debate that there is a great deal of interest not just in the next census but in the future of the census, and in particular the question of whether this will be the last traditional census. The census is the most important source of statistics about the population available to us. It is currently the only data collection that provides accurate and reliable information about populations at a local area level. It provides the underlying information needed to inform a wide range of policy decisions, and it is used extensively to plan services and allocate funds to local areas, but it is only carried out every 10 years. Decision makers need information more frequently, to understand the changing nature of the population. The 2021 census is part of a £900 million programme of work by the ONS to transform the system of population and social statistics, making greater use of data already held by government for administrative purposes. This wider work programme will also inform whether, beyond 2021, the traditional census will remain the most appropriate way of collecting vital population data, or whether census statistics could be replicated in other, quicker ways using administrative data.
That is a debate for the future. In 2023, the National Statistician will make a recommendation on the future of the whole system of population and social statistics, including the census, based on the progress of this programme. I am sure that the House will take a great interest in that when the time comes.
The draft order before us today is concerned with the census in England and Wales. Noble Lords will be aware that the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly have approved census orders for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. Together, these three statutory instruments allow a census to take place across the UK at the same time next March. This draft order is the first of two statutory instruments needed for the census to take place. Subject to the approval of the Order in Council, the Government will bring forward census regulations for England. These will set out the final questions and govern much of the operation of the census. Separate regulations for the census in Wales will be laid before the Welsh Parliament by the Welsh Government. The regulations will describe the content and functionality of the online forms for this first predominantly online census and will also contain copies of the corresponding paper questionnaires.
The census is unique in the insights it provides into our nation and the data it provides to support policy-making. The proposals for the 2021 census set out in this draft order will provide the data needed to inform policy and planning decisions across our national and local public services and enable national and local government, community groups, charities and businesses to better serve communities and individuals across the country. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, in the time available I will limit my contribution to two areas. First, it is right that we move the census online. However, as the Minister recognised, a digital-first census will undoubtedly raise questions about data security. I thank the noble Lord for outlining the Government’s plans, but will Parliament receive a report on the work the Government are doing to ensure that an individual’s details remain confidential and secure? In promoting the digital-first census, how will the Government build trust in data security to ensure that the 75% online return target is reached? The digital-first approach should allow a more effective system for counting and surveying Britain’s population. However, it is estimated that 10% of the UK’s adult population is digitally excluded. What lessons have been learned from the rehearsal areas on how best to engage the digitally excluded and, therefore, what are the plans to reach out to these communities to ensure that they are included in the census?
Secondly, it is disappointing to many thousands of Sikhs that the Government have decided not to include a Sikh tick box in the ethnic group question. There is a clear demand for this from a large section of the Sikh community. It is ethnic, not faith, data that public bodies use to make decisions about the provision of public services, so accurate data on the make-up of our communities is vital.
The Scottish Parliament seems to have gone some way to address this issue. Last week, it agreed to include a prompt for Sikhs and Jewish people next to the “Other ethnic group” tick box. Will the Government look at this decision, which the Scottish Parliament has made possible, and bring the census order for England and Wales in line with that of Scotland?
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the current crisis is demonstrating the importance of having accurate information about our population and their needs in relation to the provision of health, education, housing and many other areas. It is hugely important; there are many issues about the future of the census in general, as well as the specific issues contained in these orders, that many of us would have liked to raise if we had not been constrained by a two-minute time limit.
It is very welcome that the 2021 census will be conducted mostly online. This should reduce costs considerably and weaken the arguments of those who think that finding out the facts about our population is too expensive. We could also gain more information, at a lower cost, if we were to combine what we learn from the census with what we obtain compiling electoral registers. We could then have a more complete idea of how many people eligible to vote live where, and constituency boundaries could be drawn based on more accurate information—especially if those boundary reviews were held every 10 years as opposed to every five years, as is presently legislated for. Perhaps the Minister will pass on this suggestion.
I welcome the fact that new voluntary questions about gender identity and sexual orientation will show officially the welcome scale of diversity that exists in our society. This will help to allow distinctive needs to be provided for.
Charities—and, more importantly, government agencies—will be better able to address the needs of veterans, now to be identified in the census, far too many of whom have difficulty in finding suitable housing after serving in our Armed Forces.
However, some issues of ethnic identity still require more consideration. The strong case for allowing Sikh identity to be properly indicated as an ethnicity is not something that I can address in two minutes. I would also have argued for Cornish ethnicity to be recognised in the same way.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on the identification of the number of Welsh speakers resident in England on census day.
I add my voice to those emphasising the importance of maintaining the integrity of the census continuum to enable future generations to assess how patterns have changed over recent decades. We should not delete or modify a continuum unless there is a very good reason.
Powers to deal with the census in Wales have been partly devolved, which I welcome, within the same constraints of continuity. However, aspects of the census in England have a direct relevance to the powers exercised by the Welsh Government. One of these relates to identifying the number of Welsh speakers. This is needed by the Welsh Government to assess the effectiveness of their educational policy and to plan their future cultural policies. The Welsh Government have a target of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050, compared with just over 500,000 Welsh speakers in Wales in 2011 but a higher figure of almost 900,000 in the ONS annual population survey last year.
Much of the targeted increase will be attained through our educational process, but to evaluate the ongoing benefit of securing the language, we must be able to assess the retention of the language after leaving school. Tens of thousands of young Welsh people migrate from Wales to England each year. Many return to Wales later, as was my own personal experience. To evaluate our education policy, we need to know how many Welsh speakers there are in England. It is thought to be around 100,000 but we need accurate information.
This issue was raised by Hywel Williams MP in the Commons debate last week; the Minister undertook to consider the matter. Today, I add my voice in support of this. For the UK to be meaningful for its citizens, it has to operate on not just agenda priorities as seen in London; in that context, I express Celtic solidarity by supporting a Cornish tick box, and I support one for Sikhs.
A fuller assessment of the number of Welsh speakers offers an opportunity for the UK Government to respond to reasonable requests emanating from Wales. I hope that the Minister can give a positive response today.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I shall raise the refusal by the ONS to include a tick-box in the census for those who identify as Cornish. The ONS seems to see this as a localised issue, ignoring the many thousands of Cornish men and women living across the UK who want to register their nationality as Cornish. I do not have the advantage of being Cornish myself, but I am aware of the strong campaign to have a Cornish tick-box on the census. Until the start of the pandemic, I used to spend a month a year as a visitor to Cornwall and stayed in visitor accommodation.
The Cornish were recognised as a national minority in 2014, and the Government pledged that they would be afforded the same status under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities as other UK Celtic peoples: the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. The inclusion of a tick-box for the Cornish on the census would achieve that.
What discussions have the Government had recently with the group leaders of Cornwall Council about the refusal of the ONS to include a Cornish tick-box? The ONS has said that there will be a write-in option to identify oneself as Cornish and that there will be a campaign to raise awareness of that. What steps will the Government take to ensure that any such campaign is national and not just focused on Cornwall, given that the Cornish diaspora is spread across the UK? It would not be perfect solution, but it would be a step in the right direction towards delivering a census that could build a better, detailed snapshot of our society and help us to plan for the future delivery of services and for economic revival after Covid-19 has been defeated.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I am a great fan of the decennial censuses and have made use of many of them over the years. The censuses provided much crucial information to assist administrators and policymakers at national and local level for more than two centuries. In addition, they are invaluable tools for historians in providing a picture of communities and societies at a moment in time. When, after 100 years, the details of the participating individuals are revealed, they become essential sources of information for those tracing their family tree, which is a burgeoning interest.
The Office for National Statistics planned the 2021 census with great diligence and in doing so consulted widely, adding new questions and querying established ones. Others have raised questions on ethnicity, gender status and sexual orientation, so I shall not develop that.
With modern means of collecting information and the ability of IT to tap into wider sources worldwide, what was appropriate in years gone by is not so today. I recognise that and that changes have to be made, but there is value in having one major respected piece of work providing a picture of society every 10 years. That is very useful. Finally, may I press the Minister on the rumours that the 2021 census will be the last? Is that the case or is the jury out? Let us never forget that a continuum is essential.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I first came into statistical life at the time of the 1970 census, when we had the job of devising a definition of a one-parent family. I realise that this is probably a bit of a surprise question but, first, I would be very pleased if the Minister could write letting me know whether that definition has evolved and what it now is. Secondly, I would like to make it clear that I, too, hope that this will not be the last census. It does not cost that much and has provided a great historical snapshot of Britain through the ages.
I have one or two questions. First, is there any aim to hit people who are not online? A number of people in the community, particularly senior citizens, are not online and will not be able to fill in the census. Will they be able to register in advance? If not, and secondly, what will the follow-up be? Presumably the online responses will all go to one centre. Will there then be local follow-ups of people who have not completed it, and will this be done by addresses? I assume that it will be.
My next question is about past service in the Armed Forces. Having been in the Territorial Army almost 60 years ago, I wonder how far back this will go. Will it contain data about the Territorial Army and national service? I cannot understand why past service in the Armed Forces has gone into the thing.
Finally, on the voluntary questions, I point out the lesson that we should learn from Boaty McBoatface. There may well be people who decide that there are jokes to be made out of nationality or religion. Are any steps being taken to eliminate obvious false answers?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the Census Act 1920 provided a framework for a census of questions on stated subjects, with an obligation to answer, subject to a penalty. It provided for the authority for a particular census to be an Order in Council, of which this is one, with supporting regulations, including a census form.
More recently, as has been mentioned, that Act was amended by statutes which provided for optional questions by providing for questions where failure to answer would not be subject to a penalty. This draft order provides for an obligation to answer three such questions, but that obligation is unenforceable. The draft regulations and the form will translate into clear language that answering these questions is optional. The correct result is reached by a circuitous route.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and I have been engaged throughout this process in trying to ensure that there is no compulsion to answer questions and that the arrangements to avoid compulsion to answer personal and private questions are secured in the legislation. The Government shared that objective, and there was a time when the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, put the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and me together more or less to sort out what we wanted and to see whether we could achieve the best result.
On close analysis, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has said, this order taken on its own, by a combination of Articles 6(1) and 6(4), does not in fact achieve that objective. The reason that it fails to do so seems, on investigation, to be that there has been a direct lift of the orders approved for the 2001 and 2011 censuses. However, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, I am satisfied that the statute, the draft regulations and the census form itself will mean that in law the voluntary nature of the questions and answers to the questions about personal matters is established, and those completing the form can confidently decline to answer those personal questions without fear of any penalty or proceedings.
To add a footnote, if there is a census in 2031, will those responsible please make sure that the Order in Council does not have the slight problem raised by this one? I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, will be here to answer for everybody.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what I am missing in this debate, and in the ministerial introduction, is contingency planning. It is as if the world will continue as before, and there are relevant questions about whether there will be a census in 2031. My question is: will a census be carried out properly in 2021? We see today’s announcement of another four months of furloughing. How on earth will electoral registration be carried out in the current cycle—the annual cycle that we still require—starting with house visits in October, at the turn of the year and onwards? It seems to me that that contingency planning needs to be there.
I am an optimist on all matters, but contingency planning requires an element of pessimism about what can go wrong. It is a shame that blockchain technology has not already been incorporated at this stage; indeed, it is in my view a shame that we do not already have an identity card which would make contact tracing in the current crisis significantly easier and more far-reaching. If electoral registration drops dramatically this year, how will we manage to go into a census that people choose not to respond to electronically? How will those face-to-face visits be managed if we are still in the crisis—or indeed the aftermath of the crisis—that Covid-19 has created?
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister has said, this census is intended to be the most inclusive ever. Question 18 asks:
“What is your main language?”
But people underreport their use of languages other than English, because the question of their main language is interpreted differently—as the language they know best, the one they use most frequently, or the one they feel most attached to emotionally. Feedback to the ONS described the question as confusing and unfit for purpose. One example of how the question can yield inaccurate data is that, in the last census, in the Manchester ward of Ardwick, while 2.2% of residents declared Urdu to be their main language, over 13% of schoolchildren in the same ward were registered as having Urdu as their first language.
Why does this matter, and what is the solution? It matters because, if linguistic diversity in the UK is underestimated or distorted, efficient and targeted use of multilingual resources in health, education and justice is undermined. Getting it right can also save costs. Interpreters and translated information, although vital, will not be enough unless the data collection itself is realistic. All that this requires is one small amendment to the question itself so that it simply asks, “What are your main languages?”
The ONS is worried about the cost of processing more complex data, but the census must produce full and accurate data for the benefit of all our citizens, not just some of us. Will the Minister agree to speak urgently with government colleagues and with the ONS to secure this minor change to Question 18, which would make a major improvement to the quality and usefulness of the data?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister who took the Census Act through your Lordships’ House last year—I am grateful to the Minister today for his kind words—I have a paternal interest in this order, which I hope will secure the same broad support that the Act received last year.
I have a number of issues for my noble friend. He suggested—and other noble Lords have referred to this—that this could be the last census of its type, as other, more timely sources of information become available. As he said, it is too soon to say whether this is indeed the last census, but can he say what is happening in other countries that like us have relied on censuses such as this and which, I understand, may be moving away from them?
Secondly, I understand that, before the census next March, there were—or are—to be some trials. Can the Minister say how those trials went, if they took place, and what lessons have been learned from them, particularly in respect of the new voluntary questions?
Thirdly, we all hope that, by next March, we will have put this pandemic behind us, but we do not know whether there will be a second wave, or whether social distancing will have been entirely phased out. While most people will complete the census online, there was concern during the passage of the Bill about, for example, the homeless and rough sleepers; forms were to be made available in shelters and night centres. What contingency arrangements are there in case, by any chance, life has not returned to normal? Has the pandemic in any way impeded the arrangements in the run-up to the census? Are there any circumstances in which it would be necessary to postpone the census, as has happened this year in other countries?
Finally, there was a loose end in our discussions last year, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was concerned that, while we had abolished the penalty for not answering questions, we had not abolished the underlying offence. I was delighted to hear from both noble and learned Lords that white smoke has now emerged and that that loose end has now been tied up.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have just two questions for the Minister. They are in the context that our Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities are acknowledged, not least by the Government, to be the most disadvantaged in educational, health, socioeconomic and accommodation outcomes. To address the problems of minority-ethnic groups, it goes without saying—but I am going to say it—that we first need accurate and meaningful data.
I declare my interest as a holder of various unremunerated posts in service of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities. In the order, the success of our efforts to include the Roma people is demonstrated, and I thank the census team for that. However, the order still runs Gypsies and Irish Travellers into one category. There are significant differences between these two communities in terms of all the outcomes I have referred to, so can the Minister tell me that the two categories will be split as soon as practicable, as reason and fact demand?
Secondly, what are the arrangements to visit Gypsy and Traveller sites? Public service representatives have often neglected to call at sites even when their help has been urgently needed, and I seek reassurance that census workers will speak with the travelling communities to arrange productive visits and allay any anxiety so as to obtain the data we need.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the proposed 2021 census will probably be the most important for a generation. It will begin to show the devastating effects of Covid-19 on our communities and individuals. It is imperative that the largest number of our citizens are included. For the first time, questions will be asked about gender identity and sexual orientation—and they will be voluntary, which is to be welcomed. The long-overdue information will allow the Government to inform policy, plan for a clear picture of LGBT rights and communities, and target resources to them.
In the other place last week, many speeches were made about inclusivity and the Sikh communities. Sikhs have been recognised as an ethnic group for over 40 years, since this House made that ruling in 1983. The case and the law have been overwhelmingly made; Sikhs should have a tick box under the ethnic identity question. The same argument applies to Cornish people. In the 2011 census, 83,966 people in Britain ticked the “other” box and wrote “Cornish” on the form. In Cornwall, that figure was 73,320—that is 14% of the population. Those citizens will not go away. The Minister must act if, as the phrase goes, we are all in this together.
Finally, the guidance says that the census will be predominantly online and will be the most inclusive ever. It is vital that paper copies are made for the enormous number of people who are not on the internet and do not have online facilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said that could be 10% of the population. If the Prime Minister can write to every household and basically tell them to stay in, surely the same option can be given for the census form.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, an ill-conceived campaign to confine Sikh teachings open to all to a single ethnicity is being led by an extremist fringe group, the Sikh Federation, which rejects key Sikh teachings. Its un-Sikh-like argument is that being recorded under ethnicity will get us more resources than other religions. It also plays on the hurt felt by many of us over the 1984 genocide of Sikhs, saying that reducing the religion to an ethnic group will help us to get a Sikh state in India.
The Sikh Federation bases its arguments on a misunderstanding of the Mandla case in the early 1980s, in which I was an expert witness. The law then protected ethnicity, but not religion, against discrimination. The Law Lords ruled that as most Sikhs in the UK then were born in Punjab and had Punjabi ethnicity, Sikhs were also entitled to protection. The criteria of birth and origin would not be met today, as most Sikhs are born in the UK, nor is such a convoluted protection necessary. The Equality Act 2010 gives full protection to religion.
The politically motivated federation falsely claims mass support, with questionable statistics. The ethnicity argument was discussed at the large gurdwara in Hounslow, in front of ONS officials, and was firmly rejected, yet the federation includes Hounslow among its supporters. Many Sikhs and people of other faiths are appalled at the way in which some politicians, anxious for votes, are willing to trample on the religious sensitivities of others and accept as fact the absurdities of those who shout the loudest. I urge that we look to what the different religious groups actually do for the well-being of their followers and wider society.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I pay particular tribute to all those involved with this census. I am pleased that veterans are to be included in a new question, and I hope that that is clarified to include national service. But the biggest change is the move to online. Perhaps 85% of the nation is online, but we have to remember that millions of people have come to this country from foreign countries in the last 10 years, many of whom, particularly in the older generation, do not speak English, or English is not their main language. Great care will need to be taken to ensure that there is a paper back-up for those who are not able to cope with the online form.
Secondly, in the context of our experience of the virus, I am particularly interested in the problems for communal establishments, especially our prisons and our care homes. If the department of health appears to have overlooked care homes at the early stages of this crisis, heaven alone knows what will happen with them in normal circumstances. I know a little about the prison world. Bedford prison is heavily overcrowded. The census cannot be done online in a place like that.
On ethnicity, I lived in India for a couple of years of my life and know the Sikh community well. I do not understand why they are not included under ethnicity; certainly their cause is far greater than that of the Roma, who are now included in that category.
Finally, I make a plea: this should not be the last census. We should listen to the queries raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Young.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, in the 1980s, when I was in the House of Commons, I served on the Home Affairs Select Committee, which did an investigation of the merits or demerits of including an ethnic question in the population census. At that time, there was quite a lot of objection from various groups to having such a question, but we took evidence abroad from a lot of people and came to the conclusion that it was desirable. Why? Because we felt that we needed to measure the disadvantage suffered by any minority and the discrimination against that minority. The best way to do that was to have a benchmark, so that every 10 years we could measure whether the policies to tackle disadvantage and discrimination were effective or not. Without that, we would not know whether the policies were working. That was the argument and it was accepted, and we have had ethnicity questions in our population census since, I think, 1991.
It is therefore a little puzzling as to why there should be such an argument about including an ethnicity question to cover Sikhs. I think it is right to do that, based on the same arguments that we used in the Select Committee all those years ago. I welcome that we will have questions on gender identity, LGBT and the Armed Forces.
I am a bit concerned that there is now talk of this being the last census. Unless we have a wonderful, effective way of covering the same information, which enables us to continue the stream of information from one census to the new system, I very much regret what we would lose by doing that. We ought to think very carefully before we lose the population census.
Lastly, there are questions on health. I appreciate the difficulty of this, but could we adapt those questions to take account of the pandemic that is now sweeping the country? We might learn more about how it happened if we include something on it in the population census.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, this census form is extensive and will provide valuable information for formulating social policies in the future. However, this extensive list poses a problem: there are a great number of questions, with a range of options, and some people will find the form very difficult to fill in. Therefore, I was very glad to learn from the Minister at the beginning of this debate that the Government intend to have a contact centre. I know that the internet will offer a great deal of help with the usual list of frequently asked questions, but my experience of FAQ lists is that they do not answer the questions that you actually want to ask.
That contact centre will be a vital ingredient in making the next census a success. It will need to be well staffed and the staff will need to be well trained. Linked to this is the fact that those who do not have English as their first language will probably need special help. I hope that it will be possible for people not only to get help answering the questions via telephone but to do so in a number of different languages. That centre will need to be well staffed with people who are well trained, with a range of languages available.
I will briefly cover two points. First, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. From the point of view of the Welsh Government and their educational programme, it is vital to know the number of Welsh speakers in England. Secondly, I also strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Singh. Like him, I believe that Sikhism is a great and very distinguished world religion. I do not think there should be any blurring of that fact and I worry that putting this in the ethnic minority category will somehow diminish what Sikhism has to offer as a world religion.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this order and for his characteristic clarity of exposition in doing so. Like others, I very much agree about the importance of the census and I hope that we will continue with a census for many years into the future.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that we should consider flexing this present census to ask relevant questions in the light of the virus; these could include questions on health, transport and other matters. If we are not able to do that, we may want to do so in the future.
I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, about welcoming Roma as a distinct ethnic characteristic—that is very welcome. I also underline, as she did, the importance of census workers travelling to sites to ensure that people are able to fill in the forms at the relevant time. On that point, could I ask, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham did, for some reassurance about census day next year, given the challenges that we face?
I lend support on the inclusion of an ethnic characteristic for Sikhism. That is a case well made out. I heard what the Minister said about the complexity of adding more groups to the form, but there is an unanswerable case on this, as there is in relation to Cornish ethnicity. I had the great privilege, as Minister, of visiting the nascent Cornish archive in Redruth to announce support for the language and of hearing just what strong support there is in Cornwall for this tick box. Indeed, it has had almost unanimous support from councillors on the county council as well as from all the main party groups.
Jains and Zoroastrians should also be added to the census questions. I would also welcome some reassurance on online provision and the difficulties that we may have post virus in ensuring that it works well.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to emphasise the need for security around the database. The census is useful and is a fascinating tool for historical research. However, many of the questions, primarily numbers 31 to 42, have implications for people’s tax position. The Government rightly declare that this data will not be used other than for census and population analysis purposes, but it may affect how people answer.
The danger is that a future Government may have a very different attitude to what they think they should know about their citizens and how they might use this information. They will say that it is for more efficient government, a usual form of words being that it is for anti-fraud purposes.
Once every 10 years is sometimes too infrequent for proper planning processes, particularly in a fast-changing world. It might be better to gather some of this information by analysis of other data sources—a lot of information is available online—but some of the basic census information will always be useful, particularly for genealogical research, and should continue to be gathered periodically, so we should not just stop the census.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, both here and in the Commons, there have been some powerful speeches on the inclusion of questions on Cornish identity and Sikh ethnicity, so I need do no more than express my sympathy and support for the cases that have been made. We are moving towards a country of complex and multiple identities, not easily represented by our two-party and first-past-the-post system—but that is an issue for a different debate. I mark in passing that a strong sense of Yorkshire identity is entirely absent from the questionnaire. We face a Conservative Government who resist any recognition of Yorkshire identity in how they approach devolution in Yorkshire, which is to city regions rather than to Yorkshire as a whole, as all our local authorities have stressed.
We are a much more complex society. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, remarked, our local authorities often know this about languages and ethnic groups in much more detail than do our national Government. That leads me on to the relationship between local and national data. I am struck by how the Government have approached the pandemic by neglecting the skills and resources of our local authorities, going to outside private contractors for testing and other things rather than reinforcing the strengths of our local authorities.
The Minister said in opening that we should make greater use of data already held by government. A great deal of very useful data is held by our local authorities. As we consider the future of the census, we need to take further the question of how we feed in and out of different government agencies the data which they hold separately, and the safeguards that data mining and data analysis need therefore to have.
There is of course the difficult question, which we will come back to later, of why electoral registration is held separately from other forms of establishing where our citizens live and who they are. Every British citizen and long-term resident should be on the electoral register.
I welcome the statement in the Conservative manifesto last year that:
“We will improve the use of data, data science and evidence in the process of government.”
That is a highly desirable idea, although reading Dominic Cummings’s blog over the years and looking at the antics of what one has to call the Warner brothers, Ben and Marc—one of them in No. 10 and the other working for an outside company which has apparently some very privileged relationships with the Government—I think that we clearly need greater transparency as to what exactly is going on within government as we move through the digital transformation.
I thank the Minister for offering me the opportunity to talk to the Office for National Statistics on my own. However, it would be much more valuable to use the real expertise on the digital transformation that there is on all Benches in the House, and invite us for a number of briefings on how the Government plan to expand and improve their use of data, how the future census may or may not fit in with that, and how they will build in the safeguards which we will need. To comment on what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said, the question of data transparency as well of data ownership is an important part of that. I note that in Sweden, for example, the degree of transparency on tax returns is a great deal higher than in Britain, which apparently has a markedly positive effect on not paying some people too much money.
The Minister also talked about the need to maintain the security and secrecy of people’s personal data. That is highly desirable—we certainly need to improve the safeguards on that—but citizens sometimes need to demonstrate to government their entitlement, presence and records. The Windrush scandal, for example, was entirely unnecessary. All those people had, within other agencies of government, records that they had been living in Britain for some time: their tax returns, national insurance records, and in many cases their driving licence. The Home Office did not attempt to look at the metadata to establish whether there were records for those people before it attempted to deport many of them. That is another major issue to which we need to return.
We certainly wish to look at the wider issues here. We were promised last year that the Government would publish a White Paper on their data strategy before the end of 2020. I understand that this has now slipped several months behind schedule because officials have been detached to deal first with the threat of a no-deal Brexit and now with the coronavirus pandemic. This offers opportunities in digital transformation for improving the quality of government policy but also risks individual privacy and liberty. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will do their utmost to carry Parliament and the public with them as they move forward, and that regular briefings for parliamentarians on what is planned and whether a further census should be held in 2031 should be part of building and maintaining public trust?
Beyond this, I simply add that the quality of the data the census provides will depend on how well it manages to record marginal communities and individuals: recent migrants, the homeless, and elderly people living alone. I hope that the Minister will also assure us that the Government will target resources on such groups, who are the least likely to know how to go online or voluntarily and patiently to fill in a long and complicated form on their own.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome this draft instrument. It contains lots of positives, as we made clear when we debated the issues before, including the additional questions on military service, which is of course particularly pertinent in this week of commemorating VE Day, although of course before VJ Day. We are also aware of the millions who have served since then.
We are also pleased to see the voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity, together with that on Roma people. Indeed, Roma people are now the most disadvantaged in the country, so it is encouraging to see their inclusion as a crucial step forward in data collection and the resource allocation to their community. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to the questions raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. However, the addition of that tick box in the ethnicity section brings us to the one contentious issue today: the lack of an equivalent tick box for Sikh people in addition to that in the religious option.
I have read the debate held on this issue in the Commons and listened carefully to the Minister’s introduction today, and two questions remain unanswered. First, why exactly was that recommendation decided on by the ONS, given, as we have heard, the recognition by the House of Lords of Sikhs as an ethnic group back in 1983, the 83,000 writings received in the last census, and the feedback received from over 100 gurdwaras? This is not necessarily to say that the ONS got it wrong and I assume that it had good reasons. However, neither its report nor the White Paper have convinced either the federation or the MPs representing Sikh areas. In her response in the other place, the Minister failed to explain that, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord True, can make a better fist of it today. It is vital for the confidence of the Sikh community in the outcome of the census.
Secondly, and vitally, if it is the case that 12% of Sikhs, which represents 50,000 or more people according to ONS modelling, could be missing from these datasets, and given that it is on the basis of the census that it is ethnic rather than religious data on which 40,000 public bodies decide on the allocation of resources and use it to assess their responsibilities under equalities legislation, as touched on by my noble friend Lord Dubs, how will the Government ensure that suitable corrections are made so that this large and vital community gets its fair share of appropriate services and is not discriminated against through the absence of proper data?
How do the Government plan to address the inequalities that we sadly see in Sikh communities while we lack accurate data? Do they recognise that the chronic statistical underreporting of communities such as the Sikh population could allow discrimination to go unnoticed? Indeed, will the Minister comment on the point raised about the Scottish Government’s decision to add a prompt for Sikhs as well as for Jewish people to their own regulation?
We welcome the census because in this time of rapid social change we welcome the availability of up-to-date information. Indeed, as I warned the Minister earlier, I will shortly start campaigning, no doubt along with the noble Lords, Lord Balfe, Lord Naseby, Lord Bourne, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Clark of Windermere, to ensure that we do not lose this vital source of rich, granular data in 2031. For the moment, however, we need all sections of the community to have faith in the census, and the Minister’s answers to the debate today will be important.
Lord True
My Lords, it is customary to say that we have had a wide-ranging and excellent debate, and of course that is true, particularly on this occasion. It has been a fascinating debate to me personally and I am grateful to many noble Lords, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and others, including my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for saying how important the institution of the census is over the long term in enabling an understanding of the familial and social development of communities and of the whole country. Both in the past and now in the present, it is an enormously valuable historical resource. As an historian, I freely acknowledge that. Indeed, I am sure that when the 1921 census comes to be published, one of the interesting things to look at will be the impact on the nation of the Spanish flu epidemic as well as that of the Great War between 1911 and 1921.
I said that in 2023 the National Statistician will publish recommendations based on views about the future of the census in light of the experience of the census that we are about to conduct, and indeed past experience along with other data and relevant material. Your Lordships will have ample opportunity, as will the other place, to consider those recommendations. The Government of the day will give them careful consideration, and I am sure will reflect on the unique nature and value of the census over time. As I said in my opening remarks, that really is a debate for another day, although I believe that all those who read this debate will note the sentiments that have been expressed by many who have spoken.
Questions were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and others about whether any contingency consideration is being given to the current pandemic that we are dealing with. Census day—21 March 2021, obviously—is still nearly a year away, and currently the Office for National Statistics is working to deliver the census as planned. Like any other part of the Government, the ONS will be guided by the scientific evidence and the evolving advice from medical experts. At the same time, therefore, we are considering the contingencies that may be needed if measures to contain the spread of Covid-19 remain in place or indeed again become necessary in the run-up to census day itself. That is a matter of which those who are involved are aware. The situation, as noble Lords will know, is evolving and we will be guided by medical advice as it emerges.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made important remarks about data more generally, many of which I agreed with. He asked specifically about the national data strategy, the potential involvement of Parliament and parliamentarians in the evolution of that strategy, and the debate generally about the use of data—something that is obviously extraordinarily important to being an effective modern economy and society in the future. The position, as the noble Lord recognised, is that because of the coronavirus pandemic progress has been delayed, but I assure him that it remains the Government’s intention to publish the national data strategy in 2020. I will endeavour to keep him and other noble Lords informed as to progress.
The question of identity has come up in this House and in the other place. I underline the abounding respect and admiration that this Government—and, indeed, I believe the whole nation—have for the Sikh people and the Sikh religion, faith and values. The Sikh community is an embedded and enormously valued part of the British nation. Even today, we have heard conflicting views on whether the ONS has made the right call in respect of the questions in the census. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and others spoke strongly in one direction, while the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, and indeed the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, spoke in the opposite direction.
The ONS has to reach a balance, and the tick-box options set out in the order have been informed by its very extensive programme of research, consultation and engagement, which has gone on for over three years. As I said in my opening statement, more than 55 requests were made for tick boxes under the ethnic group question alone. There is already a Sikh tick box for the religion question, and the ONS concluded that the needs for data on Sikh communities can be met without the addition of a Sikh ethnic tick box.
The 2011 census and subsequent research show that the religion and ethnic group questions capture similar Sikh populations. The number of people using the write-in option, which will exist in this census, to record Sikh as their ethnic group has been referred to. In 2011 the ONS promoted the ability to use that write-in option, and 83,000 people used it to write in their ethnicity as Sikh—but 92% of those also identified their religion as Sikh, and more than 423,000 people in England and Wales identified their religion as Sikh in 2011.
Qualitative research that the ONS commissioned on the acceptability, clarity and quality of the tick boxes showed that the inclusion of a Sikh ethnic tick box without other religions also having an ethnic tick box or tick boxes was viewed as unacceptable, particularly among younger, second-generation participants. The ONS has offered to work with members of the Sikh population to encourage wider participation in the census and to raise awareness of the option of writing in their identity in the ethnic group question. I hope Members of the House will help the ONS in this effort.
A question was asked about the Welsh language; the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others referred to this. I understand the point he made that it is important for the Welsh Government to understand the extent of the Welsh language, not only in Wales but outside Wales. Obviously, the draft census order provides for a question on the Welsh language to be asked in Wales, but anyone in England who wishes to record their main language as Welsh in the 2021 census will be able to do so using, again, the write-in options in the language question. Testing by the ONS convinced it that the inclusion of that question generally might lead to confusion among the larger number of respondents about why they were being asked it. When it comes to conducting the census, I am sure that those in the ONS and working on its behalf will pay heed to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others.
My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns and others raised Cornish identity. Again, the Government recognise the distinct culture and heritage of Cornwall. We understand how important that is to the people of Cornwall, who are rightly proud of their Cornish history. The reality is that everyone who wants to identify as Cornish in the census will be able to do so using the new search-as-you-type facility online or the write-in option. In its consultations informing the contents of the 2021 census, the ONS found that the need for data on Cornish populations is localised and—in the context of the many requests to have questions included in the census—not strong enough to justify the inclusion of a Cornish national identity box nationwide.
I assure noble Lords who have spoken—I myself have had representations from elected representatives in Cornwall—that the ONS is committed to working with Cornish MPs, Cornwall Council and others to meet their data needs through data gathered via the write-in option. It will promote this option in both national and local census campaigns. After this census, the ONS will for the first time produce an analytical report on the population who identify as Cornish and how their health, housing, work and education differ from those of people who do not identify as Cornish. I hope noble Lords will welcome that assurance.
The social condition of various parts of the population is extremely important and relates and translates across to the question asked by many noble Lords about accessibility and support, including for those who are homeless. The ONS will offer a range of support to help people who complete the census, whether online or on paper. As I said at the outset, paper forms will be available in large print. Language support will be provided for those who need it. There will also be an option to complete the questionnaire by telephone. I referred to the fact that additional help to fill in the census online or on paper will be available at community events in community centres, libraries and places of worship. I was grateful for the remarks of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on that.
In addition, the assisted digital service will be provided by the Good Things Foundation to provide support for those who are offline or need additional digital help. We are well aware of the importance of reaching those who are not digitally enabled; they are in fact, paradoxically, among the most important parts of the population which the ONS needs to reach in the census. It is a great responsibility to do that. That is why the ONS aims to recruit up to 40,000 field staff to support this kind of engagement. They will have a particular focus of resources on the known hard-to-count groups and areas. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, that, given the inclusion of the Roma question, there will be a great effort to reach all Traveller people. I will provide her with a written answer on the other question that she asked.
To return to the homeless, those who are homeless are particularly vulnerable and hard to reach. That is obvious. We have seen in the Covid crisis the Government’s efforts to reach that important and much underprivileged part of the population. In preparing for the census, the ONS is working to ensure that all those who are homeless, particularly those who are sleeping rough, have every opportunity to take part. Census forms will be available at day centres and night shelters over a series of days. The ONS is working closely with homelessness charities to ensure that there is help and support for those who are homeless to participate in the census.
As in 2011, special arrangements are being made to make sure that all those living in communal establishments are recorded in the census. My noble friend Lord Balfe referred to some of these, including those living in hospitals, residential care homes, student halls, prison establishments and military camps. This is an important duty laid on the ONS, and I am sure that it will rise to it.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referred to the voluntary nature of questions on the census. I am grateful for the welcome that has been given again by noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, among them, for the inclusion of questions on sexual orientation and gender identity. These will be voluntary. I am very grateful for the discussions the Government have had with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and for their advice to enable us to better underline the fact that these questions are voluntary.
I note what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said about the 2031 census. I am sure that, in that time, something will be done to improve any deficiencies in the drafting, but I repeat what I said in my opening remarks: the regulations that will come before the House and provide opportunity for further debate will prescribe the census form. They will make it absolutely clear that these questions are voluntary. I am grateful to noble Lords for raising that important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, asked a number of questions, some of which I can answer and some of which I will have to respond to in due course. He asked what efforts have been made to test some of the provisions for the census. There has been a census rehearsal. It was held last autumn in four local authority areas: Carlisle, Ceredigion, Hackney and Tower Hamlets. These areas were chosen to reflect urban, rural and mixed areas with their varying internet coverage and places where there are Welsh speakers, students and residents from a variety of backgrounds and ethnicities. Although participation was obviously voluntary, the rehearsal was a large-scale test of the census operational systems and processes. They included the online questionnaire, the field force function, digital assistance and public contact centre. The rehearsal has provided valuable insight into how the questions have been answered, and how the help and guidance is used. As I said, it covered most of the questions and areas raised in this debate.
The ONS is planning to publish a report on the rehearsal later this summer. It will incorporate the lessons from that and from the other work it has been taking on to test the census questions in its report this summer. The household response in the 2019 rehearsal was similar to that in the 2009 rehearsal, although direct comparisons are not possible because they were held in different areas. The 2011 census went on to reach 94% of the population, so this gives some confidence that the Government and the ONS will be able to reach large numbers of people in the census.
As many noble Lords stressed throughout the debate, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, it is vital, of course, that the information gathered in the census is confidential. I can assure noble Lords that the highest priority is given to that. It is fundamental to trust in the 2021 census. There are strict legal safeguards: unlawful disclosure of confidential census data by the statistics authority and its employees, including the ONS, is a criminal offence with a sanction of up to two years in prison. The same applies to the Registrar-General in Scotland. We are consulting on cybersecurity, and the National Cyber Security Centre is being carefully and continually engaged in the process.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. It is essential that everyone is counted in the 2021 census to provide service providers and policymakers with the information they need to help target support and resources where they are most needed, and as efficiently and effectively as possible. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Virtual Proceedings on this Motion are now complete. The Virtual Proceedings will now adjourn until 2.45 pm for the Motions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords the Virtual Proceedings on the Motions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, will now commence. The time limit is one and a half hours. At the end of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, I will hand over the Chair to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Virtual Proceedings do consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I will outline what the regulations we are considering do, then set out the policies and processes underlying their development, their implementation and finally their monitoring and review. However, first, I will recap the Prime Minister’s announcement.
Informed by scientific evidence and advice, on 10 May, the Prime Minister announced that there will be further changes to the regulations. These will come into effect on Wednesday 13 May. Your Lordships will hear the details of the Statement later today, but in summary there are further regulation clarifications. First, it is permitted for a hotel or other accommodation to provide services to a worker in a critical sector whose need for accommodation is connected to their work. Secondly, additional reasonable excuses to leave or be outside the home will now include visiting a shop that is otherwise closed to collect goods or visiting a local waste or recycling centre.
In addition, there are changes affecting businesses and venues. First, the regulations expand the list of reasonable excuses to leave or be outside the home to include outdoor recreation, including but not limited to exercise, as is currently the case. Secondly, there is an amendment to allow people to spend time outdoors alone, with members of their household or with one member of another household. Thirdly, there are amendments to enable the reopening of garden centres and outdoor sports courts.
The regulations to effect these changes will be for Parliament to approve and I hope that we can use the excellent facilities of this virtual Chamber to do so more speedily. I also add that, unfortunately, our original Explanatory Memorandum contained two typographical errors which, regrettably, we did not spot until after publication. First, it said that the first review would take place on 15 April, not 16 April. Secondly, it said that Parliament would need to approve the instrument within 20 days, when in fact it should have read 28 days.
On 26 March 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 came into force. These regulations were then followed by the regulations made on 20 April, which came into force on 22 April. These regulations mandated three key measures to protect the NHS: first, requiring people to stay at home as far as possible, with only limited exceptions; secondly, closing certain businesses and venues; thirdly, stopping gatherings in public of more than two people, with very limited exceptions.
These regulations are similar to those introduced by other countries, and we have worked closely with the devolved Administrations—to which I pay tribute—in developing and reviewing these measures. This country has been, and still is, engaged in a national effort to beat coronavirus, delivering a strategy designed to ensure that our NHS is protected, with capacity always exceeding the demand for ICU beds for coronavirus patients. Flattening the peak, drawing down the rate of transmission of the disease and the number of infections, alongside the work to significantly expand NHS capacity, has helped to protect our NHS and to save lives. I wish to put on record our continued thanks to the NHS, to care workers and to key workers around the country for the phenomenal work that they are doing, caring for people and keeping the United Kingdom going.
The regulations that we debate today have played a crucial role in the success we are seeing in reducing the infection and transmission levels. They place significant demands on individuals and society, with impacts on businesses, the economy and daily life. I understand the sacrifices that people are making at this time, their frustrations and their anxieties, but these regulations are necessary, because the single most important step that we can all take towards beating this disease is to reduce the spread by following these regulations, thereby protecting ourselves and others.
Before we made these regulations, the number of patients in intensive care was estimated to be doubling every three or four days. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—SAGE—assessed that, at the beginning of the epidemic, the R number was between 2.7 and 3. Each person with the disease gave it to nearly three other people. This type of exponential growth would have overwhelmed the NHS had it not been contained, but then our regulations took effect. The footfall data showed a significant fall of activity; UK daily footfall fell by 80% compared to last year. These regulations came in tandem with a vast and co-ordinated effort, with schools closing and becoming virtual and massive increases in testing and NHS critical care capacity.
The latest assessment by SAGE is that, across the UK, R has reduced to between 0.5 and 0.9, meaning that the number of infected people is falling. On 4 May, 27% of critical care beds in the UK were occupied by Covid-19 patients, compared to 51% on 10 April. The number of patients in hospital in the UK with Covid-19 is under 13,000 as of 4 May, 35% below the peak of 12 April. The measures have been well enforced and, importantly, well received by the public. Between 27 March and 27 April, 8,877 fixed penalty notices have been recorded as issued in England. This is less than 5% of the number of motoring offences issued in England and Wales over a similar period. In mid-March, 62% of people were extremely worried about the threat of Covid-19. It is now 43%, while 85% of people think that the stay-at-home rules should stay in place.
However, I acknowledge the great sacrifice that these regulations have required everyone to make. Whether you are separated from your loved ones, unable to go to a funeral, face restrictions in your religious observance or simply have not been able to meet your friends for weeks, everyone has made a contribution. These are exceptional measures, brought forward to reflect exceptional challenges. They were made by the Secretary of State on 26 March and 21 April respectively and, rightly, following the return of the House after the Easter Recess, are brought before the House today for the scrutiny and debate that they require under emergency procedure approved by Parliament for such measures. The regulations are lawfully made under the power of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and comply with all the Government’s obligations in relation to human rights. Above all, they help to save lives. That is why Parliament has given Ministers these powers. The House will be aware that there are applications for judicial reviews and other legal actions in the offing. I will of course not comment on those.
We do not use these powers lightly or without good reason. We are acutely aware of the burden that they place on society and the challenge that we face in achieving the right balance between protecting the public’s health and safeguarding individual liberties, and between saving the NHS and saving our economy. I believe that we have achieved that balance.
The reasons for my confidence are threefold. First, these regulations set out that a review of these restrictions and requirements must take place at least every 21 days to ensure that each restriction or requirement continues to be necessary to prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection in England. We completed the first review, as required, on 16 April 2020; the most recent was completed on 7 May.
Secondly, the regulations reflect the strategy that we have agreed across the UK, which is led by the best scientific evidence available along with consideration of the economic, operational, social and policy implications.
Thirdly, recognising the potential for harm to public health and the economy if measures were relaxed too soon, we have developed robust criteria to guide policy considerations on when it would be desirable for measures to be eased. These considerations are fivefold: whether the NHS can provide critical care across the UK; whether there is a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rate; whether infection rates decrease to an acceptable level; whether supplies of PPE and testing meet future demand; and whether the evidence is clear that changes will not risk a second peak.
Ministers conduct the review guided by officials and experts, ensuring that the measures continue to be both proportionate and necessary. However, it would be naive to imagine that there have not been snags that public servants across the UK have had to work day and night to untangle. The JCHR and others have expressed concerns about the variations in enforcement and the approach to it adopted by different police forces. As your Lordships will be aware, guidance was issued to police forces; that has continued to be clarified and updated. It is important that the police operate within the law, as set out in these regulations. That guidance is treated as such: guidance.
In the first review, it was agreed that no changes would be made to the existing restrictions. However, a small number of minor amendments were required to clarify the regulations and ease their operation. They relate to enforcement of the measures and affected businesses and venues.
The changes announced by the Prime Minister earlier this week may well lead to further revisions of these regulations. Your Lordships need not feel, therefore, that this House’s role in scrutinising the Government and holding us to account has, because of the manner in which these regulations were made, become somewhat diminished—far from it. These debates influence the choices made in policy development.
I look forward to a high-quality and informative debate this afternoon. We will take your Lordships’ contributions on board. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these statutory instruments. The Prime Minister’s Statement will be debated later, so I will focus on these regulations. As the Minister said, they give considerable power to Ministers to make significant demands on us: to stay at home as far as possible, closing many businesses and stopping gatherings of more than two people in public. As Liberty points out, although the regulations expire in six months, Parliament has to approve them only once, yet Ministers are required to review them every three weeks. Ministers can change the guidance and, through a ministerial direction, can terminate a requirement or restriction contained in these instruments. The Minister said that the regulations get the balance right, but Ministers are given huge authority. Liberty suggests that, as a minimum, the regulations should be remade under the Civil Contingencies Act, as opposed to the Public Health Act. This would enable regular parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister look at this again?
The other point which I want to raise, which the Minister touched on, is the use of police powers. Overall, the police have responded magnificently to the incredible challenge they have been given. However, there has been confusion, not least over the extent to which people are permitted to exercise and gather outside. As Liberty says, the combination of sweeping powers, haste in drafting legislation and mixed communication strategies is in part to blame for some of the police confusion. This is likely to grow, given the Prime Minister’s Statement and fears among doctors and police chiefs that the new message to stay alert rather than to stay at home may confuse the public and make it harder to enforce the restrictions.
Liberty recommends that any guidance published to supplement the regulations should distinguish between what is law and what is best practice advice to the public. The Lords Scrutiny Committee made similar points and worried about the confusion between the law and the guidelines. It is keen to ensure that the police are aware of the scope of these regulations, as distinct from the guidance. Given the road map laid out by the Government for lifting the restrictions, we are likely to see changes to the guidelines on a regular basis. I hope that the Minister can assure me that all will be done to make clear to the police just what the law is in the regulations that we are asked to approve today.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, these regulations are about the management of public health, not how to uphold public order. It is, therefore, a great pity that, due to the way that the Government have introduced them, the debate has become mainly about public order. Confusion was initially due to the words and grand statements of Ministers which were, at times, at odds with the actual provisions of the statutory instrument. On exercise, Ministers said, “Once a day, close to home”. Yet the SI does not restrict individuals to that. We had police stopping people unnecessarily and Derbyshire police using drones to shame people walking legally. There were issues around shopping, with Ministers talking about what “essential items” were. Yet the SI does not define essential or non-essential items; it states the law on where you can buy them. We had trolley spying by some police forces and the famous Easter egg debate. None of these was to do with public health issues around Covid-19. The police college had to send out guidance to cut through ministerial soundbites and state what was actually law within the SI. We are taking note of them again but tomorrow, as the Minister said, some of the provisions will change, due to them being out of date and as the new, graduated, measures to release lockdown start.
However, confusion has started again as we debate, not the science of public health, but the words and confusions of Ministers on public order issues. For example, public health advice indicates that you have a low transmission risk if you meet one other person outside your household outdoors and stay two metres apart. Yet the debate is now about the difference between meeting in a park or in your garden. The public health message is again getting lost: it makes no difference to public health, or the transmission of the virus, whether you meet one person outside, at a distance of two metres, in a garden or a park. Are we going to have police tiptoeing over people’s garden fences to see whether they are meeting one other person outside their household?
These SIs, and the new ones tomorrow, will be an important part of public health measures and the management of Covid-19. Will the Minister and the Government keep to that, and not give us soundbites that focus on people in parks or gardens, or on Easter eggs? We need to see these as helping to reduce Covid-19 and enhancing public health and not as a matter of public order where the debate moves away from people feeling safe and knowing to do the right things which the SIs say by law they have to.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I want to sort of start my comments by congratulating the Government and the police on showing incredible restraint in acting under huge pressure in what has been an incredibly difficult period. The amendments to these regulations are welcome because they start to allow people to get more exercise and get the economy going. It is easy for us out here to sort of criticise, but I congratulate the Minister on what he and his team have been doing under huge pressure.
The Prime Minister has talked about the importance of common sense, and we now need to start thinking about these regulations and our whole approach to the response to Covid, using common sense, and involving other parties in this. I would be keen to hear from the Minister how we can start to involve the public in the way that these regulations evolve moving forward. For example, there is data at a local level about how many people are infected with Covid. Instead of using law and regulations all the time to shape behaviour, which can be a crude instrument, are there ways almost to gamify and allow citizens to understand the situation in their local area, understand what might be causing it locally and start to adapt their behaviour according to where they are, in the country or in a city such as London?
Secondly, understandably, we have had to bring in these regulations, but they are a huge infringement on civil liberties. So far we have had to take into account the needs of the NHS and public health in shaping these regulations, but do we also need to think about the enforceability of these regulations and laws? For example, on the new change that will allow people to meet one other person from outside the household, do we believe that the police have the resources to check every time they see people in the park whether an additional member has joined that household or whether they are part of the same family? Could we not start to work together with experts in this House, in the police and in the legal system, to shape laws based on natural law and common-law principles that are more tailored and risk-based? For example, we do not seem to have the resources to shut down large gatherings when they appear, so how will we be able to focus on policing individual families?
Moving forward, we will need to have a much wider debate to shape these laws, rather than the Government generating and issuing them and noble Lords in this House commenting around the edges. It feels as though we need to move forward and create these regulations together.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, we understand that the regulations require a review every three weeks. However, it is of the utmost importance that this review should include a range of engagements and practical, meaningful discussions with the opposition parties, trade unions, and, not least, the First Ministers of the devolved Governments. Mark Drakeford said recently that he does not think there has been “sufficient” communication. He said that is has been three weeks since he wrote to Michael Gove asking for a “regular pattern of engagement” between devolved Administrations and the UK Government. He said:
“We didn’t have, in my mind, that reliable rhythm of contact … Where we had it, it was good. But as I said before it was in fits and starts”—
and he did not think that that was sufficient. Does the Minister agree that three weeks is far too long for one Government to receive a communication from another? Therefore, in the light of these comments, will he assure the House that he will engage with the Government so that Mr Drakeford’s request for a regular pattern of engagement with UK Ministers becomes the norm and not the exception?
What are we doing in Wales to protect the population from the pandemic? Mark Drakeford announced on Saturday that the Welsh Labour Government would extend the stay-at-home regulations for a further three weeks, albeit with some modest adjustments, becoming the first UK leader to do that formally. Wales currently has six regional drive-through testing centres and eight mobile testing units operating across the country. Together with the ongoing rollout of an online portal for booking tests and the planned introduction of new home testing kits, that will help significantly to increase daily testing in Wales. The message remains the same: stay home, protect the NHS and save lives. The Health Minister gave a further public update on the outbreak in Wales earlier today.
Another vital area for the Government to consider is local government. Councils, with their knowledge of their local communities, are ideally placed, with the skills, knowledge and experience on the ground to help the Government achieve their ambition to ramp up the level of testing and contact tracing necessary to defeat this disease. I did not hear the Prime Minister mention in his update anything specific about their important role in this public health crisis.
The LGA has said that
“the sharing of information is essential if we are to succeed in driving down the numbers of new people being infected once the lockdown is gradually lifted and access people who will not be reached by the new NHS app.”
Key sources of data are needed by councils, such as access to testing results across all sites, hospitalisation records for those with Covid-19, death certifications in which the disease is identified, and many more indicators, so that councils can identify hotspots, map where the virus is prevalent and plan for action. Can the Minister find out how much detailed liaison work is happening with local government on these matters and if not, why not?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the justification for not providing Parliament with a draft of these regulations, as is usual, has been
“the serious and imminent threat to public health”.
Notwithstanding that, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is right to say that our duty is to ask awkward questions and to scrutinise. I will use my three short minutes to do that.
Confusingly, while these regulations impose restrictions and fines for members of the public breaking the lockdown, a Cabinet Minister has said of Covid-19, “let it run hot”. Our Minister, who replies for the whole Government, says that it was not his department that said this, but which of these strategies—carefully cautious or “let it rip”—is the Government’s position? When will he publish the scientific evidence behind the use of that phrase?
The Care Quality Commission is to investigate whether hospitals, some here in the north of England, might have broken the law by sending patients with Covid-19 back to care homes, where more than a quarter of Covid deaths have occurred. Managers and staff were not told that the patients being discharged were infected, triggering new fatal outbreaks among other residents. Will the Minister confirm that, in doing this, the law was indeed broken? When do the Government anticipate that the CQC will publish its report? Will the findings be presented to Parliament?
Will the Minister confirm that levels of coronavirus infection are probably at least five times higher among hospital and care home staff than in the wider population —I declare an interest in that one of my sons is an A&E doctor working in a hospital with Covid patients—and that coronavirus outbreaks in care homes are now leaking back into the community and driving the epidemic? Sir Ian Diamond, the head of the Office for National Statistics, says that the R number, referred to earlier by the noble Lord,
“is driven by the epidemic in care homes”.
Will these regulations be used to stop carers visiting multiple care facilities? If so, what thought is being given to the care needs of residents and ensuring that staff who are infected are properly isolated?
I have written to the Minister about the importance of giving public health officers and local councils greater control over tackling the outbreak in their communities. Sir David King, the former Chief Scientific Adviser, says this will be the only way to contain new peaks. Does the Minister agree? I also hope that the Minister agrees that the need for a national care service, locally administered but with central oversight, on a par with the National Health Service and with more than Cinderella status, is now self-evident and long overdue.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. These emergency measures were brought in at comparatively short notice, so I welcome the chance to review them, and congratulate the Government on what they have achieved in a very short time.
As my noble friend the Minister pointed out at the outset, the success of the regulations will depend on the clarity of the message and the collaboration and co-operation of the public. My concern is that the level of trust shown by the public may fall as time goes on and they become less patient. We should also note that the latest guidance, which is being issued and emerging this week, is perhaps more clouded and less clear.
There are inconsistencies in the guidance; for example, people are urged to go to work but may not have access to public transport, or have been advised not to use public transport but alternatives are simply not feasible. Those with children may have no childcare available, making it difficult for them to leave home and return to work.
Will my noble friend consider the difficulties of policing? Will the Government consider talking about physical distance rather than social distance, so that people really pay attention to the two-metre rule?
I understand that the sunset provision is not due to come in until 10 February 2022. Will my noble friend confirm that? As others have done, I urge him to really focus on the clarification required to differentiate between the regulations before us today, which are legally binding instruments, and the guidance, which is not, to ensure that the police have the very best understanding of the scope and that the regulations do not become a charter for neighbours to grass on their neighbours.
My noble friend is familiar with my interest in Regulation 61 of the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2013. This is particularly appropriate in rural areas. It allows NHS England to commission a dispensing doctor’s surgery to provide services to all—that is, not just its own registered dispensing patients—where a pharmacy is temporarily closed. This decision can be national or regional, but so far it has not been used in either circumstance. Why not? Having urged us all to avoid all but essential travel, will the Government consider keeping this under constant review and ask NHS England, both nationally and regionally, why this regulation, which permits dispensing doctors to dispense these medicines, is not being used to facilitate the lives of patients and allow dispensing doctors to do their work?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has explained that the legislation is about to be superseded. The rule of law requires law, brought to both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible. There is enough confusion about what is intended without confusion on the part of citizens and the police as to whether what we are told to do or not do has the force of law, because a breach may carry a fine and, let us not forget, a criminal record.
I keep coming back to what is a “reasonable excuse”, which, as I understand it, is still the overarching criterion. Enforcement has to work with guidance; it is not enough for the Prime Minister to say, as he did yesterday,
“everybody understands what we are trying to do together.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/5/20; col. 30.]
The Secretary of State this morning seemed still unable to answer the question posed on Sunday: can I meet both my parents, all of us keeping well apart, physically distanced, in my back garden, accessed directly? If not, why not?
If I were an employer, I would ask—so I will ask the Minister—“If I ask or tell staff to return to work, could I be opening myself up to legal claims because of how I organise the work? If I do not tell them to return—I could do, but I am cautious—will they still get their furlough payments? If some return but others are too anxious to do so, does one group receive those payments but the other does not, and how do I handle that?”
We seem to be in a position of no substantive change —indeed, the Minister in his introduction reverted to the “stay home” mantra—but with added muddle. “Staying alert” to me is the language of not ignoring dodgy packages on the Tube, not being alert to something you cannot see. Are the Government taking advice from behavioural scientists and psychologists in both policy and communications? The noble Lord, Lord Wei, might agree.
I think all speakers so far have called for consistency and clarity. Do we need clear, and clearly intra vires, law? Yes, and so does the Secretary of State, who must terminate regulations that are not necessary or proportionate. He, and we, must be able to make that assessment. Did we need another slogan? Not in my view.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we were not equipped to cope with the pandemic when Covid-19 hit. Despite the shortcomings identified in 2016 and the inevitability of such a viral attack, we had pitifully few intensive care beds and a dearth of PPE, so the lockdown was necessary to enable the NHS to gear up.
People have largely played by the rules, but the damage inflicted on people’s mental health and on the economy has been huge and should not be prolonged. The Government cannot continue prescribing people’s lifestyles as these regulations do. They must move towards trusting people’s common sense, not just talking about it. It is very clear who is most vulnerable to the virus. It is surely right to assume that a wish for self-preservation will deter those most at risk from assuming an unnecessary level of risk, but society as a whole must cope with living with the risk of Covid. We are accumulating debts, both public and private, which will affect the lives of generations. To prolong the economic misery is to make the treatment worse than the disease.
Lord Sumption has said:
“We have resorted to law, which requires exact definition, and banished common sense, which requires judgment.”
Sadly, as other noble Lords have said, exact definition is missing from much of the regulations, and it is very hard for people to apply judgment when regulations are trying to limit their behaviour. Now is the time to allow the public to exercise their judgment. If people judge it important to meet both their parents simultaneously, is it really the role of government to tell them they cannot? If young people want to go to the pub, is it really the role of government to tell them they cannot? The noble Lord, Lord Wei, suggested that perhaps the public could be told more about how the virus was behaving in their area. I agree that that would help them form their judgment.
Families must be able to resume family life. The hospitality and tourism industries must be allowed to reopen their doors. If that does not happen soon, for many of them it never will. Social distancing is a concept now well understood. The Government should trust the people to be sensible and socially distance themselves. They should concentrate their efforts on supporting our health service and care workers. This virus has highlighted the low priority given to social care for many years. Could the Minister say whether he believes that the regulations governing care homes are sufficient to ensure that they are not used as dumping grounds by the NHS?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely recognise the difficult balancing act for the Government in grappling with the trade-off between public health protection and individual liberty—between the economy and the resources to support our population in the future, and the national health. I would like to highlight two vital elements that are part of these regulations and the ministerial thinking that has been clearly outlined by my noble friend.
I turn first to liberty and health. The regulations state explicitly that “vulnerable person” includes
“any person aged 70 or older”.
It is not clear that there is medical or statistical evidence to support the implication that anyone over the age of 70 is more vulnerable to Covid-19 than other age groups. We have done so much to improve the lives of older people, extending working life and life expectancy, so that those aged over 70 are now fitter and healthier than many younger people. While I congratulate the Government on their decision not to relax the lockdown rules in any way that discriminates against older people, these regulations contain that implication.
The latest ONS data undermines the arguments made by some that age is a predictor of fatalities from this virus. The most recent information shows that the proportion of people aged over 70 who have died with Covid-19 is 81.5%, but the annual death rate for the over-70s in the UK is normally 82% of all deaths. This does not support age alone being a relevant factor. Of course, older people are at any time more likely to pass away than younger people, so I wonder if the Government will reconsider the position of the over-70s that is indicated in these regulations and remove any age discrimination from our reaction to this virus. We must differentiate between elderly people who are at extreme risk, particularly if they have previous medical conditions, and the rest of the population.
That leads to my second point. I listened carefully to my noble friend who introduced these measures. His words each time were that they protected the NHS and ensured that it had spare capacity. However, I am deeply concerned that, as other noble Lords have mentioned, this extraordinary focus on NHS capacity, which has now reached a significant high, has resulted in discharging people who are the most vulnerable to this illness back into the community or into care settings, putting others who are also vulnerable—and the staff—at risk too. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that the department will consider the importance of upholding our national values, which reject age or any other form of discrimination, and increase the parity of esteem between the NHS and social care, which is so important for the management of this illness.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My issue with these regulations is the policy on masks. Under the heading “Restrictions on movement”, Regulation 6 states that
“no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse”.
I propose that when the Government next review these regulations, they should add the following words: “Where a person leaves the place where they are living with reasonable excuse, as set out in Regulation 6(2)(a) to (2)(m), that person shall wear a mask or face covering of such design as to reduce the transfer of the virus.” It is now nine weeks since I first raised this issue in the House on 9 March. I then argued that the public should ignore the advice on masks and follow the practice of health professionals, who in the real world can be seen daily on television wearing them. The wearing of masks should be mandatory.
Yesterday’s guidance on masks adds little to the existing arrangements. In recent weeks, a Mr Phillip Collet recently returned from a visit to Thailand, where, interestingly, the total deaths number 56 in a population of 69 million, against the UK’s total deaths of 31,000 in a population of 66 million. Almost the entire population of Thailand wears face masks. Based on research, Mr Collet argued that the Hunan in China infection rate requires further study. That study found that, on a bus, one person infected nine people. No person wearing a mask was infected. Half the people infected were four metres away from that single source. He went on to say that the study on Prevention and Control of Covid-19 by Dr Wenhong Zhang should be considered. He argues that masks with valves can be dangerous and appeals for the scientific advisory committee to consider the Wenhong and other Chinese studies.
The argument is simple. Has Mr Collet got a case? Are officials in the department listening to him? Why have the countries he cites been the most successful worldwide in dealing with the virus? Is the real reason why HMG resist mandatory arrangements the fact that they have failed to organise, invite and promote the development of a domestic manufacturing capacity and instead are relying on cheap sources in China, which is now supplying the world and is overwhelmed? Can we also have an authoritative response by Ministers to Phillip Collet’s observations? The issues around masks are not going to go away.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. I want to highlight the tension between public health measures and protection of an individual’s rights, as defined through the Mental Capacity Act.
Those with learning difficulties, dementia and brain injury through disease or trauma often also have conditions that make them vulnerable to Covid, yet society has come to realise that the vulnerable are valuable—they enrich our lives. It has been difficult to explain to them why, and which, restrictions were needed, and it is now even less clear which parts of the guidance are statutory requirements. Is there now a need for a personalised app that tailors legally-apt guidance to the risk factors of a person and those in their household?
Going forward, people with capacity impairments will need more support to adapt to the lessening of the restrictions that were imposed for public health measures. The lockdown routines, creatively structured to keep people mentally and physically well, will change again as “isolation” becomes a nuanced word. Simply saying “use common sense” will not be enough. It will be hard work supporting those who are vulnerable as they adapt to widening and changing physical freedoms. Tasks such as keeping a 2-metre distance must be learned, using bank cards instead of cash makes people more vulnerable to fraud and exploitation, keeping a face mask on is difficult, and some have lost physical strength through decreased activity. The very vulnerable, and those with physical care needs, have carers coming and going. The plan of test, trace and isolate will keep them safe only if testing is rapidly and easily available, for both the person and those who care.
Will public health plans require that all testing facilities are local to the person and get results out rapidly? Which national external quality assurance systems are commissioned labs required to adhere to? Are false positives from RNA contamination, and false negatives from specimen decay in transit or from error-prone gene tests, being detected through audits? Unless those supporting the vulnerable are maintained virus-free, our second wave may be worse than the first.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the SLSC for its typically thorough report, which identified errors in the original regulations. But with the changes announced by the Government over the last two days, I look forward to new revised regulations, which I hope will correct one glaring anomaly in the regulations of 26 March.
Regulation 6(2), relating to restrictions on movement, states that a reasonable excuse to leave home is
“the need … to obtain basic necessities, including food”.
Leaving aside the word “need”, which is quite subjective, the term “basic necessities” has led to some police officers boasting that they were patrolling shopping aisles to make sure that consumers were purchasing what the police considered were “basic necessities.” I believe that that behaviour was quickly stamped on, but the law in this regulation still says “basic necessities”.
Schedule 2, Part 3 lists the shops that may stay open. These include supermarkets, petrol stations and hardware shops, among others. The Government have confirmed that consumers can purchase anything at all in these shops which they stock, much of which is not a basic necessity. Supermarkets selling homewares, toys, video games, clothing and compost are perfectly within the law. The term “basic necessities” is confusing and unnecessary. Regulation 6(2)(a) should therefore be changed to say: “to obtain any supplies, including food”, et cetera, “from the businesses listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2”.
Schedule 2 should also have a general provision which states that any shop or retail premises can open provided that it can maintain social distancing. If the supermarkets can limit numbers and space out customers, why not permit, say, Army & Navy Stores, Debenhams or any other retailer to open if they can set up safe systems?
Finally, I commend the statement in the Government’s plan, Our Plan to Rebuild, announced yesterday, that
“the Government will continue to recognise that not everybody’s … risk is the same; the level of threat posed by the virus varies across the population”,
and that the Government expect
“to steadily make the risk-assessment more nuanced … some … may be able to take more risk … The Government will need to consider both risk to self, and risk of transmitting to others.”
Therefore, I hope that the new regulations will make it clear that everyone over 70 is not automatically vulnerable. The same goes for those of us with “underlying health conditions.” These cover a huge range of conditions, and not all of them have equal risk. We must let people over 70 or others in perceived risk categories get out, so long as they do not pose a risk to others. If they endanger themselves, that is their decision, so long as they do not endanger anyone else. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take those points on board.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
Please could we all try to keep to the timings.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate on the regulations before us today. I intend in the short time I have to focus on two issues only.
Over 32,000 people have died in hospital from being infected with Covid-19. It is horrifying that the United Kingdom has one of the worst records in the world and the worst record in Europe. This pandemic will require serious questions to be asked about the Government’s handling of the crisis. However, that is the future, not for now.
Specifically, I am pleased to see amendments to the regulations with respect to attending burial grounds and gardens of remembrance to pay respects to family members and friends. There have been some welcome changes to the regulations and clarifications to guidance, as there were some instances of wrong or poor interpretation of the regulations, which was making the process of saying goodbye to a loved one even more difficult and distressing than it has been in these difficult and unprecedented times. We had situations where guidance or the regulations were interpreted, as I said before, harshly or even incorrectly. I was pleased that approaches I made to Ministers had some effect, and sensible clarifications in advice, guidance and actual regulations, made here and elsewhere, will make a difference. I appreciate the way in which the points I raised with Ministers were listened to and acted upon.
The second point I want to raise is the treatment of homeless people. The vast majority of homeless people are off the streets, but there are isolated cases where things have not gone well. I cannot see the point of prosecuting homeless people for leaving the place where they live. Court papers say, “living at no fixed address”. That seems completely ridiculous. I hope that the CPS will consider the stupidity of prosecuting such cases. Homeless people, like the rest of us, need to be protected, and criminalising them in this way does nothing to help them or the wider population. It just brings further problems, and it is a waste of public money, which could be better spent on getting a homeless person additional help and support. Can the Minister, when responding to the debate, bring the concerns I have expressed here to the attention of the Justice Secretary and the Crown Prosecution Service?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, even I will admit that these regulations were urgent and necessary, but it is a democratic and constitutional outrage that they were implemented on 26 March and are finally being debated in this House only on Tuesday 12 May. The regulations mark the greatest loss of liberty ever imposed in Britain, yet they were slipped in as emergency secondary legislation the day after Parliament closed early for a month-long recess. Parliament had just passed the Coronavirus Act and we were told to go early to recess, as it was job done. Yet it turns out that the real measures had absolutely nothing to do with that Act. Why did we break up a week early for Easter, rather than sit to give proper scrutiny to such drastic legislation? It was wrong to do it like that; it reminded me all too well of the illegal prorogation of Parliament last year.
The Government say that they are adjusting their guidance to loosen the restrictions but they must make amendments to the regulations reflecting this. For example, last week the police were threatening sunbathers in parks with a fine; this week, they will not be. Were the police wrong about the law last week or are they wrong this week? The law has not changed, so the circumstances in which people can be fined have not changed either. With so much confusion among police officers and police forces, anyone who is fined should be encouraged to challenge a fine through the courts to ensure that it has been issued lawfully and not based on a police officer’s mistaken understanding of the facts or the law. Even so, too many people will be paying fines which have been wrongly issued. Can the Minister tell me, first, what the Government are doing to protect against this?
Secondly, can the Minister explain how the Government are addressing the widespread confusion among police, prosecutors and the judiciary, which has led to people being wrongly convicted under these regulations and the Coronavirus Act? Thirdly, can he provide an update on the Crown Prosecution Service’s review of convictions under the legislation? I understand that it is even going to look at guilty pleas. Finally, can he explain the appointment of an anti-terror spook in the role of deciding how to lift lockdown restrictions, instead of the four Chief Medical Officers who were tasked with it before? When did this become a terrorism issue rather than a health issue?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
It is our hard-pressed police who have been left with the unenviable job of enforcing and interpreting these rushed regulations and guidelines, which did not receive proper parliamentary scrutiny prior to being introduced. Inevitably, there have been differences in the interpretation and application of these regulations, which have statutory force, and the guidelines, which do not. It is clear that senior police officers already feel that the confusion and lack of clarity is making their job of policing by consent increasingly difficult, if not impossible.
The situation will have been made worse by the Statement to Parliament yesterday from the Prime Minister, amending or changing the interpretation of these regulations and associated guidelines. The Statement was not exactly a model of clarity. The Prime Minister stated yesterday that
“from Wednesday there will be no limits on the frequency of outdoor exercise people can take”
and:
“You can drive as far as you like to reach an outdoor space.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/5/20; cols. 25-6.]
But the Prime Minister later stated:
“Yes, staying alert for the vast majority of people still means staying at home as much as possible.”
Can the Minister explain how, under these regulations and associated guidelines, staying at home as much as possible for the vast majority of people is consistent with there being no limits on either the frequency of outdoor exercise that people can take or how far they can drive to reach an outdoor space? How can the police be expected to reconcile those obviously conflicting statements in enforcing and interpreting these regulations and any associated guidelines?
The regulations actually preclude anyone from leaving the place where they live without reasonable excuse and set out examples of reasonable excuses. Will the intended amendments to the regulations also reflect the changes or modifications to the definitions of reasonable excuse that the Prime Minister announced yesterday, to which I have referred, or do the Government deem those changes to still come within the terms of the existing statutory definitions of reasonable excuses in the regulations and, if so, which definition or definitions?
Finally, were the changes to the regulations and guidelines announced by the Prime Minister yesterday the subject of any consultation beforehand with chief constables and elected and accountable police and crime commissioners? What are the powers of an elected and accountable police and crime commissioner to determine how, in practice, the changes announced by the Prime Minister yesterday should be applied to the constituents who elected them by the police force for which they are the PCC?
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, in the Covid emergency legislation and these regulations, the Government have taken unto themselves enormous powers which remove from citizens many basic legal rights. Having done so, the Government should be under an obligation to subject their decision-making to scrutiny which is reasonable and timely. The fact that we are discussing today regulations already implemented in March is yet more evidence that the decisions made unilaterally by the House authorities to restrict House business and the ability of Members to take part are hugely damaging to democracy and preventing transparency.
The Minister, Jo Churchill, introducing the regulations in another place on 9 March, said:
“Tackling covid-19 requires a robust, integrated and proportionate response”.—[Official Report, Commons Delegated Legislation Committee, 9/3/20; col. 1.]
Today it is our duty to test whether the Government have done that so far.
What we have a today is a set of regulations based on assumptions that the greatest threat to public health would arise from individual people ignoring advice to observe lockdown and defying advice on physical distancing. With some exceptions, the public have observed the public health advice pretty well. Where groups of people have not followed advice, local government, particularly mayors, has stepped in to restore compliance.
Ironically, we have seen instead that the biggest threat to life since the pandemic began has been in care homes, where it is said that there have been more than 10,000 deaths. That is not the fault of local government or local resilience hubs, which know and understand the needs of care providers and vulnerable groups in their area; it is a direct consequence of central government’s failure to prioritise testing in care homes and testing of people being discharged from hospitals into care homes. Seven weeks in, local government and care providers are still being sent detailed guidance which is constantly changing, and they have to grapple with three different systems for ordering PPE, none of which works properly. Unsurprisingly, the death rate among staff in care homes is much greater than that in hospitals.
In this morning’s Question about care homes, the Minister said:
“I reassure the House that deaths in care homes have always been part of the official figures.”
I ask him to write to me setting out the exact basis for his statement, because the Government’s advice of 28 February on Covid in care homes stated that it was very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home or a care setting would become infected. Can he explain why in daily press conferences in March and April Ministers specifically used the number of deaths from Covid in hospitals? Has he listened to the BBC Radio 4 programme, “More or Less” which has cited frequent use of different statistics at different times by Ministers and government spokespeople in response to questions on these issues?
Since the beginning of the pandemic, decision-making has been based on two assumptions: first, that the main and lasting impact of the virus would be on the NHS and, secondly, that central government, and not local government, are always best placed to lead every initiative. As some of us have been saying since March, those assumptions may have been temporarily correct for the initial medical emergency, but they are the wrong basis on which to prevent further major outbreaks. The key to managing the virus while a vaccine is developed is to work in partnership with regional and local government, businesses and charities to design, implement and monitor effective public health systems.
The regulations that we are discussing today have been overtaken by events. However, as the country prepares to exit lockdown, it is more necessary than ever that we have regulations which make clear the legal basis on which government decisions and actions have been taken, and which make a distinction between the law and good practice.
Yesterday, the Government released what they called Our Plan to Rebuild, the Covid recovery strategy. It is not a plan; it is a set of assertions and aspirations not particularly well communicated. Page 33 announces 14 supporting programmes. On closer inspection, there are at most 10 programmes, all of them centrally determined. Other Governments within the UK and local government are simply the recipients of more responsibilities. Some of those are extremely complex, such as rebuilding a social care system which is broken, but there is little detail about how it will be funded. What we have is yet another example of central government issuing demands and announcing initiatives, such as the GoodSAM app, when they have not thought through how they will work in practice. It is more like a plan for central government to get the glory while local government gets the blame.
The Government’s mantra is that they are following the science, but the job of government is more than that. It is the job of government to listen to scientific advice, consult relevant authorities and develop clearly understood legislation that will work. The public want to know what they can do safely to expedite the end of lockdown.
Will the Minister assure the House that no new criminal offence for individual citizens will be created as a result of this plan until the law and regulations have been voted upon by both Houses? There is an urgent need for clear legislation regarding key elements of yesterday’s announcements so that public health officials, local authorities, the police, schools, workers, employers and businesses understand their legal obligations and rights. Will the Minister undertake to bring the regulations, with the accompanying evidence base, to the House at the earliest opportunity? Will the Government allow sufficient time and information for Members of the House to understand how those regulations will be implemented?
When the emergency Covid legislation was passed, Ministers stressed that the government powers in that legislation would be turned on and off as necessary rather than being permanent. At that time, we asked for an updated table of measures in force at any one time so that people having to implement the laws knew under which legislation their actions would be authorised. Can the Minister say when that will happen? It is becoming a matter of urgency.
The Government have had unprecedented support from opposition parties and the population of the United Kingdom. For that to continue, they have to provide timely and accurate information that is trusted by those who hear it. I am afraid that this week, that has not been the case. By not doing so the Government have damaged their ability to take the swift action they have said they needed to take all along. The more the Government move into issuing statements based on soundbites rather than scientific evidence, the more difficult it becomes for politicians on all sides to support them in what they do. I hope that the Minister will take lessons from these regulations and that when the Government bring forward the next lot, they will have listened to the powerful messages given to them from right across the House this afternoon.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and I thank all noble Lords for the many questions they have raised, which needed to be asked. We all wish these regulations were not necessary, but we also accept that they are. I think the counsel of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, is dangerous and potentially fatal and I hope the Government will not heed it. This virus is still among us. It is not defeated, and we need to be cautious and, most of all, clear.
Before getting to the substance of these regulations and the future, it is important to remember that they represent the biggest peacetime restrictions that this country has ever seen and demand full parliamentary monitoring and scrutiny. Parliament put them through at speed, and I wonder whether the Minister agrees that a couple of hours of debate weeks after they were introduced cannot in future be sufficient to provide the level of examination and scrutiny that such sweeping laws require. The Prime Minister’s announcement, the publication of the new strategy, the subsequent debates and discussion and the statement made last night on the BBC by my right honourable friend the leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, all point to the need for greater clarity and significantly better communication. The main point concerns the need to come back to Parliament with yet more amendments to these regulations. Does the Minister anticipate that we will see further revisions to the regulations, and if so, when?
I would like the Minister to address some of the problems caused by the mixed messaging and to try to rectify the somewhat shambolic government communications over the past few days. For example, why have the Government called for people to return to work before the schools are open and not to go to work on public transport? To these Benches, that suggests a serious lack of understanding of ordinary people’s working lives. For the Prime Minister to say that he is sure employers will understand that some of their workforce will have childcare difficulties makes me wonder which planet he and his Ministers inhabit.
Will the Government bring forward further regulations, or even legislation, to provide protection for employees who are faced with the dilemma of employers demanding that they return to work when their children cannot go to school? Furthermore, is a grandparent allowed to look after one child but not two? Who exactly should return to work—as the Prime Minister said, “The next morning” —and how should employers keep their employees safe? The guidance on funerals also needs further clarification. It was championed by my noble friend Lord Kennedy but I feel that there is still considerable variety across the country, with some councils taking awful decisions and causing serious distress to families. Can the Minister ensure that the guidance issued is being followed? My noble friends Lord Kennedy, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Hunt and Lady Wilcox asked many questions, which I hope the Minister can answer.
These regulations allow officers to arrest and fine people for breaking the lockdown but, as many noble Lords have said, we know that they have been misinterpreted in some cases, with wrongful cases identified through social media and press reporting. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee in the Commons voiced
“concern that police were enforcing government advice rather than the letter of the law”,
which is less strict. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights previously warned that the police may be punishing people “without any legal basis”, causing confusion over the extent of the law. Can the Minister confirm that all criminal charges made under the Act will be duly reviewed to ensure that they are appropriate and compliant? Given the pace at which the new regulations had to be implemented, it is not surprising that there have been early problems and errors, hence the need for a second set of amending regulations.
We all know the damage that this virus is doing to our society and we all know that these measures are needed to limit that damage, but we should not forget their impact. The physical and mental toll is huge, yet virtually everyone has been adhering to these rules in a way that is testament to the resolve and determination of the British people. Like the Minister, I congratulate everyone on their discipline, their thoughtfulness and the protection that they have afforded our NHS.
We acknowledge that this is terribly difficult. We do not want these measures to be in place for a day longer than is absolutely necessary, which is why they must be accompanied by openness, accountability and scrutiny at a greater level than we would ordinarily see. I note that the Chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered a significant number of statutory instruments that make provision, either directly or indirectly, to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. He said:
“Some of these instruments temporarily impose significant and far-reaching restrictions on citizens and businesses, and the Committee noticed the use of a wide variety of different sunset dates and provisions.”
That is absolutely true. We face a very confusing legislative and regulatory framework.
I am also concerned about the monitoring of the Care Act and the other measures in the emergency legislation that we passed just before lockdown. When will we have the opportunity to discuss them in the House?
The three-weekly review of the regulations means that the Secretary of State is legally required to terminate any regulations that are not necessary or proportionate to control the transmission of the virus. Will a statement providing a helpful examination of that requirement follow the review, and will an Oral Statement follow each subsequent review? Can the Minister assure the House that relaxation of the measures and what will happen in the future will be discussed with opposition parties, employers, trade unions and, of course, the public?
That leads me to my next point. The current rules, sweeping as they are, are too numerous. As the Minister said, the next phase will contain a longer list of reasonable excuses to leave home; it is even more important that those rules be clear and consistent. The rules need to be harmonised with the advice, guidelines and all forms of official communication, as most noble Lords said. We do not want people to infer legal authority where there is none or to act outside the law. That is vital to preserve the rule of law. We know that the lockdown was a blunt tool—effective nevertheless—that will change by definition as restrictions ease. There will be a measure of nuance, distinction and variation that requires careful explanation and policing.
In conclusion, we on these Benches do not oppose the regulations, of course, but, given that they represent the most severe restrictions imposed on British liberty in modern history, it is critical that they be subject to continual comprehensive and transparent scrutiny.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, this has been an important debate about what many noble Lords have rightly called important regulations that affect everyone in this country. I thank very much all noble Lords who contributed. Before I address specific issues raised by individual Members, I reiterate the Government’s commitment to working in partnership with opposition parties and Parliament in developing the policies that find expression in the legislation we debate in this House.
This afternoon’s debate has been a classic of its kind: an opportunity for the Government to hear, through parliamentarians, the concerns of a wide range of society, as demonstrated by the excellent contributions to the debate. The delay mentioned by many noble Lords is no one’s preference and it is not for me to comment on it, but I reassure the House that the Government’s commitment to accountability is undiminished. I remind the House that we will have a debate in September on the Coronavirus Act and that there will be a report on the measures in two weeks’ time.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the Government are listening to parliamentarians and to the public. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that there is daily engagement with the devolved Administrations that is characterised in particular by the very close collaboration of the four CMOs. We listen very carefully to front-line workers and their representatives, remembering that those front-line workers bear the heaviest burden in combating this terrible disease. They are the people who deserve our protection. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that guidance for employees and their roles in the workplace was published yesterday. I would be happy to send a link if that would be helpful.
We listen to the scientific and other evidence that defines the set of policy options we must choose between. I will take a moment to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that no one in this Government has ever called for us to “run it hot” and that our priority has always been to save lives. Our choices are influenced by what the country can afford to do, as well as what we can afford not to do. Our challenge therefore is to reconcile what the weight of evidence points to as the right choice, alongside people’s appetite for that choice and the resources that we can bring to bear to implement it.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that science remains at the centre of decision-making and transparency remains our watchword. My office will forward a link to her office of the table outlining the implementation measures under the Coronavirus Act, which was published on 7 May.
I completely recognise the very good points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Scriven, and others, that the regulations issued by the Government are complex and sometimes feel overwhelming. Dozens of guidelines are issued by Public Health England to cover every aspect of public, business and civic life. It is a huge publication exercise and the goalposts have quite necessarily moved this way and that as we have sought to be flexible to adapt regulations to changing circumstances and to the advance of science.
On each occasion that we have issued new guidance, there have been, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, rightly pointed out, questions and requests for clarification from the public. However, I reassure noble Lords that the public have been hugely supportive. They massively endorse the lockdown regulations, and their understanding of complex guidelines has quickly settled down into common-sense interpretation.
It is worth noting that the number of police interventions has not been large, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. In fact, it has been tiny, with just 8,000 fines in total. That is reassuring considering the massive impact of these guidelines on people’s lives. In response to the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Rosser, I commend the police, who have applied the guidance on what the new laws will entail with remarkable common sense, professionalism and restraint.
The excellent advice that we get from our advisers is world class and has guided the choices that we have made. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we work very closely with the Behavioural Insights Team. I pay special tribute to the team and its director, David Halpern. They have brought humanity and communication skills to the otherwise clinical epidemiological advice of the scientists.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, a face covering is not the same as a surgical mask or a respirator, which should both be reserved for those who need them most. However, we are encouraging the public to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces where social distancing is not possible.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the most vulnerable have always been at the forefront of the Government’s thinking. We have provided guidance for those implementing the regulations on quarantine, which require that, where a person lacks the relevant mental capacity, the local health protection team should liaise closely with their relatives or other persons in making a decision.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Wei that we are working closely with local authorities, the directors of public health and environmental health officers. That reliance on local services will only increase as our testing and tracing operations are rolled out in the community and our dependence on local knowledge is made all the more important.
However, we have to take account of what people in the UK can be expected to put up with. My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft raised very searching questions about these regulations and their impact on the economy and on personal freedoms. We recognise those concerns. I say in response that I never thought that in my life I would be standing at a digital Dispatch Box defending such draconian and expensive measures. None the less, I reject her analysis. We cannot protect the NHS and the people who are vulnerable to this disease if we do not implement the common-sense measures in these regulations, and the public, by and large, agree. That is why we have decided to protect the NHS and, in doing so, save lives.
I assure my noble friend Lord Blencathra that it is the disease and not the Government that is prejudiced against older people. I reassure my noble friend Lady Altmann that the guidance does not class individuals over 70 as clinically extremely vulnerable, and therefore they are not treated differently from the rest of the population on the basis of their age.
We now need to make careful preparations to return very gradually to a normal life, one day repealing these regulations. I assure my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that the regulations are due to expire six months after they come into force.
This is neither easy to describe nor simple to carry out. Emerging from the lockdown requires constant and careful watch over a wide range of evidence, followed by expert evaluation of that evidence, then a precise calculation of what legislation and other changes will be needed to bring about the successful outcome. I am sure there will be many occasions over the coming weeks—and, in all likelihood, months—when we can debate these matters further. For now, I assure your Lordships that we have heard today’s contributions and will reflect on them as we develop the policies.
I end by paying tribute to the resilience, patience and fortitude that the people of the UK have demonstrated every day for the last few months in helping combat this outbreak. That investment has been worth it. We have averted a catastrophe and flattened the curve. Because of this, the NHS and other front-line staff have been able to save lives. That sacrifice has been worth it. As a Government, we will play our part by making sure that the burden is no more onerous than it absolutely needs to be. These regulations ensure that.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Virtual Proceedings do consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill)
My Lords, the Virtual Proceedings will now adjourn until a convenient point after 4.30 pm for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, will be chairing the proceedings.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Virtual Proceedings on the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, will now commence. I shall preside over the first and last part of this debate, which is time-limited to three hours.
Beyond Brexit (European Union Committee Report)
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Boswell of Aynho
That the Virtual Proceedings do consider the Report from the European Union Committee Beyond Brexit: How to Win Friends and Influence People (35th Report, Session 2017–19, HL Paper 322).
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is more than a year since this report was published, since when the world has changed beyond recognition. The pandemic has compelled us to reset financial and social policies and has driven reappraisal of our nation’s place among and beyond its immediate neighbours.
Even before it struck, we had in some sense resolved our national political crisis about Brexit. Just as our committee was reporting in March last year, Britain was forced to extend the departure date; this was followed by a change of Prime Minister, involved recasting the withdrawal agreement, and then saw the election of a Government with a clear majority and a mandate to get Brexit done. This report, which focuses on how the UK can maximise its influence with the EU post Brexit, is now being debated after we have formally left the EU but while the terms of our future relationship are still to be settled.
I retain in all this, I hope, some sense of proportion, yet there have been other domestic changes that set the context for this debate. It marks a coda personally, as I have retired from the chair of the EU Committee after more than seven years; and I am very grateful to the new chair, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—if I may say, an admirable choice by this House—for his courtesy in inviting me to take the lead on this, my last bow. At the same time, I would like to thank members of the committee across the House for their dedication to, and expertise in, objective scrutiny, matched by the contribution of our excellent committee staff and, of course, our many diplomatic, official, academic and policy interlocutors. I would like in particular to thank the Senior Deputy Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, both for his careful work in reviewing our committee structures in the changed situation and for the contribution he made by convening the Interparliamentary Forum on Brexit, which has helped to develop mutual sympathy and understanding with the devolved legislatures. Finally, I welcome the presence of the Minister and of the many noble Lords who will contribute.
On re-reading the report, I have been struck by the sheer complexity of the process of disengagement set out in the withdrawal instruments and summarised in our Appendix 2. Not least among these are the most sensitive issues concerning Northern Ireland, where there were significant modifications in the revised protocol agreed after our report, but where there is still no agreement on how it will be implemented, partly because of the pandemic.
The report focuses on three main areas: first, the formal mechanisms for UK-EU engagement set out in the withdrawal agreement, notably the joint committee and the specialised committees that report to it; secondly, less formal mechanisms for engagement, including the UK’s potential participation in the work of EU agencies and programmes, the role of the UK Mission to the EU, now known as UKMis, and other UK offices and organisations in Brussels; and thirdly, the matter of interparliamentary engagement, which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will also touch on.
Whatever view one might take of any extension to the transition period, the pandemic coupled with the Government’s oft-stated distaste for any extension have compressed the timetable, and we now have fewer than 50 days before the June summit deadline. There is a need to clarify the arrangements applicable until the end of this calendar year, and their relationship with those that will follow, which the Government have indicated will depend on the structure of any future relationship. To date, the public have seen remarkably little effect from our formal withdrawal, and the pandemic has left little bandwidth in government to focus on the issues. These include governance and management of the remaining period of transition and, crucially the shape of any future relationship as it affects both trade and institutions. It would be very helpful if the Minister could today give us an appraisal of progress made in the talks, in spite of deadlines and the physical difficulties of communication, both in respect of trade and wider issues, with perhaps also an indication about how UKMis is working and ensuring that the collective UK voice and interests are represented in Brussels.
An important chapter in the report deals with the role of parliamentarians themselves. Over 50 years ago, long before I entered Parliament, I first visited the then EEC in Brussels. I was described at the time, rather generously, as “un expert anglais”, and I have been in and out of various European institutions and settings frequently ever since. Of course, parliamentarians are rarely inclined to take a unified position—it is through their divergence of view and diversity of experience that they make their distinctive contribution—but we all need to remain alert to all the opportunities for influence, networking and even simple personal friendships that will remain open to us.
This is no time to burn bridges or haul up the drawbridge. While for now we all understand that social distancing is important, conscious political self-isolation will never be a long-term goal. We must look to all aspects of our international relationships, both in Europe and wider afield. The pandemic reminds us that just as no man is an island, so our island nation, now rebranded as “Global Britain”, is built and thrives on constructive economic and political relationships.
As is typical in the immediate aftermath of a divorce, relations with the EU are frankly tense and difficult at the moment, and may stay that way for some time to come. But geography means that we will always be neighbours, with centuries of complex shared history. At some stage—the sooner the better—the current tensions and disagreements will dissipate and a new relationship will need to be forged. Both sides will need to work hard to rebuild it. The onus is on our Parliament to play its part, and I am confident that this House, not least through the skill and dedication of its continuing EU Committee, will continue to do so. In that spirit, and conscious that many other noble Lords wish to contribute, I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, given the time limit, I will deal with just one issue in the report: the role of the devolved nations in the transition process.
It was about two decades ago, when I was Minister of State for Scotland, that I used to meet frequently with Scottish Ministers, on issues such as free personal care and the Barnett formula. We did not always agree, of course—as my noble friend Lord McConnell will no doubt confirm—but we had discussions, on a day-to-day, week-to-week basis. Where are the Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, and his deputy, Douglas Ross, now? Why are they not discussing this? Of course the UK relationship with the EU is central, but there needs to be an acknowledgement that the devolved nations are also impacted and should be involved in discussions regularly. As we have seen, their lack of involvement in the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in confusion over the messages, whether it is “Stay at Home” or “Stay Alert”, and, even more importantly, around the practical measures being implemented in all the four countries.
As the UK takes the lead on UK-EU relations, will the Minister today spell out exactly how, in practical terms, the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Governments will be involved? A continuation of the sporadic arm’s-length involvement will result in confusion, delay and bitterness. If the Minister agrees with me, as I think he does, that we favour the continuation of our United Kingdom, he and this Government are certainly going the wrong way about it.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for all he has done to lead the European Union Committee with such skill and dedication. However, I note that aiming to “win friends and influence people” does not seem to be the UK’s strategy in its current negotiations with the EU. We hear that the Government almost seem to want them to fail, with lasting damage on both sides.
Leaving the EU with no deal, or an inadequate deal, is the next major crisis we may face. We could not stop a pandemic hitting the United Kingdom; we can stop the damage that would result from crashing out of transition on 31 December. At the height of this pandemic, surely the Government must extend the transition period.
As this report indicated, so long ago now, we need to relearn how to work constructively with our neighbours, with whom we share the closest approach to global challenges. With Trump in the White House and China increasingly dominant, the EU must play a major global role. As Sir Ivan Rogers pointed out, we will need to do more than ever before to make our new relationship work. That will need engagement from the very top.
We have another global crisis threatening us: climate change. A vaccine will not take that away. The Government have said that they wish to work with the EU on issues such as this. We used to maximise our influence by leading in the EU; now, we need to ensure that we are at least involved. That will be a difficult, but essential, task.
This report laid out some of the ways in which we can stay informed and engaged. I hope that it does not fall on deaf ears.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, while there is not time for the usual courtesies, I must begin by thanking my predecessor as chair, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, for his long service to the committee and his excellent and hugely informative opening speech; it was a fitting swan-song.
I shall focus only on the institutional structure for the future EU relationship, and in particular its parliamentary dimension. Our relationship with the EU—its 27 member states and 450 million citizens—will be complex, and a relationship of such complexity will need structure. Within that structure, the parliamentary dimension will be vital: to support dialogue, to build relationships and to promote transparency.
There are many precedents on which we could draw in designing such a body: for instance, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly or the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. There are also precedents on the EU side. Indeed, the EU’s March draft agreement included a clause setting up a parliamentary partnership assembly, made up of representatives of this Parliament and the European Parliament. While I do not agree with every word of the EU’s proposal, I welcome it as starting point.
When questioned by my committee on 5 May, Michael Gove agreed that
“engagement, discussion and dialogue between parliamentarians is always a good thing”,
but insisted that it was not for the Government to
“prescribe exactly how Parliament chooses to operate.”
The Government have placed the onus on Parliament to respond to the EU’s initiative. I understand the constitutional propriety of that position, but how, given the large Commons majority, is Parliament to act unless the Government take the lead?
As chair of your Lordships’ committee charged with considering EU matters, I believe very strongly that we need to establish a structured interparliamentary dialogue as part of the future relationship. Indeed, the committee supports that. My question to the Minister is: how exactly do the Government expect Parliament to signal its support for an interparliamentary body? Will a report from my committee be sufficient? Or a joint enterprise with the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union in the House of Commons? I am happy to do whatever it takes to try to break this logjam and I ask the Minister for his help.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, we must consider this report in light of the global pandemic. Decisions about our future relationship with the EU must be informed by Covid-19, recognising our international interdependence rather than being driven by ideology. Our European neighbours remain our friends and allies. This must continue for the sake of all, and especially for vulnerable children.
Concluding talks by the deadline under present circumstances will be very challenging. I am particularly concerned about the impact on refugee children and our continued co-operation with European nations through the Dublin Regulation. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plans to ensure separated asylum-seeking children in Europe continue to be reunited with family members in the UK, whatever happens to negotiations?
I am anxious too about the impact on vulnerable children who are already here. The success of the EU settled status scheme may be compromised by the pandemic. Local authorities have a duty to apply for their looked-after children. However, the Children’s Society found that just one in 10 of local authorities’ looked-after children has been awarded status. Considering Covid-19, what assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the feasibility that all looked-after children will have applied to the EUSS by June 2021?
We must consider whether we can achieve a new, fruitful, negotiated relationship with the EU by December under current constraints. Will the Government set out criteria against which Parliament can evaluate the progress of negotiations? Do the Government accept that any trade deal must be negotiated by October at the latest if it is to be ratified before the deadline? At this time, when businesses are facing significant economic uncertainty, we must be mindful that these negotiations are an additional source of concern.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Boswell of Aynho. He gave an exemplary, statesmanlike speech today. Two minutes does not give anyone a proper chance to develop an argument. I wish to make a plea and a point.
The plea is to my noble friend Lord True, who will respond to this debate. I beg him not to be as dogmatic and dismissive as he was in what I believe was the last debate on this general subject in the Chamber on 16 March. In that debate, I suggested that Covid was transforming the political and economic landscape and that to insist on ending the transition period on 31 December was neither necessary nor wise. I believe that everything that has happened in the weeks since that debate has underlined the good sense of that attitude.
The point I wish to make is this: I urge colleagues in all parts of the House to be alert to the dangers we face and the fact that our negotiations with the EU are not at the top of the agenda, either here in the UK or in the EU. We in the United Kingdom have troubles enough at the moment without risking, let alone choosing, the no-deal conclusion to the transition period.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, and in particular I underline his tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I was a member of the European Union Select Committee for much of the time the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, was chairman. His was a very wise chairmanship; I learned a lot from him, and I am very grateful to him.
I want to make one simple point in these brief remarks. If we are to have influence in the world, it is very important—this is a key point, which the report stresses—that we build strong co-operation with other nations through institutions. Institutions matter to outcomes in foreign affairs. They create frameworks for regular meetings, they bring officials together, they facilitate instinctive mutual understanding of where other countries stand, and they make common positions easier to forge. I find it very depressing that the Government, in their drastic hardening of Brexit policy, have turned their back on institutional co-operation. They have rejected the possibility of a mechanism for co-operation in foreign affairs, refusing to talk about it. They have rejected an overarching framework for our relationship with the EU through an association agreement.
Gone completely is Mrs May’s notion of a deep and special partnership with the EU. It has been consigned to the dustbin of history. I am sorry to be harsh, and I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong, but I do not think so.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister can give us some evidence that the Government are concerned to win friends in Europe now that we have left the EU. February’s white paper on the future relationship with the EU left out the references to last October’s political declaration agreeing to an
“overarching institutional framework … for ambitious, close and lasting cooperation”
in foreign policy and defence, cybersecurity, civil protection and health security. I note the unwise omission, in February, of co-operation in health security. Now, the protection of national sovereignty overrides questions of national interests and how we might promote national interests through co-operation.
The declared intention is to turn away from Europe. The Prime Minister told Parliament on 3 February that:
“We are free to reinvigorate our ties with old allies”,—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/20; col. 25.]
as if EU membership had cut us off from other partners. We are leaving behind our oldest ally in the EU, Portugal, and we are leaving France, with which we now share a significant military deployment in Saharan Africa which the Government have told Parliament little about so far. We are putting political and economic relations with the United States first and foremost, even though we differ from Washington on an increasing number of important global issues.
This Government have no foreign policy. Beneath the empty phrase “global Britain” are buried illusions about a buccaneering Britain in a free-trading world, released from the shackles of a declining Europe. The current Foreign Secretary has made no attempt to build friendly bilateral relations with our European neighbours, nor has the Prime Minister. But the long history of British foreign policy has been centred on conflict and co-operation with our European neighbours. Now, 120 years after the Marquess of Salisbury stepped down as Conservative Prime Minister, splendid isolation is back.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, in the last few weeks, Ministers in both Houses have repeatedly been asked a series of straightforward questions about the ongoing EU-UK negotiations. They most often include: transparency, specifically of draft legal texts; the establishment of proper inter-parliamentary channels between the UK and the European Parliament; the role of Covid-19 in hampering the progress of negotiations, and the wisdom of delaying the end date of 31 December in the interests of reaching a mutually satisfactory free trade agreement; and adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights and the rulings of the European Court. Apart from the last issue, the three other questions have been met with obfuscation, half-answers and non-answers. The Government’s aim, constantly reiterated, is to finalise departure by the end of this year by any means and at any cost.
The distance between the time available to reach a satisfactory FTA and the need to abide by the legal requirement to allow Parliament to scrutinise draft agreements is absurdly short, so much so that it appears that, despite the UK Government’s statement to the contrary, a no-deal agreement on World Trade Organization terms is anticipated. That would be a disaster. The Government’s own model and that of independent experts predict that leaving without a trade deal would cost between 6% and 9% of GDP—approximately £2,500 per UK citizen. The cost to the Treasury would be in the region of £60 billion, which is one and half times our spending on defence.
May I ask the Minister three simple and direct questions? Will Parliament be allowed full access to the details of current negotiations, including draft legal texts, and when? If there is no agreement in sight by the end of July 2020, will the Government be content to reach December without an FTA? Finally, have the Government, following Operation Yellowhammer, updated arrangements in the event of a no-deal final exit from the EU?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I wish to make two brief points relating to Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Northern Ireland has, of course, been central to the Brexit negotiations since the referendum in 2016, and as an adviser at the Northern Ireland Office I was involved in many discussions on those matters. Yet during my time I became dismayed at how much the European Commission seemed to view Northern Ireland almost exclusively through the green-tinged lenses of the Irish Government and nationalist politicians. Indeed, at a meeting I attended with Monsieur Barnier in June 2018, I found myself calmly having to explain to him what was actually meant by the consent provisions in the Belfast agreement and why they did not turn Northern Ireland into a hybrid state. It was I, regret to say, a meeting that might have turned even the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, into rabid Brexiteers.
I do not wish to denigrate the excellent efforts of our officials in Brussels, but whenever there was a difference of nuance between us and the Irish on Northern Ireland or the agreement, the Commission invariably tended towards the Irish view. Outside the EU, attention therefore needs to be given to how the UK Government, as the sovereign Government in Northern Ireland, can communicate their position much more effectively with the European Commission.
Secondly, as we move beyond Brexit, our relationship with our nearest neighbour, Ireland, becomes more important than ever. Our bilateral relationship has improved massively in recent years, which I warmly welcome, and it needs to be strengthened further. Strand 3 of the Belfast agreement contains institutions—the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and the British-Irish Council—designed to promote closer co-operation, although the BIIGC tends to focus more on Northern Ireland. We need to look at how these institutions can be developed or at whether new and bespoke ones are needed. I have an open mind on that, but as we move beyond Brexit, it needs to happen.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for this debate. I will ask the Minister five quick questions about the yawning gap between the EU’s and the UK’s negotiating positions on the future relationship. First, the political declaration agreed sets out the basis for the future relationship, but while the European Commission’s position on the negotiations in February adopts the same structure as the political declaration, the UK’s negotiating objectives are markedly different. Can the Minister explain why the political declaration framework was so quickly surrendered?
Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether Gibraltar is included in the territorial scope of the agreement automatically, or will it require, as the Commission believes, the prior agreement of Spain to be included?
Thirdly, the EU sees the future EU/UK relationship being encapsulated in an association agreement, which the political declaration also mentions favourably. Is that the UK’s aim as well?
Fourthly, the political declaration agreed to forge an economic partnership that will be underpinned
“by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition”.
Does that remain the UK Government’s explicit objective, as they signed up to in the political declaration?
Fifthly, on state aid, the UK wants its own regime of subsidy control, but everyone accepts that state aid rules will continue to apply to firms in Northern Ireland after transition, as well as to UK mainland firms with employment activities inside Northern Ireland. Will the Minister acknowledge that the UK’s so-called regime of subsidy control will be available and apply to only some UK companies, and far from all?
Finally, we are, as we all know, in the midst of a global crisis of proportions unimaginable just a few weeks ago. With such chasms between the parties on the future relationship discussions, so much attention rightly focused elsewhere and so much catastrophic disruption of our lives already baked into the next 12 months, how can it be anything other than reckless to proceed on the existing timescale for concluding a transition deal?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, when I saw the title of the report that we are debating, which has been so excellently introduced by my noble friend Lord Boswell, I wondered whether our esteemed EU Select Committee was pulling our collective leg. Then I saw the date of the report—March last year—and realised that it was addressed to a different Government in a different Parliament and, shamefully, not debated when it should have been ahead of our leaving the EU this January.
The negotiations on our new partnership—I use the word to which we committed ourselves in the political declaration, not the Government’s reductive terminology of a free trade agreement—have begun, but so far they seem to be more a dialogue of the deaf than a prelude to a partnership. The Government seem to be applying social distancing to that political declaration, which provided an agreed framework.
Of the bones of contention so far identified, that of the level playing field is, in a way, bizarre, because we agreed in the political declaration to the following wording:
“Given the Union and the United Kingdom’s geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field.”
Do the Government recognise that statement as one to which we subscribed?
Then, there is the Government’s determination to avoid an overall agreement out of a desire, apparently, to guard against the withdrawal of concessions in a different sector from the one in dispute. I fear that is futile and doomed to failure. Why? Because under the Swiss deal the EU has done exactly that, when it found that the Swiss were moving away from free movement and the EU withdrew access to Erasmus and research co-operation.
Thirdly, there is the implementation of the Irish protocol to the withdrawal agreement. Does anyone believe that checks and controls can be avoided? Obviously, there will be light ones, but none at all?
I fear that the verdict has to be that we are winning few friends and influencing few people. Why do we not just exempt the rest of the EU from the possible quarantine arrangements if they come here by aeroplane?
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for this excellent report. Reading it provides a clear reminder of how intertwined the UK is with the EU. After more than 40 years of membership, that is not surprising, but the report is also a reminder of how many issues have to be settled if our final split from the 27 is to be relatively smooth.
The political declaration refers to three overarching areas where agreement is necessary: the economic partnership, the security partnership and the institutional arrangements. Achieving agreement on all that by the end of this year was never going to be easy but Covid-19 has rendered it virtually impossible. Governments have had to give their full attention to a single priority—tackling the virus—but even if the current fragmentary negotiations could produce a consensus, business simply will not be able to cope with the radical changes that final departure must bring.
The UK is no longer a member of the EU—that is not up for debate—but we need to remain in lockstep for a little while longer. Business cannot cope with sorting out the effects of the virus while simultaneously preparing for a new, but as yet unknown, relationship with the EU. The transition period must be extended, as many noble Lords have said; the sooner that happens, the better for business. The Government have said that they will not ask for an extension, in part because business needs the certainty of the December deadline. That is simply nonsense. There is no certainty in a departure into the unknown. The EU 27 share the pressures that a December rupture would create. An extension is in their interests too. If we wish to remain friends with the EU, let alone retain influence in it, a request for an extension must happen immediately. In the light of the changes wrought by Covid, why do the Government refuse to contemplate an extension?
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, as a former MEP, I should consider a two-minute speech a luxury.
I will focus on a single point that the report does not cover in detail: climate change. The UK has been an active—indeed, a leading—participant in the EU’s endeavours to address climate change. With the postponement of the COP 26 gathering in Glasgow for another year, we have an opportunity to reconcile and resolve our relationship with the EU. There are certain elements on which we can do good, and there are certain areas where, by sharing, we can help all countries in the EU. We are in the middle of a crisis in terms of the pandemic, but perhaps the greater challenge going forward is how to interweave our ambitions to address the wider challenges of climate change.
I am specifically concerned about our relationship with the Emissions Trading Scheme. I would welcome some detail on that, perhaps not at this moment but in the future. I believe that we have an opportunity at COP 26 in Glasgow to demonstrate leadership, but we should do so together with the EU. Together, we can achieve more, particularly on climate change.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his chairmanship of your Lordships’ EU Select Committee. Through his personality and role, he was able to demonstrate how one can win friends and influence people. The role of individuals, as well as that of Parliaments, is important in co-operation and building relationships.
In its excellent report, the committee noted that the UK
“will need to adapt quickly, working harder and more strategically to make use of all available tools to maximise its voice in Brussels and beyond. This in turn requires a long-term commitment, of energy, time and financial and human resources.”
Does the Minister believe that Her Majesty’s Government are delivering on those requirements, particularly in the context of the Covid-19 crisis?
The Government’s report clearly says that
“changes have been made in Brussels.”
Can the Minister explain the nature of those changes? What advice have the Government sought on the best mission for a third country to have in Brussels? For example, have the Government taken advice from our friends in Iceland or Norway, who have extensive experience of being third countries?
Finally, do the Government accept that, to be influential, we need to go beyond the sterile debates that we have had so far—perhaps also beyond Pontignano and Königswinter? They do not contribute, on their own, to civil society. Will the Government commit to supporting exchange mechanisms and the continuation of schemes such as Erasmus?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, as others have suggested, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since this report was published. Indeed, that large amount of water is—metaphorically speaking —now sitting behind a dam wall while we all wait to see whether the wall will hold or the dam will burst at the end of this year.
As a former MEP, I am conscious of the critical situation that exists between the UK and the EU. It is clear to most people that it is vital that we reach agreements covering many things, including the environment, trade, agriculture and fisheries and security. The last is of particular interest to me, as it is where I was involved for many years in my work in the European Union. It is vital to ensure a strong level of co-operation between member states to protect their citizens.
The Government seem confident that in these and other areas we can achieve good outcomes quickly. In security there can be no maybe. We cannot afford to leave any vacuum, especially if the virus crisis produces more opportunities for those who might do us harm.
No number of treaties, protocols, understandings and agreements can suffice alone. To ensure good and harmonious relationships with our European neighbours in future, we must really want that from our hearts as well as our heads. Many young people especially look to a future in which Europeans can continue to enjoy each other’s company and benefit from shared interests and aspirations.
In the next few weeks and months, we need to display not only negotiating skills but a high level of positivism, good nature, diplomacy and pragmatism. I really hope that our leaders will deliver on that.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I join those who have paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for this very helpful—indeed, excellent—report. I take this opportunity to say how much we should all appreciate his dedicated work on the European scene for so long.
The work of the European committees becomes more important than ever. It is vital. I am totally convinced that Governments will be judged in history by their effectiveness in playing a dynamic part in international co-operation. The first reality of life—of humanity itself—is that we are, demonstrably, totally interdependent. We must therefore face the fact that the major issues that affect us—Covid-19, climate change, security, Ireland, migration or economic stability—cannot be successfully handled but on an international, co-operative basis.
I am concerned: where is the evidence that the Government understand this and have made it central to their whole approach to governance? For example, what is the evidence of what the Government are doing with European allies to combat the ugly and sinister jingoistic nationalism that is now, unfortunately, raising its head again in Europe, the United States and elsewhere in the world?
It is on international co-operation and effectiveness—not least with our European allies, although we are no longer part of the European Union—that our future depends. Anything less is to betray our people.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I compliment the European Union Committee and my noble friend Lord Boswell on this report. I agree with all that it says, but I suggest that it should have said more, especially about the continued participation of the UK in the new European education, science and innovation programmes. These programmes include Erasmus, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and Horizon Europe and those of the European Research Council and the European Research Infrastructure Consortium. In this report the words “Erasmus” and “Horizon” appear only in footnotes and in a diagram, although reference is made to the European Union Committee’s comprehensive report published in February 2019 on Erasmus and Horizon. Overall, however, this report does not give them the prominence they deserve.
Our future competitiveness as a modern nation will depend to a huge extent on the skills of our citizens in all spheres of endeavour, and our economic survival will rely on the application of modern advances in engineering and science. It seems we have successfully negotiated our continuance in Horizon 2020 through to its conclusion in 2021, but the situation with Horizon Europe remains unclear. That programme has a budget of €100 billion and even more important than the money will be our involvement in the partnerships that it would provide. Modern advances in science, and especially in innovation, can be made only through collaboration. It is an inherently global activity and success is strongly influenced by proximity, so a large fraction of our collaborations have been with our European neighbours. Our engineers and scientists know each other. There is a lot of mutual admiration and successful collaboration. Let us make sure that that continues. Many pages of the report are devoted to the specialist committees and their importance, but I could not find any committee devoted specifically to our collaboration on education, science and engineering whose members are engineers and scientists. Will the Minister assure us that the Government are committed to doing all they can to preserve as many of our educational and scientific collaborations with Europe as possible?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the European Union Committee’s report which makes a series of excellent recommendations. The one area of particular importance to me is the necessity for ongoing co-operation between the UK and the many European entities which impact sport and recreation throughout this country and the European Union. Sport contributes £37 billion to our economy and employs 581,000 people, of whom 31,000 are European nationals. We must now take advantage of new methods of exerting influence on the EU after the transition period. We will need to build close relationships with the EU committees which impact sport and recreation at all levels and, where relevant, use the UK’s diplomatic representation to the EU to exert influence where necessary—and it will be necessary, not least in dealing with the fallout from the Bosman, Cotonou and Kolpak rulings. We must finalise and then monitor and retain reciprocal arrangements which enable skilled workers, for example in seasonal sports such as skiing, to pursue employment.
Sport is also a major soft power tool for promoting our products and services and, indeed, our reputation within the European Union. We need ongoing relationships to make it easy for fans and visitors from the EU to travel to and from the UK. UK sports bodies currently benefit from European Union funding as well as UK funding. They build knowledge and share good practice with their European colleagues. I urge the Government to look at ways of retaining relationships with the relevant institutions and committees and to seek continued dialogue and involvement with European Union programmes which benefit sport and recreation to our mutual advantage. We are inextricably linked to the world of sport and recreation in Europe, not least with the tripartite agreement with Ireland and France on which the future of horseracing in this country will depend. We must win friends and influence people to ensure a win-win relationship in the future.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the unwillingness of the Government—indeed, their refusal —to countenance any extension beyond 31 December is irresponsible, not least because it leaves open the possible catastrophic outcome of no deal whatever. I ask myself: what is the Prime Minister afraid of? He now has a majority of 80 in the House of Commons, and the remainers, many of whom have already spoken in this debate, are silenced.
After the virus crisis, we shall need friends and influence in Europe, but most of all we now need the best possible trade deal that can be achieved. It is no use looking to President Trump, as people frequently do. Current American unemployment and Joe Biden’s lead in the polls will mean that Mr Trump, once again, will be focusing on “America first”, and indeed, you might say, “second” and “third” as well.
The Prime Minister has a long and undistinguished record of changing his mind for his own interests. He should change his mind on this occasion for the public interest.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, it was great to again have the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, at the opening of this debate. I want to focus on the crucial area of justice and security co-operation with the EU. That has a direct impact on the safety and security of the British people, yet we have heard very little about what is happening in the negotiations on that.
No off-the-peg, oven-ready security arrangement with the EU is available. Different countries have different levels of access. Norway and Iceland come closest, but they are in the Schengen area. Even if Britain could get a deal as good as that of Norway and Iceland, it would provide only what a British government document in 2018 called
“a limited patchwork of cooperation”,
with
“a serious shortfall in capability”.
Therefore, logically we need an even closer security relationship than that of Norway and Iceland. It cannot be the government objective that we should leave the EU and become less safe, yet the February Command Paper devoted only four rather brief pages to this vital area.
What are the prospects of negotiating an unprecedented level of security co-operation with the EU in the coming weeks? The answer is that we simply do not know. Michael Gove told the EU Committee last week that he hoped for an agreement, largely, I think, on the basis that we have been a considerable provider of security information to the EU. However, that seems to depend on the EU being willing to abandon its own red lines.
This is not an area where EU leaders can simply cut us a political deal. These are legal instruments with specific obligations. Given the importance of this area for national security, can the Minister give us some indication of when the Government will break their radio silence about the negotiations on justice and security, and what contingency plans are they making in case there is no future relationship agreement and we fall off a security cliff edge seven months from now?
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, the committee’s wish to remain friendly with the EU is laudable but it is difficult to see how this noble aim can be achieved when EU negotiators treat the UK as though it is a colony and not a sovereign nation, and the EU persists in making unreasonable demands.
Britain still being under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice until 31 December might contribute to that attitude. This jurisdiction is overlooked by those suggesting extending trade negotiations. It is an important point. Ultimate legal authority is the essence of sovereignty, and the British people, who have consistently voted to leave the European Union, would resent any extension of ECJ jurisdiction.
What would also make any extension horribly catastrophic is the recent refusal by the German courts to accept the authority of the European Court of Justice. The knock-on effect of this will be that strict limits on quantitative easing will be imposed by the European Central Bank. Instead of printing money, billions of euros will have to be found. An extension beyond 31 December would keep Britain under the European Court of Justice, meaning that we would be obliged to contribute unlimited funds to EU bailout schemes, with no say on either the amount or the timing. Getting into such a situation would create friction and impede any sort of friendly relations.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, my first point is the issue of cost if the Government change their mind, inevitable as it seems, about leaving the EU in December for the transition period. We have been told that this is a matter not of ideology but of practicality. However, it is a political necessity as the Government’s credibility is at stake.
Mr Gove told the Commons Committee on 27 April that it would cost billions of pounds if we sought an extension. I have no doubt that if the past negotiating stance of the EU were repeated, it would demand its pound of flesh; it has a big black hole to fill in its future budgets. But what would “billions of pounds” mean if we sought an extension of up to one or two years? Have we asked the EU? All negotiations will be virtual. As I understand it, no physical presence is envisaged. Coronavirus has changed the whole atmosphere and political situation in Europe. It will not be easy to hold negotiations in the next year. I would like to know something more than what Mr Gove says. Merely trumpeting the phrase “billions of pounds” is not good enough.
My second point arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said about the devolved Governments. Paragraph 96 of the report speaks of an “enhanced role” for the devolved Governments. What does this mean? Are they anything more than warm words to keep the devolved Governments quiet? The committee argued firmly that they should be involved at summit, ministerial and technical level, as envisaged in the political declaration. The Government in Cardiff would be interested, as would all the other devolved Administrations, in an explanation of what is envisaged by the Government by “enhanced role”.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s behaviour in the current talks is the antithesis of the approach recommended in the report. Just because the virus has eclipsed Brexit as an issue in the news does not mean that the problem has gone away. EU diplomats were very studied in their understatement when they summed up the negotiations as “disappointing”, but beneath that there is a realistic assessment that the UK Government are deliberately wasting time. Phil Hogan, the EU Trade Commissioner, stated that the UK Government believe that they can hide the Brexit economic fallout by blaming the virus for everything, and he is undoubtedly right.
A no-deal Brexit was always going to be an economic disaster, but as we face the deepest recession for 300 years, according to the Bank of England, it would be reckless in the extreme. As the Times put it yesterday, it would be “unhinged”. Already the Government have been forced to backtrack, for instance, on the attempt to go it alone on PPE. We need our international neighbours now more than ever. In the worst crisis for three-quarters of a century, the Prime Minister needs to realise that the best leaders are those who can adapt to circumstances. He needs the strength of character to acknowledge that it is wrong to cling to the idea of getting negotiations done by the end of this year. If the UK is to win friends and maintain our influence internationally, he must seek a two-year extension.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I agree. The VE Day anniversary reminded us yet again how closely knit our history is with that of our European neighbours. We all lost family members in the last war; we must strain every sinew to ensure that we continue to build a peaceful Europe from now on. Europe is looking to us for some real leadership in the negotiations and today’s debate provides a new occasion for Europe to meet all its old friends in this virtual Chamber. The battles have ended; Euroscepticism in our Parliament is, I believe, becoming out of date.
As others have said, we must revive the political declaration during this transition year to retain the very best elements of our relationship. Look at what has happened during the pandemic and how we have compared our results daily with those of our European friends. We have not come out particularly well in the comparison, but we needed to situate ourselves within Europe, not in some land mass out in the Atlantic. I congratulate the Government on weathering the pandemic and on apparently entering the EU negotiations with good will.
There has not been a lot of progress but we are at least fielding a strong team and we must get on with it. Does the Minister remember the violence of the cod war? Does he think, for example, that we are making enough effort to find an agreement in fisheries? From now on, our EU committees will also have an enormous job in the scrutiny of treaties. The recent Parliament and Brexit report from UCL and many others states plainly that Parliament is not yet adequate to the task of scrutinising the increasing number of treaties. This is primarily a matter for this House—I declare an interest as a member of the new treaties sub-committee—but the Government must also show some restraint; indeed, their close co-operation with both Houses will be the best way to achieve this scrutiny. I hope we can live up to the legacy of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his report. I am sorry that we did not debate it a good time ago but, at last, we are here. I also congratulate him on his distinguished chairing of the European Union Committee. The report is called How to Win Friends and Influence People. I want to concentrate on that, because the present governing party has made a complete mess of winning friends and influencing people. The only member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe taking part in this debate is the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I assure him that I am not implicating the Labour Party.
We send 36 people to Strasbourg; about half are British Conservatives. I am afraid that the way they behave there is—shall we say?—not designed to increase the influence of Great Britain. In particular, I mention the chairman of the Conservative group, Ian Liddell-Grainger, who, at the beginning of this year, together with Sir Roger Gale, invited the Alternative for Germany —the AfD—to join the Conservative group. In Strasbourg today, at a time when we are looking to influence Governments all around Europe, we have the British Conservatives allied with the AfD, the Holocaust deniers and the racists. What will we say to the Conservative Friends of Israel and the Jewish community? We have rightly condemned the Labour Party in the past; I am pleased about what Keir Starmer is now doing. But really, if the Minister has any influence, he must realise that this does us absolutely no good. It is time for the Conservative whip and the Conservative leadership to intervene, stop pretending that this does not matter, and get us out of this alliance with near fascists.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his introduction to this debate and for the way in which, while chairing the European Union Committee of your Lordships’ House, he consistently sought to include the interests of the devolved nations of the United Kingdom in its deliberations and in the recommendations of its reports. That is as true of this report as it has been of previous reports.
I would like in particular to address recommendations 17, 20, 21, 37, 41 and 42. All stress the importance of engaging properly with the devolved Governments and Parliaments of the United Kingdom. Since 1999 and the creation of devolution in the UK, there has been strong engagement—consistent with the previous engagement with the Welsh and Scottish Offices—in UK delegations, in prior discussions and in ongoing technical work around EU legislation. That should continue after Brexit, as it did in the early years of devolution, when we were fully engaged in delegations, fully engaged in UK decision-making and fully engaged at the technical level too.
Also in relation to the Parliaments, I notice the recommendation that specific consideration be given to Members of the devolved Parliaments participating in any parliamentary Assembly. I think that the Parliaments in Holyrood, Cardiff and Belfast should automatically be part of the delegation, alongside the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That would be a positive step towards repairing some of the damage done to inter-UK relations over the past decade.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in our recent debate on economic forecasts, led by the Minister, we had three minutes in which to speak. At the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said from the Conservative Benches:
“This is not accountability. This is a sham. The sooner we return to normal proceedings, without the excessive time-limiting that has been introduced, the better.”—[Official Report, 5/5/20; col. 382.]
I agree with her, and in the limited time available, I want to address trade.
It does not protect our interests, or persuade others to align with them, to set aside pragmatic co-operation of the kind described by the former chairman in his speech. The Government have set this aside, and instead our future EU and global trading relationship are highlighted by glib self-deception. In January, at the UK-Africa Investment Summit, the Prime Minister told the bemused African delegates that after Brexit, chicken from Northern Ireland would be enjoyed in Angola and Ugandan beef would be on UK lunch tables. Portugal, Belgium, Italy and Spain all already export meat to Angola and Ugandan beef cannot be imported into the UK because of health standards.
For the US discussions in March, the Prime Minister said that we would be trading salmon for Stetsons while ignoring the recent restrictions on processed fish imports announced by the American Administration. These are the glib elements and no doubt have some comic effect, but they are illustrative and speak to a greater truth. Moreover, they are noticed by the EU and by the rest of the world. The self-deception is that such new trading outside the European Union, reflecting growth of less than 0.1% of UK GDP over a 15-year period, is believed to offset, according to the OBR, a 4.7% reduction in productivity because of disruption to our main trading bloc.
After the economic forecasting debate, the Minister did not answer or write to me about to my four simple questions, so I will try again. What is the Government’s core assumption about the impact on UK trade from January 2020 of their current EU policy, taking into context all new agreements made? Without honesty and openness, we will never protect our interests or align others to them—nor by replacing pragmatism with a politics in which one is influenced only by other acolytes. That is not a future that will benefit our country.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. The title of the report includes How to Win Friends and Influence People. Influencing people is made more probable by making better friends. That is because international co-operation is all about making friends between people and nations. Living on the border with the Republic of Ireland, we are aware of the importance of cross-border relations and friendships at every level. These links have been damaged by the Troubles, the lack of devolved government, and now Brexit at the government level. On VE Day 75 years ago, respect and friendship for this country were unsurpassed. Where has that skill in creating friendships gone? What of diplomacy?
We were slow to join the EU, and in joining it we lost many friends, especially in the Commonwealth, creating trade barriers and restricting immigration. The UK then became one of the most enthusiastic about EU expansion, allowing entry to countries such as Greece without it having fulfilled the financial criteria required. We were leaders in inviting the central European states to join. After all that, we are now the first to fight our way out of the EU. At present, we have angered our greatest friend, the US, through our dealings with Huawei.
During my 20 years of serving on various EU committees, I was always impressed by the friendship and welcome shown to us in Brussels and other European capitals. Our committees and their reports were always held in the highest esteem, mainly due to the leadership of chairmen such as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. In contrast, it seemed it was not quite the same in the Commons. Perhaps the other place did not place as much importance on the work of the EU. One eminent former MP described appointment to those committees as rather like being put in the sin bin.
It is not always a matter of what we do, but of how we do it, and that means winning friends and keeping them. I ask the Minister: how are the Government going to improve our working relationships, both within the EU and, most importantly, worldwide?
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too was a member of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. It is no understatement to say that his outstanding tenure was undoubtedly during the most eventful period in the committee’s history, and he led us through it most ably.
Given that this report has been overtaken by events, I want to concentrate on the Government’s negotiations and aims, as set out in their February 2020 Command Paper. It sets out five areas where the Joint Committee and dispute resolution systems will not apply. These are mainly areas where the EU is, as we know, particularly concerned about a “level playing field”. I can see the need for the United Kingdom to have regulatory autonomy, particularly as the Covid-related economic shock will lead to EU states adapting differentially to technological change and automation, which will impact directly on some of those areas where the EU wants a level playing field. The Government is therefore right in principle, but I urge them to retain a form of joint dialogue in a structured format, as we will need to have some common approaches to these problems, particularly our competition policy and our policy on those countries that have been blatantly shown to play by a different rule book.
Finally, I turn to financial services, where, the report tells us, the equivalence assessments are separate from the FTA and expected to be completed in June 2020. Will the Minister confirm that that timetable still holds, and, if not, when they are likely to be concluded? As he will appreciate, they are terribly important for our financial services sector as we approach the end of transition.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and indeed his successor, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on the work of the European Union Committee, and in particular this report. I agree with its recommendations. However, I think it would be a little more fruitful if we had actually been discussing a report on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration negotiated by the present Prime Minister.
My questions to my noble friend the Minister arise out of the changes which were made in that withdrawal agreement and what has happened subsequent to the election. What do the Government actually believe is the status of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration negotiated, with much fanfare, by the present Prime Minister? What has happened to the close relationships that were envisaged in the opening paragraphs of that political declaration? What has happened to the matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, of police and criminal justice co-operation and police and judicial co-operation? These are all now being replaced by our own new legislation. We are told that what we are aiming for by the end of December is a simple free trade agreement, but a simple free trade agreement will not, in my view, cover any of those issues. Indeed, the question is whether it will cover services.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will, on this occasion, answer my next question. Why, in the light of the current circumstances, and the likely economic fallout from coronavirus, do we not accept that circumstances have changed and seek the extension that, in my view, all reasonable people want? This is not trying to reverse Brexit; this is trying to make things better for the United Kingdom. I regret to say that, as we go forward, I have no confidence in the way that the Government are dealing with this issue.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, is it not becoming a likely consequence of the Government’s present policy that they will be responsible for breaking up the United Kingdom?
Secondly, is it not a fact that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, could not be more wrong in characterising the EU as not negotiating in good faith? Is it not the case that Monsieur Barnier put his finger on it when he pointed out that it is we and not they who have moved the goalposts with regard to the content of the political declaration, which we presumably signed in good faith?
Thirdly, has not 2020 demonstrated two or three major points? The first is that we cannot rely on the United States any more than we can rely on China, and it is palpable nonsense that we think it is an advantage to go in the direction of saying that Britain gives the lead rather than that Britain is helping by comparing ourselves with best practice in the European area? Ought we not to stay within the European Economic Area, compatible with leaving the EU?
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Boswell on securing this debate. We urgently need to complete the structures of our new relationship with the EU and a vital focus needs to be what kind of friendship and influence we are seeking. We have just celebrated VE Day. As a boy, I believed all the belligerent rhetoric of that war and revelled in the news of the destruction of our enemies. But VE Day is a reminder that, actually, at a time of great peril, Britain gave its all for Europe out of a friendship that wanted the best for others as well as for ourselves.
Later, it was a revelation for me to travel across France in 1946 with my family and see the devastation of the cities. In Paris, we caught the moment where, for the first night since the liberation, Notre Dame was fully floodlit. On that journey, I met people from other countries who had suffered intolerably, learning something of their hopes and intentions. I became aware of the gigantic leap of faith that was required as the likes of Adenauer, Schuman and De Gasperi began to draw together people who had regarded each other as enemies in a process that culminated in the Treaty of Rome.
For a number of years I was involved in a programme of reconciliation in Europe and elsewhere which gave me much more appreciation of the divide that had to be bridged. The coronavirus presents an equal challenge for us and our neighbours. I back the theme of other noble Lords, that Britain should try to ensure that Europe as a whole is working towards greater inclusion of the developing world. We still need to recognise that much of our original wealth came from these regions and they rightfully expect the creation of a just economic order.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the report and the references to the need for the EU and the UK to establish effective channels of communication and co-operation, plus the need to respect the Good Friday agreement in order not to weaken the confidence of unionist and nationalist communities in the political process. Unfortunately, I am afraid to say that the UK Government are not engaging properly with the EU, and with the pragmatic intent that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, talked about, to resolve issues and to ensure, in the particular area where I live, the full implementation of the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol.
Let me give two examples to show how the Government have not negotiated properly, with true intent. First, there is the issue of the transition: to obtain that good, effective deal, the transition period needs to be extended by two years, during this period of the pandemic. Secondly, the UK has refused to allow the EU to have a technical office in Belfast for the implementation of the protocol, to allow proper procedures to be put in place to deal with those customs arrangements at the ports and to provide unfettered access for business. Because of the shortness of time, I ask the Minister to address both those issues and to work with colleagues to ensure that that respect, pragmatism and level of co-operation return to the negotiations, to achieve an effective deal.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I do not believe that any rational person should want anything but a friendly, influential relationship with our neighbours. However, we have a Government who are ideologically committed to a hard Brexit, pushing for UK exceptionalism just as nationalists everywhere do.
We are now engulfed with Covid-19 matters. This can be neither a cover nor a scapegoat for a destructive version of Brexit. The EU has produced a negotiating proposal of 440 pages, but we have no idea what our Government’s response is. We now need practical steps for future engagement.
The agreed Northern Ireland protocol requires customs declarations for exports to Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. Having denied this—the Prime Minister in particular—will the Government now acknowledge it and provide help and support to Northern Ireland businesses to help them handle the extra bureaucracy this will require?
The crunch of Brexit may be on the island of Ireland, but the rest of the UK is looking for positive answers on many other areas. For example, it has been mentioned that there is scope for continuing engagement in Horizon and Erasmus, involving contribution and access to funding. However, researchers and students want to know now what the Government propose. Will the Minister be able to tell us?
Our financial services have lost passporting rights, but they want optimal equivalence and a long-term understanding of how our financial services can still engage with EU customers. Can the Government give us any guidance on that? Professional and business services providers want to know if their qualifications will be recognised. A Joint Committee along the lines recommended by the committee has been established, but it is by no means clear how active or engaged it will be, or whether it will continue or transform after agreement is reached—assuming agreement is reached.
We need constructive relations between our Parliament, the European Parliament and the national Parliaments of the EU. Will the Government support the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee, as recommended by the EU Committee? The EU has said that it is prepared to include the UK in future meetings of COSAC. Do the Government support that? Please can we have some answers?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The poet said that it is good to see ourselves as others see us. We should perhaps consider why we are now so mistrusted across the Channel. In my two minutes, I will give two reasons.
First, the perception is increasingly that we are not implementing the Irish deal. It is seven months on, with only seven months to go, yet there has been no consultation, no draft legislation, no staff recruitment, no procurement of IT or construction of infrastructure and apparently, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, noted, no office for the 27 in Belfast—although the Chinese have one.
Our friends well remember Mr Johnson in denial that his deal entails a two-way EU trade frontier in the Irish Sea, even though it is spelt out in his treaty. They now suspect that he plans to persist in prevarication, forcing them back to the inner-Irish border and blaming Brussels for what that would do to the Good Friday agreement. Our good faith is being called into question.
Secondly, we have rejected the 27’s proposals for a new relationship based on the joint declaration. We will not let the Commission show the 27 our counterproposals—odd tactics if we are looking to win friends and get some influence. We have repudiated the level playing field concept that we had agreed in the joint declaration and encouraged the perception that we would be happy to have no deal.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, the increasing perception across the channel is that, under the cover of the virus-led recession, we aim to conceal the self-harm done by our new and narrowly autarchic definition of sovereignty. Our old friends suspect that that is why we reject an extension of the transition period; the virus cover works only if the crash-out is quick. The 27 know that the virus means there cannot be a comprehensive free trade agreement by December, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, pointed out. They cannot believe that Mr Johnson does not know it, so they question our good faith.
We are increasingly seen as irresponsible and untrustworthy. We are not behaving as did all the Governments for whom I was proud to work. It is very sad and, worse than sad, shaming.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the report talks about winning friends and influencing people. I believe one of the key requirements for that is a strong and growing diplomatic push by the United Kingdom throughout the world. From 2017-18, even after the EU referendum, the United Kingdom started to cut back the resources it was putting into our Diplomatic Service. In fact, the Foreign Office was one of the few departments getting hit really hard by the budgets. Can the Minister assure the House that adequate efforts will be made to build up our diplomatic capability, once the best in the world? We are now confronted with the fact that we need it even more, but I believe it has been starved of resources.
Many Members have already mentioned the position in Ireland. I never thought I would see a Conservative and Unionist Government agree to a border in the Irish Sea. To try to pretend that our position in the rest of the United Kingdom is not altered by the contents of the protocol is misleading—it makes a huge change—but by using and adapting the existing structures of the Good Friday agreement, as my noble friend Lord Caine said earlier in the debate, we have at our disposal a mechanism by which we can find a way of resolving these matters without damaging the union. Whatever the United Kingdom does, it must ensure that its international diplomatic capability is reinforced, not cut back.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I was a member of the EU Committee when this report was published and pay tribute, as other noble Lords have, to the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, when he chaired the committee. The report was published last year against the backdrop of the previous Prime Minister struggling and failing to get Parliament to approve her withdrawal agreement. Parliament was working against us leaving the EU.
Last December the British people gave the Government a very clear mandate to get Brexit done. We now have a strong Prime Minister and a Parliament, at least in the other place, committed to delivering the will of the people. Inevitably, some of the committee’s recommendations have not stood the test of time.
We have now left the EU. The Government are working at speed on the long-term relationship with the EU, including a free trade agreement. They are committed to bringing this to a conclusion by the end of the year, and I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord True confirm last week that the Government have no intention of extending the transition period. There is clearly no time to spare in these negotiations.
This is the new context for parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament must of course still undertake its constitutional role of holding the Government to account, but in this new timescale it cannot realistically expect to be involved in the detailed negotiations of our long-term relationship with the EU. To that extent I regard the EU Committee’s proposals—for example, on its desired involvement in the workings of the joint committee—as time-expired. Let us focus on holding the Government to account on what they achieve in practice, rather than on the detailed steps for getting there.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and his committee on this excellent report. It has taken a long time for it to see the light of debate. The report emphasises the important role of discussions and working together, both informally and formally, in what one can achieve when one is trying to ensure that our relationships with the rest of Europe remain as they should do. Years ago, I was on the European committee and, more recently, I have rejoined the goods committee, so this is of great interest to me as we go forward.
It was particularly interesting to see Michael Gove’s one-page statement, dated 28 April, about the progress of negotiations. It was good to see that trade and goods justified a couple of lines. Fisheries will be extremely difficult. Transport, aviation and road haulage were mentioned, along with passenger transport, but where was rail? Rail was not mentioned at all. Apparently, there is no interest in what the manufacturers might want in terms of services, safety and standards for passengers and freight. There has never been any mention of associate membership of the EU Agency for Railways, even though similar agencies for maritime and air have been accepted in part by the Government. Can the Minister explain this omission? Some time ago, I heard that the reason for omitting rail was because the European Union Agency for Railways mentioned Europe in the title.
We have to ask ourselves what the Government want, for what purpose and for whose benefit. Is it just dogma or is it wasting time? We have a long way to go before we can justify spending £60 billion on no deal while at the same time spending between £40 billion and £80 billion on the coronavirus this year. Is it all necessary?
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I regret the derisively short time available to address the important points in the report. This is a consequence of decisions made by the Lords Commission that have allowed technology to dictate function, arbitrarily curtailed the length of time for debates and created perverse speaking incentives, resulting in absurdly short speaking times on critical issues. Far from protecting the reputation of the House of Lords, these decisions make a mockery of our constitutional duty to hold the Executive to account and must be revisited. Our scrutiny role is needed now more than ever.
In the short time that I have, I want to focus on the position of Northern Ireland. In their response to the Select Committee’s report, the Government state that they will ensure that the views of business in Northern Ireland
“are represented in discussions and will inform the implementation of the protocol.”
However, when the Select Committee visited Northern Ireland recently, it found that, far from that being the case, businesses were deeply frustrated at the UK Government’s lack of engagement with their concerns. These concerns include a lack of knowledge of how the protocol will work, a lack of time to prepare for it to become operational, a default position that goods passing from GB to NI will be deemed at risk of passing to the single market, and the lack of clarity over unfettered access for NI goods to GB. People told the committee that the requirements for GB-NI movements were far beyond what seems plausible as a business model.
It is time for the Government to stop indulging in ideological obsessions and start listening to businesses and providing answers to their increasingly urgent questions—particularly at this time of great pressure on them from the Covid economic crisis.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
This is an important report and requires comprehensive consideration. Fostering relationships and working for certainty is key to the UK’s future in this complex, uncertain world. As applicable to beyond the EU as within, engagement, trust-building, negotiation and agreement are key. I remain for ever hopeful that conditions can be met to reset a number of relationships.
The sum of four strands makes up relevant relationships: government, both central and local, parliamentary, the private sector, and civil society, including culture exchange and soft power. Central government’s role must be to uphold standards and exercise its mind on such matters as national security, but also, importantly, to co-ordinate the other components. After all, it does not have a monopoly on relations.
I will run with the theme from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The report underlines the essential need for parliamentary scrutiny and engagement. Enhanced inter-parliamentary dialogue could serve a real purpose. However, the UK’s APPG movement requires an urgent overhaul. Its role, and that of the IPU and CPA, should be properly funded and not be as a single focus group, so as to become effective in advising government. Chairs and officers should be selected for their approach to being even-handed, but will the Government take parliamentarians seriously or do they believe themselves to be a centralised cabal?
In my time as chairman of the APPGs for the five states in central Asia, I endeavoured to make the groups meaningful by signing co-operation agreements with opposite numbers to underline their importance to the broadest range of priorities, from security, the environment, climate, trade, human rights and others, including parliamentary exchanges. That process could become a model.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, notwithstanding time constraints, I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his opening speech and for his outstanding chairmanship of the committee that authored this report. I should very much like to discuss many aspects of the report, especially the need to enhance diplomatic representation, as discussed in paragraph 79, and the importance of rebuilding bridges, but, in the light of the continuing calls for an extension to the transition period, I feel bound to give my reasons for asking the Government to resist such calls unambiguously.
An extension would not be in the best interests of this country. First, it would blight new trade negotiations and prevent deals already under negotiation coming into force. Secondly, negotiations for the EU’s new multiannual financial settlement start in 2021. It is expected to include a vast fiscal stimulus package and accompanying legislative programmes to shore up an already ailing eurozone. Having left the EU, we would be likely to find ourselves burdened with massive financial liabilities and bound by laws over which we have no say in shaping. Such laws are hardly likely to be framed to serve our interests.
Thirdly, and regardless of what the noble Lord, Lord Lea, thinks, the EU is seeking to impose conditions on us that are less favourable than those other countries enjoy. If this impasse leads to a breakdown in talks in the coming days, the failure will not be of our making. Offering an extension would be an act of irresponsible self-harm. When we put this tragic pestilence behind us, let us reject the protectionism that rewards the rich and harms the poor. History, even recent history, shows that free trade enriches and liberates all people and all countries. Let us embrace it now.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, beyond the time when we must follow EU rules, engagement and influence remain important. That is common sense wherever we have large trading relationships, but there is nowhere in the world more open and organised for receiving input than the EU. Beyond committees and agencies, Brussels is awash with consultations, conferences and evidence sessions. Good speakers are sought from around the world, and a well-presented case can be very influential. It is serious work. My record was speaking at six such sessions in one day, and making several speeches in a week was common. Getting the tone and content right is of paramount importance, and claiming that we are best in the world is not it. “World’s best” is often claimed in this House. We do not always believe it, even if we want to, but I have also head it in Brussels from Ministers and officials in multinational settings, listening in horror as it jeopardised relationships and carefully crafted compromises. I am glad UKREP is getting bigger, but I query whether it is enough and hope that those appointed are recognised, not passed over, when returning to London.
Co-ordination with industry is also welcome. We do not have the government and industry solidarity on policy that some countries display, and I doubt we ever will, but collective strategic activity is very effective. Others have long done it and at a larger scale.
Finally, one effectiveness factor that should not be underestimated is transparency to Parliament and the public. There is nothing as persuasive to any argument as their endorsements genuinely obtained.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Many noble Lords have referred to the fact that the subtitle of the report is How to Win Friends and Influence People. How the world looks at us and how it treats us is important to our prosperity and well-being as is the opinion of potential international students, business people looking to do business with our companies, and diplomats. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said we are increasingly seen as untrustworthy and our good faith is being called into question. That has global impacts. Two relevant recent studies about how we are being regarded around the world are the Good Country Index and the Reputation Index. The Good Country Index is based on the objective criteria of environmental impact and impacts on the well-being of people around the world, and the Reputation Index is a large-scale panel of G8 citizens. Interestingly, we are about the same on both of them: 15th and 13th. If we think about what might have impacted on that, history over decades, even centuries, will have had an impact. The military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan and our hideous colonial history of abuse and exploitation will have echoed through the decades and centuries. Currently, it is reasonable to say that our international aid, the maintenance of our GDP level and stepping in to chair COP 26 will have had a positive impact. How we deal with the Covid-19 pandemic will also have an impact. Does the Minister agree that how we handle the Brexit transition will affect the world’s view of us for decades to come? There is already irritation that we are forcing our European neighbours to focus on the Brexit transition when they would rather put the resources, time and energy into dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. There is real and growing fear of a crash out and its huge economic and social impact.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, used the metaphor of water pent up behind a dam, and that might also be used for the amount of work related to Brexit stacking up in your Lordships’ House, but if we think about that metaphor, Europe and the world are now in the middle of a giant earthquake with Covid-19. If we then are to inflict the flood of Brexit crisis and chaos on them, they will not thank us and it will affect their view of us for decades, even centuries, to come.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for introducing this debate, even if his committee’s interesting report was published 14 months ago. Much has changed since then. We have a new Prime Minister who has successfully negotiated a new withdrawal agreement, and the country has left the EU, at last delivering on the decision of the British people and fulfilling the promise made by the Government led by David Cameron.
Nevertheless, much of the report remains valid, and the committee has served your Lordships’ House well. The report deals extensively with the need to deploy whatever influence we can on our erstwhile EU partners during the implementation period. It recognises that our direct influence on the framing of EU laws and regulations has diminished because we are no longer in the room with the EU institutions. Does the Minister agree that the report should perhaps have recognised that this loss of influence at the EU level will be compensated for by the increase in influence at the global level where we will, just as soon as the implementation period is over, be in the room in our own right as a sovereign independent nation?
In many areas, rules and regulations are increasingly set at the global level, and we now have an opportunity to play our part in ensuring that the development of the global trading system continues to be based on rules-based competitive free trade and mutual recognition of equivalence of regulatory outcomes. We can be a strong advocate for the adoption of proportionate regulation which gives less weight to the precautionary principle and encourages innovation. In this endeavour, our natural allies will be the United States and Japan, as well as our Commonwealth partners, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Singapore and the other members of the CPTPP, and I trust the Minister will confirm that we will seek early accession to it.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, if a week is a long time in politics, then 14 months must be an aeon. From today’s vantage point, this report feels almost optimistic. Between then and now, others have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, memorably phrased it in March, captured the castle. If it is ironic that the best way to win friends and influence people is to have stayed in the EU, there is a double irony that even early last year it felt that we had a desire to maintain real contact with Europe. Sadly, much of the whole point of Brexit for Brexiteers is to sever many of those ties of communication and co-operation.
We had another taste of what may come on Sunday evening, when the Prime Minister talked—inappropriately, I felt—of developing a world-beating system for Covid testing, when Covid is a prime example of how we need to co-operate as a continent and, indeed, as a world in discovering the best ways to beat the virus. The irony of that, of course, is that the UK’s ability to be a major part of Covid research will be threatened if we lose access to Horizon Europe, the successor to Horizon 2020.
This excellent report correctly identifies EU and other European agencies as means of exerting influence, although the benefit of co-operation—friendship, if you will—is the key in scientific research, in education and culturally. Those of us who believe in such continuing co-operation need to keep pressing the Government on these matters, so I ask the Government whether they are still actively seeking for the UK to remain a meaningful—that is, participating—member of the Horizon programme and Erasmus. It will be a tragedy if it is left only up to individuals and individual institutions to maintain such contacts as they can without the recourse to any of the facilitating structures that other European countries will continue to have.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am the first to acknowledge the excellent work of our EU committees and their reports, under both my noble friend Lord Boswell and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. However, in the case of this report and as we come to the end of this debate—it is not really a debate at all, but a series of statements—I have to register my profound disappointment. The strong commitment in the report for scrutiny both during the transformation period and in the future is admirable, but my disappointment can be summed up in a single sentence. Neither the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union nor this report takes any account whatever of the fast-changing events and trends on the other side of the channel, within the EU and its institutions.
Everyone acknowledges that Brexit will profoundly reshape the EU, and many European leaders and thinkers accept that the EU needs fundamental reform, having been created in the pre-digital age. Many also see that these changes are going on fast anyway, regardless of whether officials in Brussels recognise them. Treating the EU as an unchanging monolith, as a hierarchy, will take our future relations straight into a brick wall. This is over and above the major effects on the EU of the current pandemic crisis, which themselves will have considerable long-term impact on the whole EU structure and the relations between member states and the central authorities.
These enormous forces of change in Europe long predate this crisis and will continue long after it has subsided. My question to the Minister is: when are we really going to address them?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the long and distinguished leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. His committee made a very useful report a year ago, but the regrettable delay in us being able to debate its sensible proposals for governance, transparency, influence and scrutiny has meant that in the meantime the situation has been transformed—for the worse; it has become more complex, unpredictable and dangerous.
Just over 18 months ago, the then Prime Minister Theresa May agreed with the EU a political declaration on the future relationship that envisaged
“an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation … law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation.”
The October 2019 version agreed by Prime Minister Johnson stated the same aim, in fact, apart from adding
“with a comprehensive and balanced Free Trade Agreement at its core”.
However, the broad objective was in fact still there, including the explicit reference to it being a possible association agreement. Yet somehow, in the last seven months, the objective of the Johnson Government has shrunk to no more than a Canada-type free-trade agreement, apparently shorn even of that breadth of economic co-operation and with a series of individual agreements, as tweeted by Mr David Frost, instead of the umbrella of a broad and flexible partnership and its accompanying governance arrangements.
We look forward to these drafts being published, in the same way in which the EU published its 440-page draft text two months ago. However, whereas the EU referred in its draft to a new economic partnership, that very notion appears to have been eradicated from the thinking of the present Government. They have resiled from what they sensibly signed up to just last October, preferring a messy set of 10 or maybe more separate agreements. This is at a huge cost. A month ago, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that a typical FTA would cost a potential 5.2% of GDP over 15 years through trade friction, restrictions on migration and red tape. Higher trade barriers would cause imports and exports to be 15% lower after 10 years, and UK productivity, already not exactly stellar, would also be lower. As my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed pointed out, the Government refuse to publish their own economic assessment of the Canada-style deal that they want with the EU, but they have done one on the claimed advantages of the US trade deal that they want—a measly maximum 0.16% of GDP.
Mr Gove told the Commons Brexit committee that he saw economic opportunities for people wishing to work as customs agents by filling in forms to allow trade with the EU. The private sector estimates a need for 50,000 of them; that is one example of the Government’s idea of a silver lining, I suppose. What an extraordinary ambition it is for a Government to embrace—to have less than before, to erect trade barriers where none had existed and to create jobs only in the red-tape industry, all in the name of sovereignty.
Noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, have spoken in this debate about level playing-field issues in the economic sphere, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, I want to dwell on those concerning justice and security. In last October’s political declaration, it was agreed that
“the scale and scope of future security arrangements should achieve an appropriate balance between rights and obligations—the closer and deeper the partnership the stronger the accompanying obligations. It should reflect the commitments the United Kingdom is willing to make that respect the integrity of the Union’s legal order, such as with regard to alignment of rules and the mechanisms for disputes and enforcement … It should also be underpinned by long-standing commitments to the fundamental rights of individuals, including continued adherence and giving effect to the ECHR, and adequate protection of personal data”.
Elsewhere in the political declaration, it was said that:
“In view of the importance of data flows and exchanges across the future relationship, the Parties are committed to ensuring a high level of personal data protection to facilitate such flows between them.”
However, the Government now seem to want the flows and exchanges without the commitments. It has been reported that they are seeking full access to the Europol database and the Schengen Information System, but in his evidence last week to the European Union Committee, Mr Gove gave as one reason for resisting EU regulatory standards that the UK could lose “freedom of manoeuvre” for data sharing across government departments to deal with Covid. That does not sound very promising in respect of securing an EU data adequacy decision.
In the same session, Mr Gove said, rather peevishly perhaps:
“I think that everything could be agreed—it all depends on the EU. For example, it would be within the EU’s gift to give us access to the Schengen Information System, but it insists that we submit to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction.”
Mr Gove absolutely knows that the EU is an organisation based on comprehensive arrangements of law, rules and enforcement. Indeed, elsewhere in his evidence he expressed satisfaction that equivalence in financial regulation
“is a rules-based rather than a discretion-based process”,
which means that
“the EU would not promiscuously and whimsically withdraw equivalence”.
Yet he expects the EU to abandon its legal and data rules and promiscuously use discretion to gift us access to SIS. This is not serious; it seems to be preparation for a later complaint that the EU is being beastly to us in denying us the opportunity to have our cake and eat it—all this while the present Government and their supporters play fast and loose over whether the Human Rights Act, or even our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights, is safe in their hands. This is not the basis for a security and justice partnership.
On citizens’ rights, I was pleased to hear Mr Gove say that the Government would want to “show flexibility and humanity” to EU citizens who miss the June 2021 deadline for applying for settled status, whereas, if memory serves, the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, said recently that they would be illegal residents after that date and thus subject to the hostile environment. Can the Minister confirm that there will be flexibility and humanity, not least for the looked-after EU children to whom the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred? It was also notable that Mr Gove told the EU Committee last week that the “moral and social case” was “strong” for accepting the plea, most recently from Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, for physical documentary proof of status. This is a plea our committee has repeatedly made. Will the Government accept it?
In this debate, several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Bruce and Lord Oates, have expressed great disquiet at the Government’s lack of action to implement the Irish protocol. I can only second that. Last week, Mr Gove said that opposing an extension to transition was not a matter of ideology but because it could mean that UK could be subject to EU laws and rules in a way that would not be in our interest in a range of areas. I have already referred to my fear that the Government want to diverge from EU privacy law. Can the Minister give any other examples of desired flexibility?
Surely, in any case, the pragmatic, non-ideological thing to do is to recognise that capacity and bandwidth for Brexit have been so diminished by Covid that an extension is just a no-brainer. We certainly need to try and keep a national Parliament office in Brussels on the premises of the European Parliament and to seek a joint parliamentary committee with the latter. However, I fear that our goals will fall foul of this Johnson Government’s lack of ambition for a real partnership with the EU. This Government need to show that winning friends and influencing people is indeed what they have in mind.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this was a farsighted report. It was produced over a year ago, and although today the world feels quite different—we have left the EU and we see the impact of the virus on both our economy and the talks, which were delayed and have now become virtual—nevertheless, the thrust of its analysis remains pertinent, despite the Government having dropped their plans for
“an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership”,
and a move away from the October political declaration, signed by the Prime Minister, of which we have heard today. Furthermore, many of the 2019 report’s actors have changed, so it was David Frost, not a Minister, who was at the Zoom conference today negotiating the UK’s diplomatic, security and trading future.
The pandemic reminds us how global our future is and how important international co-operation needs to be. The historian, the late Michael Howard, said that
“all difficult problems must be addressed with partners and allies”,
while, in one of the most moving moments on VE Day, the German President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, looking back 75 years to when Germany was so alone, said,
“for us Germans … ‘never again’ means ‘never again alone’ ... We want more cooperation around the world, not less”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said in introducing the debate, this is no time to pull up the drawbridge. Although social distancing is important, conscious political self-isolation will never be a long-term goal. The report that the noble Lord chaired urged the Government to engage with the remaining EU member states to seek to establish mechanisms for regular bilateral dialogue. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether this has happened.
Britain stands on the brink of the worst recession since 1709, with huge implications for the type of deal that the Government should be negotiating, perhaps with a different trade deal from that envisaged a year ago, especially as the US—the potential market identified by the Prime Minister—becomes ever more protectionist, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. We want to hear that our approach to the future deal is pragmatic and jobs- and economy-oriented, taking account of the likely reduction in air transport to the US and other distant markets. Can the Minister reassure us on that?
I do not need to repeat that one of the thorniest issues of Brexit—how to keep the Irish border free of checkpoints after Britain leaves the single market— has not been resolved. Throughout the UK, it is the implementation as well as the content of the final deal that is alarming business, farmers, lawyers, accountants and consumers.
With our EU exit having been moved from March 2019 to January this year since the report was written, the preparations for the agreed term is therefore shorter than the two years initially foreseen. The current deadline is not simply, in the Government’s words, June to start preparing for no deal but 31 December, when all the customs posts and tariffs must be in place, to say nothing of the paperwork. The Government, we hear, are training 50,000 form-fillers via Mr Gove’s customs agent academy.
The previous Secretary of State promised full and proper accountability to Parliament. He said that Parliament rightly expects that Ministers will be fully accountable to Parliament in the exercise of their duties on the future relationship joint committee. However, since the Prime Minister has taken political control of the talks, he has shown precious little inclination to report back and has failed to share the Government’s drafts either with Parliament as a whole or with a limited, confidential grouping of Parliament, or even, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, reminded us, with the 27 member states.
The Prime Minister also has failed to accord the devolved Administrations their proper role, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes and my noble and learned friend Lord Morris said. Despite a Written Answer I received from the Minister yesterday committing the Government to
“working closely with the devolved administrations throughout negotiations to secure a future relationship that works in the interests of the whole of the UK”,
I am told that engagement with the devolved Administrations has been superficial and tokenistic. They have not had sight of the legal texts and have had no opportunity to feed in meaningfully to the negotiating positions, even on issues which will fall to them to implement. Jeremy Miles, for the Welsh Government, called the engagement “deficient”, and while a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations will take place later this month, it will be the first such meeting since January, and this at a time of supposedly intense negotiations.
Gibraltar also raises big issues at this stage of the negotiations. It has already faced having to make seismic and costly adaptations with only a very short transition period, but this is now compounded by the huge impact of Covid-19. It will be critical for Gibraltar to have some sort of cushion or breathing space, given it has had to borrow vast sums to handle the crisis. Indeed, should the 14-day quarantine cover Gibraltar, unlike Ireland, there could be added tensions with Spain or about the future deal.
In addition to Parliament’s role vis-à-vis government is the call by the new chair of the EU Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for a structured inter-parliamentary dialogue as part of the future relationship. We look forward to the Minister’s response as to how the Government and Parliament can work to establish such an inter-parliamentary body.
We hear that the talks are not making good progress, with substantial differences between the two sides on the level playing field, fishing and much else, and with EU officials wary of British efforts to make rapid headway on securing a trade agreement, retaining access to the aviation market and other core UK concerns, while leaving fishing and other issues in the slow lane. Yet again, the Government seem to be scaling back their ambition for a UK-EU trade deal. First, we were promised the “exact same benefits” as EU membership, then Canada-plus-plus-plus, and now Michael Gove has confirmed that the aim is any deal which gives them the power to reduce employment and environmental standards. This approach puts ideology before jobs and our economy, as well as straining our ability to secure a good deal by December. A deal with tariffs on some goods would be significantly more complex to negotiate than the status quo of zero tariffs and zero quotas, and raises serious issues for the Northern Ireland protocol.
Therefore, can the Minister assure the House that, whatever it takes, our exit from the transition will be on terms that benefit our whole economy, our security and—vitally—our future relationship with the EU and its member states?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I express my gratitude and admiration to my noble friend Lord Boswell, not only for his report but for his long service to his country and his very distinguished chairmanship of the EU Committee. I look forward to working closely with his successor, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who is already proving to be a doughty and statesmanlike leader in that role.
The report is crucially important, as is its title, Beyond Brexit: how to win friends and influence people. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, reminded us from a past perspective of the importance of international friendship and co-operation—friendships and co-operation which can lie across, within and outside all sorts of international institutions. I simply disagree with those who say that the Government are isolationist and dogmatic—I heard those terms used in this debate among others; I shall not list them, but it is simply not a fair representation of the attitude of this Government or of the British people, who, I must remind this House, voted for a new relationship between this country and the European Union and, ipso facto, a new relationship between this country and the wider world. There were times in the debate when I felt like whistling or humming
“Lead, kindly light amid th’ encircling gloom”
because many of the speeches shared a tone of impossibilism and doubt that this country could succeed in its common objectives, which are to reach a friendly future relationship with our friends in the European Union.
The view of the Government is that there is ample time to strike a deal based on fair trade and friendly co-operation. As your Lordships know, we are looking for an agreement largely like those that the EU has agreed with others. There are plenty of precedents and texts around. We are familiar with each other’s systems and, with sufficient energy, there is plenty of time. Moreover, the EU agreed to this timeline when it agreed the political declaration last autumn. I submit that no one should cast doubt on it; we should be getting on with it.
Of course Covid, as a number of noble Lords have referred to, exists; it is a great tragedy and a great crisis. However, the Government have the bandwidth and the capacity to conduct negotiations within Europe and to deal with the Covid crisis, as my right honourable friend Mr Gove assured the EU Committee last week. Notwithstanding the succession of noble Lords who asked for an extension in the transition, the Government’s view remains that that would simply prolong the negotiations and business uncertainty and delay the moment of control of our borders. As my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness said, extending the transition would mean that we would have to make further payments into the EU budget. It would also keep us bound by EU legislation at a point when we need legislative and economic flexibility to manage the UK response to the Covid pandemic. Some would characterise that as an ideological statement; I would characterise it as a statement from a Government intent on doing what they have been asked to do by the British people and to do so amicably to reach agreement with the people who will always remain our European friends.
Some have said that a long time has elapsed since this report was published. I was reminded when the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, was speaking of the old saying that there are decades when nothing happens and there are many weeks when decades happen. Sometimes in this House last year, it seemed that there were hours when weeks happened. New circumstances have arisen and we are now finally beyond Brexit, having left the EU in January, with a third round of the negotiations on our future relationship having started yesterday and with, I repeat, the transition period ending at the end of the year.
While the passage of time has meant that many areas raised in this report have been superseded, I agree with many noble Lords that that does not make this debate any less important or our aspiration for good relations across Europe and beyond any less vital. I hope to respond a little later to some of the specific points on our representation. I also acknowledge the important remarks of my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford.
While much of the work of this House and the other place has lately been focused on what we were looking to achieve, this report and debate are about not losing sight of how we should achieve our objectives. I will try to address most of that in the rest of my remarks.
I will answer one or two specific points raised in the debate. We still believe that it will be possible to reach an understanding on financial services equivalence by June. On the question of refugee children, raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—technology has let me down; I hope to be able to reassure him on that later in my response.
Many noble Lords asked about the work of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee and the specialised committees. The Joint Committee met for the first time on 30 March via remote means and was co-chaired, as noble Lords know, by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič. The UK and the EU updated the Joint Committee on progress to implement the withdrawal agreement, with particular focus on citizens’ rights—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that they are important and I endorse what my right honourable friend said on that matter—and on the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, which I will come to in a moment.
The UK and the EU also agreed to start the work of the six specialised committees on citizens’ rights, other separation provisions, the protocol on Ireland/ Northern Ireland, the protocol relating to the sovereign base areas on Cyprus, the protocol on Gibraltar and financial provisions. The UK and EU co-chairs of the specialised committees have each now spoken informally. They are making plans for their respective specialised committees to meet as appropriate. Indeed, the Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee met on 30 April. UK and EU officials co-chaired the first meeting via video and the UK and EU co-chairs both welcomed the collaborative and constructive conversation.
The Government are determined to give Parliament appropriate opportunity for scrutiny of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, and we have committed to issuing Written Ministerial Statements before and after each meeting. The Government have always been clear—the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to this—that Gibraltar is covered by our negotiations with the EU and we have committed to involve it fully. Decisions on representation at specialised committee meetings will be taken in accordance with the withdrawal agreement.
A number of noble Lords asked about work on the Northern Ireland protocol—if I listed the names on each occasion it would take time from this debate. However, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, introduced a parallel point, reminding us that our top priority in implementing the protocol should be to protect the Good Friday agreement and gains from the peace process, and to preserve Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. That is the central purpose of this Government in agreeing ways to carry this forward. The protocol puts legal obligations on both sides. We are committed to complying with ours, just as we expect the EU to comply with its.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for not replying on this in a previous debate, but I was asked about the presence of an EU Commission office in Belfast. There is no reason why the Commission should require a permanent presence in Belfast to monitor the implementation of the protocol, nor, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, any reason why that should cause distrust. This is not a requirement that was included in the protocol; it is an additional EU ask. Article 12 of the Northern Ireland protocol does not necessitate, or place any requirement on the UK to facilitate, such a presence. Our position remains that EU officials can exercise their rights under Article 12 of the protocol, without necessarily a permanent presence in Northern Ireland.
The protocol is a practical solution to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and makes clear—this is important—that Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom. The arrangements that we introduce will reflect this. As set out in the New Decade, New Approach deal, the Government are committed to legislate to guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market, and to ensure that this legislation is in force for January 2021. We want to work with Northern Ireland businesses, as many noble Lords have asked us to, to ensure that new administration procedures are streamlined and do not affect the flow of trade.
The protocol also ensures that the future arrangements for Northern Ireland will depend on the consent of those affected by them through a vote that can take place every four years. We will continue to take forward discussions on the implementation of the protocol in the joint committee and specialised committee, and to do so in good faith.
A number of noble Lords remarked on how we are engaging with the EU during the transition period. Since the UK has left the European Union, we are seeking to engage and co-operate with the EU through normal diplomatic channels. That is why the UK will not attend EU meetings, other than in exceptional circumstances. Our relationship with the EU and its member states will be conducted on the basis of normal diplomatic and international practice, as part of our wider agenda.
However, as was recognised by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, it is the fact that the United Kingdom Government are increasing the number of members of the UK Mission to the European Union, or UKMis—formerly known as UKRep, for those not up to date with the changes. That will continue to be our principal interface with EU institutions. As part of the strengthening of our diplomatic effort across Europe—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on the importance of this—UKMis Brussels has grown from over 120 staff in 2016 to over 180 staff at the time of the UK’s exit from the EU. It has established a dedicated public diplomacy function to support the new ways of working, and has enhanced its communications team, which will play an important role in shaping the narrative around the UK’s activities and priorities within Europe. We set great store in the importance of maintaining good relations with our partners across Europe.
The noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord McConnell, were among many who raised the question of the devolved Administrations. Of course, the UK Government are engaged with the devolved Administrations during the development of the approach to negotiations, through regular official meetings and bilateral discussions between the Paymaster General and her ministerial counterparts in the DAs. That has ensured that the UK Government have taken on board the views of the DAs, and that has been reflected in the published approach to negotiations. I reaffirm our commitment to working with them to deliver a future relationship with the EU that works for the whole UK. The UK Government are committed to this, and last week, on 6 May, the Paymaster General spoke to Ministers from the DAs to update them on negotiations and exchange views.
I follow my right honourable friend Michael Gove in responding to the important question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and a number of other Peers about parliamentary engagement with the EU institutions post Brexit. It is clear that, understandably, many Members of your Lordships’ House are keen to maintain those links—important links between the Parliaments of member states. But I repeat the position, expressed by my right honourable friend when he spoke to your Lordships at the EU Committee, that it is not for the Government to tell Parliament how to maintain and develop these arrangements. I can assure the noble Earl that the Government are keenly supportive of such proposals and developments.
The noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Broers, and others asked about participation in EU agencies. We will, of course, discuss with the EU how best to manage our friendly relations but any solution has to respect our red line of no commitments to follow EU law and no acceptance of the CJEU. That is fundamental and was put to the British people at the last election.
Unfortunately, there are relatively limited options for third-country membership of the EU bodies, but we have been clear that we will operate on the basis of existing precedents where they represent a real benefit to British people and industry and provide convincing value for money. I confirm that we are considering participation in Horizon and in a number of other bodies referred to in the debate. We are also, obviously, considering participation in Erasmus+.
My noble friend Lord Duncan of Springbank asked about climate change. We are already working closely with the EU on climate change and I see no reason why that should not continue. I also want to confirm that the UK will continue its participation in the emissions trading scheme during the transition period.
The technology now having worked, I can reply to the right reverend Prelate on refugee children. The UK continues to be fully committed to meeting our obligations under the Dublin regulation. We remain in close contact with member states, to keep abreast of updates and establish where transfers can take place as quickly and safely as possible in accordance with existing Covid-19 restrictions. I hope that is a reasonable response.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the importance of sport. This is, of course, important in Europe, both within and outside the EU; one recognises that.
Time is unfortunately constrained. I agree with the feelings of a number of noble Lords who have spoken: it will be a good day when we can get back to challenge and response. But, despite my feeling sometimes that it was a little pessimistic, the debate has been good and instructive. It has demonstrated again the capacity of this House and its committees to look at our exit from the EU in the round and look towards our long-term relationship. We do not believe that our vision for the future is incompatible with having a close relationship with the EU. We continue to see the EU, and the EU nations, as our neighbours and our friends. We will continue to aspire to, and have, a relationship inspired by our shared history and values and, I hope, always informed by your Lordships’ House.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, briefly and in conclusion, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and for their personal kindness towards me. I also thank the Minister for his efforts to respond to the debate within the constraints of time. All I would say to him and to other Members of the Government in the present circumstances is, “Don’t close your minds. Remember that there is no stigma in being flexible and pragmatic in order to meet the interests of the country.” Perhaps I will leave it at that.
It has been the case, as it has through the debate, that complex EU structures, including its legal structures, and the protracted nature of the Brexit debates that we have had over the past four years, have been centred on detailed issues. As has been mentioned, our report went into some of those detailed implementation issues. Yet beyond that, the current exceptional circumstances drive us to some reappraisal of our strategic priorities. I noted with approval a recent article in the Times by the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, commenting simply and powerfully:
“Strong international relations are vital to our security and success.”
I hope that we can all agree on that.
I am proud in this case of the EU Committee’s role in taking our strategic thinking beyond Brexit. The answer for this country lies not in some retreat into what I might call national lockdown, but in attention and commitment to continuing international engagement. As the debate has made clear, we have all the circumstances of the pandemic and issues of climate change, and we could perhaps have said more about their interaction in the position of developing countries and the ongoing impact on migration, for example. There is a huge international agenda out there on which we must not turn our backs.
As we reflect this week on the lessons of the Second World War, which led to the foundation of what became the European Union, we must leave ourselves space to rise to the occasion, and in doing so with other partners across the world perhaps play our proper part in making the world a better place. I beg to move.
Covid-19: Strategy
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Virtual Proceeding on the Statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on the Covid-19 strategy will now commence. Please note that it has been agreed in the usual channels to dispense with the reading of the Statement itself, and we will proceed immediately to questions from the Opposition Front Bench.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, having watched the Prime Minister’s recorded message on Sunday and his Statement to MPs yesterday, I will make two observations. We recognise that the complexities and unknowns of this virus mean that decisions about how we respond are very difficult and challenging. To meet those unprecedented challenges, the Government must provide certainty, confidence and clarity. Unfortunately, in his two statements the Prime Minister missed those targets by announcing the plans without the detail needed. Dominic Raab then had to tour the media studios on Monday morning with a basic message of, “What the Prime Minister meant to say was…” For example, when Mr Johnson said that people who were able to should go back to work on Monday, he really meant Wednesday. When we most needed clarity, we got confusion.
We now have the strategy document, so we can discuss the detail, but there is a reason why Statements should be made to Parliament, rather than taking the “Blue Peter” approach of “Here’s one I made earlier” and recording them especially for the media. The Government should not see the normal process of consultation, engagement, questions and scrutiny as political obstacles to be avoided. They must understand that this is the way that we get the best decisions and, therefore, the best outcomes. It is only by highlighting problems that we can work together to overcome them. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the impact assessments on these strategy documents will also be published?
Because of the way this has been handled, there are numerous questions to be addressed to ensure that the public have all the information they need and that we can all monitor and support the way forward. Will the noble Baroness guarantee that no question today is left unanswered and that, if necessary, she will follow up in writing with complete answers?
I will pick up four specific issues. The first is about understanding the R rate—the reproduction rate—which is essential in fighting the virus. How robust is the calculation of the current level being between 0.5 and 0.9? The report states that 136,000 people are currently infected in the UK. Given that there is no universal testing or tracing, on what scientific basis is it calculated and what is the confidence level of the statistics and the margin of error? It is a basic question of whether it is a calculation or an estimate. Our national strategy is predicated on that figure, so we need to be able to respond quickly if it changes, either by the further easing of restrictions or, as is happening in parts of Germany and in South Korea, having to respond to an increase in the R rate. How quickly can we accurately identify changes and adapt plans accordingly? If we are asking those who enter the country to self-isolate for 14 days to help keep the R rate down, how will this be enforced and monitored?
Secondly, the Prime Minister said that the virus varies across the nations and regions of the UK and therefore needs a flexible response. That makes sense, but flexibility does not mean the Government going it alone for England; it means consultation and engagement to ensure coherent policy even if there are differences. So what discussion and consultation took place with the devolved Governments before the Prime Minister’s announcement? And I have to ask: is it really true that they heard about the change of advice from “Stay at home” to “Stay alert” in the media and on Twitter? The noble Baroness attends COBRA meetings so she will be aware of the weekly meetings with the leaders of the devolved Administrations. Were the differences in policy discussed at those meetings? Can she also confirm that the meetings will continue to be weekly? It seems even more important now that they are so, if they are not, why not?
At a smaller, regional level, how accurate is that R figure in identifying regional and local differences? We see that the information regarding infections and deaths is given at local government level. Can the R rate be identified in the same way?
I want to ask about the advice on going back to work, which still appears to be that if you can work from home then you should do so. Many decisions will be predicated on social distancing and other protection measures being in place. I have real concerns about workplaces where there is no proper system for challenging decisions that are taken by an employer or manager. Should employees have little or no confidence that a proper risk assessment at the workplace has been carried out or acted upon, what support will the Government provide to protect their health, or in the event of any threat of job losses just for asking questions? I have to put this to the noble Baroness as well: does she consider that the Health and Safety Executive is fit for purpose on this front? Does it have both the capacity and the political support?
Today we have had more detail on how social distancing will work on public transport and where capacity is to be dramatically reduced. However, given that demand to travel on buses, trams and the Tube may start to outstrip supply, how will the Government ensure that transport networks are not overwhelmed by those just trying to get back to work, as the Government have advised?
It is also suggested that primary schools will go back in June. In the interests of the wider workforce, is guidance being prepared for schools and nurseries on how long children should attend for each day? If that were provided, it could help the public, employers and employees to properly plan ahead. On all those issues, can the noble Baroness confirm that genuine consultation with the relevant trade unions will be part of the decision-making and implementation process?
As we move to the next stages and some parts of everyday life begin to reopen, it is even more important that we get shielding and support for vulnerable people right. What are the Government doing to improve their efforts to identify and notify those in high-risk categories? Local authorities are reporting huge errors. They initially raised their concerns that the numbers seemed too low, but were not asked to contribute their knowledge as data identification was being undertaken centrally. It now appears that thousands of people were initially missed off, and in some areas local authorities have been told that the numbers of citizens to be shielded have more than doubled in the last week. That is a lesson to us all that local authorities have a vital role to play, given their understanding and knowledge of their communities, and that we have to work in ongoing partnership with them to make improvements and harness their local knowledge.
A huge amount is being asked of individuals over the coming weeks. People will rise to the challenge and do their best to keep themselves and each other safe, but it is not just an individual responsibility; it is a collective one and the Government must maintain their end of the bargain. That means delivering on testing, tracing and PPE for front-line workers.
Over the past few months our lives have changed. Thousands are grieving for loved ones. We have seen extraordinary efforts and commitment to manage and eradicate the virus and support individuals and communities. Staff in the NHS, in caring, in transport, in retail, in pharmacies and so many other public-facing roles that we rely on have done so much. We have a responsibility to them to prepare for the future, to do what we can to get the economy moving and to support people in getting back to work, but with great caution, as well as hope for what our country might become when this horrible disease is no more.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for taking questions on the Prime Minister’s Statement. I think everybody agrees that the Government have to strike an extraordinarily difficult balance in moving from the simplicity of lockdown and the “stay at home” slogan towards some sort of social and economic normality without jeopardising the progress being made to control the virus. Even while following the science, there are many uncertainties and risks that have to be weighed, and decisions have to be based on judgments which only Ministers can make.
In these circumstances, the best way to secure maximum public trust and support is to be clear, consistent and open. The Prime Minister’s statements to both the nation and the Commons, coupled with many and various briefings by Ministers, spads and other officials over the past week, have unfortunately led to many uncertainties, inconsistencies and unanswered questions.
I therefore have some questions for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. First, on testing, how resilient do the Government believe the system now is, given that only a few days ago they sent some 5,000 tests to America because they could not be analysed in a timely manner in the UK? Have any further such shipments proved necessary?
On the crucial track and trace technology, how confident are the Government that their own bespoke system, currently being tested in the Isle of Wight, is fit for purpose in the light of their placing a £3.8 million contract last week to investigate the use in the UK of a completely different one? If a track and trace system is implemented, how will the Government ensure that those who need to isolate do so, given that the number of people they plan to employ on this task is way short of the numbers involved in countries that have been following such a system effectively for some time? Will they consider establishing multidisciplinary community Covid teams, on the German model, involving local directors of public health, which will check not only that people really are isolating themselves but that they are getting the support they need in their homes?
Underlying these questions is the common theme of a monolithic, national programme that has been implemented with little apparent understanding of local conditions and the potential for working collaboratively with local public and private sector partners. Will the Government now look at developing a more collaborative approach in the months ahead in order to avoid some of the problems that they have encountered in the weeks we have just seen?
Moving on to the safety of people at work—an issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, touched on—compliance with the rules is policed by the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities. Both are desperately short of resources to undertake this additional work. What further resources will the Government make available to them to ensure that if employees have concerns about their working conditions they can get a timely inspection of their premises? At the moment, I feel that any concerns raised by employees will not be dealt with expeditiously, because there are simply not the people able to deal with them.
In relation to quarantining for those coming into the UK, why have the Government waited so long to take a measure that has been in place in over 100 other countries for several months? If this is now such an important barrier against the virus, why has the Prime Minister agreed to President Macron’s request to exempt all those travelling from France, which has also had a very high incidence of the disease? It is very difficult to see on what science that decision could possibly have been made.
On schools, why have reception and year 1 groups been prioritised over other primary and junior years, given that these groups will find it the most difficult to maintain social distancing? Again, what is the scientific rationale for that? In the light of the fact that some headmasters are saying that they will not open their schools because they do not believe that they can do so safely, what response, if any, do the Government plan in such cases?
Finally, on your Lordships’ House, the Prime Minister has been keen to urge the House of Commons to move
“in step with public health guidance … towards further physical proceedings”.
Does the noble Baroness agree that the Lords should also embrace this principle and move now towards a hybrid Chamber along the lines of that already in place in the Commons?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, there has been a terrific and positive communal response to beating this virus. That feeling exists strongly today, but if it is to continue, the Government must just be open with the people, be clear, and make sure that all of us know how we are supposed to behave in the best interests of ourselves, our families and the country in the months ahead.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments. Like them, I pay tribute to everybody for the fantastic national effort that we have seen over the last few weeks. They are absolutely right: it is critical that we provide information at this very difficult time, particularly as we are coming out of the lockdown. We are committed to keeping Parliament and the public informed. In addition to the plan that was published on Monday, over 45 guidance documents have been published, and there is more to come, so we are absolutely committed to making sure that everybody has the most up-to-date and best information possible so that they can understand their responsibilities and the decisions they have to make in the coming weeks.
The noble Baroness asked about the vulnerable and shielded. I assure her that there has been a huge amount of cross-government, cross-agency and local government work. Local resilience fora in particular are playing a critical role in supporting and helping those who are shielded—that will continue—and, of course, we should pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of members of the public who have signed up to the good Samaritan app to help and provide support to those people.
The noble Baroness rightly asked about the data and the R rate. The fact that the R rate today remains between 0.5 and 0.9, which is perilously close to 1, is the reason why we are taking very careful steps in the coming weeks. In particular, that is why we have set up the joint biosecurity centre, which will bring the UK’s leading epidemiological expertise together to ensure that future outbreaks are detected and brought under control.
This centre will collect a range of data to build up the picture of infection rates across the country, and analyse it to form pictures of changes in infection rates across the country, thereby providing intelligence on both the overall national picture and potential community level spikes. It will advise the CMO of a potential change in the alert level, which we have also just set up, and the CMO will then advise Ministers. It will identify specific actions to address local spikes in infection in partnership with local agencies, and of course it will work in partnership with the Government and the devolved Administrations to ensure that it is effective throughout the United Kingdom.
I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore see that this centre will be critical as we move into the next phase. We will rightly be looking at all the data and its robustness, and ensuring that we can act quickly to changes in data and, along with SAGE, advise the Government. Several other countries, such as New Zealand, South Korea and the United States are also operating a Covid alerting system of the type that we have just set up.
I can assure the noble Baroness that the devolved Administrations have been involved in all discussions. As she rightly said, I sit on a number of the COBRA committees. Representatives of the devolved Administrations attend every committee. We discuss areas of best practice and mutual interest, and where approaches and data slightly diverge. It has been a very strong relationship between the Administrations, but there have been differences in the data in each country—it is of course right that the devolved Administrations make decisions for the people of their area.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the return to work. We have been working closely with unions, the Health and Safety Executive, public health authorities, business groups and local authorities to develop the guidance that we have published for businesses, and we will of course continue to do so. I am pleased to let the noble Lord and the noble Baroness know that today we announced £14 million of additional funding for the Health and Safety Executive. We are determined that it should be able to do its job. Nobody should be forced to work in an unsafe workplace. If employees are concerned that their employers are not taking all practical steps to promote social distancing, they can report them to their local authority or to the HSE, which can take a range of actions. We will support them in doing that.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about schools. We want to get reception and year 1 children back into education as quickly as possible and as the scientific advice allows. We believe that school is the best place for them to learn and we know that it is important for their mental well-being to be back with their friends and teachers. Schools will open only in a phased way and only when it is safe to do so. We will of course continue to work closely on this with the unions. We have published guidance for schools and other healthcare settings. We are asking them to implement a range of protective measures, including increasing cleaning, reducing pinch points at the start and end of the day and utilising outdoor space, and we will look at their staying in their small classes for as long as possible so that they have minimum contact with groups around the rest of the school.
The noble Lord asked about testing. We believe that we have a robust system in place, but we will not be complacent. We are trialling the NHS app, but that is just one part of the track and tracing system that we will use. We will ensure that the vulnerable and those who do not have access to the app will be able to be tracked and traced. We will certainly continue to learn from international experience, as the noble Lord mentioned.
The noble Lord also asked about the UK’s borders. During the contain phase, we had enhanced monitoring at the borders to identify symptomatic travellers, but once there was significant transmission within the UK, the scientific advice was that border restrictions would have had a marginal effect on the number of coronavirus cases. Now that domestic transmission within the UK is coming under control, it is right that we take these new measures. As the noble Lord said, the Prime Minister has been talking to President Macron to develop a joint approach.
The noble Lord asked about the House of Lords and a hybrid House. As he will know, work is ongoing to establish how we can do that, but I am sure that all noble Lords will want to ensure that if we return physically we do so in a safe environment both for your Lordships and for the staff, who are supporting us fantastically through this difficult time.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I thank and congratulate all who have been involved in containing the coronavirus crisis. The Government’s plans are correctly conditional, and they have a difficult balance to strike. This must avoid proceeding too far and too fast. When life is at stake, perhaps the first objective must be to avoid a second peak, which could overwhelm the NHS. Under the Government’s plan, we are just about at level 3. When do the Government expect to achieve our target of level 1?
My second question is prompted by my wife and focuses on the tragic number of the elderly and vulnerable who have died in care homes, where the Covid virus is still life-threatening. Will the Government consider obliging all care home employers to provide regular testing of the carers in their employment? Many carers do not wish to be tested, as they fear losing their jobs if they test positive.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend for his question. More than 140,000 tests have been delivered to almost 440 care homes since April. The CQC has referred more than 34,000 care workers for testing, so testing is on the up, and we will be delivering up to 30,000 tests a day for staff and residents of all care homes that look after the over-65s by early June.
I am afraid that my noble friend cannot tempt me to speculate about when we might reach level 1. Of course that is what we are aiming for, and we have set out some cautious steps over the next couple of months that we believe we can take but only, as he rightly says, if we manage to keep the virus under control by paying attention to social distancing and the other measures that we need to keep us safe.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my declared interests. I want to return to the question of safety in the workplace. Does the Leader not agree that to provide clarity and simplicity the Government should now agree to make Covid-19 safety standards in the workplace legally enforceable, thus ensuring that employers that implement the safety standards are not undercut by those that do not and, importantly, that employees have a quick resolution of disputes about the safety of their workplace and confidence that their health and well-being are protected without delay so that they can continue to be in their workplace safely?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said in my answer to the previous question, it is absolutely right that nobody should be forced to work in an unsafe workplace. I have set out a number of ways in which employees with concerns could take them forward. Of course, we expect businesses to abide by the Covid-secure guidelines. We have done a whole series of them for different types of workplaces. We have worked closely with the unions, the Health and Safety Executive and public health authorities to make sure that these are accessible, and will work very hard with business to make sure they provide the safe workplaces we all want to see.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, the muddled messages of the last 72 hours have left the nation uncertain and confused by the Prime Minister’s plan. Does the Minister agree that first publishing draft proposals—even options—and a Green Paper that experts, Parliament and the public could have scrutinised and interrogated could have delivered greater clarity, less confusion and quite possibly better answers? Then, announcing conclusions first to Parliament, where they could be questioned and explained, would certainly have ensured that the all-too-obvious confusions were at least answered and hopefully avoided. Does the Minister agree that Parliament has evolved in this way for a reason? Frankly, I am one of those who believes that the NHS’s increased capacity and the fact that the number of new cases is down means that a more targeted strategy focused on protecting the vulnerable would have been the better next step. Can the Government at least now publish their assessment of the main options that have been canvassed?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I mentioned, I believe that we are being clear in our messaging and that the public understand our messages. As I said, in addition to the road map we have published more than 46 pieces of additional guidance on a whole range of areas from transport to workplace safety and school settings, and we will continue to do that over the coming weeks. We want to keep a dialogue with both Parliament and the public and take everyone with us as we navigate this cruel disease. I believe everyone is playing their part. It is fantastic that we have been able to get to a point where we have a road map and can start to see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, but we have to make sure we continue abiding by the social distancing rules, keeping up with hand-washing and doing all those other things we have been told about. That is what we need to do to keep moving in the right direction as we tackle this disease.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, how confident are the Government in reaching and maintaining from the end of this month the 200,000-a-day testing target that the Prime Minister promised yesterday in answer to a question during the Statement?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We are not at all complacent about the task ahead of us, but we reached 100,000 tests when we said we would. Our testing capacity was 110,670 and, in the last 24 hours up to 12 May, 85,293 tests were undertaken. This is a massive effort, and credit should go to everybody who is ramping it up. We will continue to work to the target the Prime Minister has set.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, language matters. Loose language and sloppy images hinder, rather than help. We need to continue to suppress the coronavirus—learn to coexist with it—as eradication is a long way off. Does the Leader agree that any recovery road map must recognise and speak of the importance of spiritual, social and mental well-being, as much as physical and economic health? Will she guarantee that this will be the case as phases 2 and 3 are developed?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments; he is absolutely right. I assure him that mental and physical health and well-being, as well as the financial pressures that many people are facing, are foremost in our minds. As he rightly said, it is critical that, having got the disease under control, and being able to take steps forward, we make sure we continue with that. If we do start to see the R number rise again, we have to take swift action to make sure that we do not see a second peak.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the new lockdown rules are making the job of the police “almost impossible”. Those are not my words, but those of John Apter, the chairman of the front-line Police Federation. On the next sunny weekend, a father of five in London can now gather his household and drive for a day’s exercise to the Lake District. Were the police consulted on this relaxation of the rules? What advice would the Leader of the House give to the police who might check the vehicle as it enters Cumbria, particularly in the light of convoys of other drivers doing the same thing? Finally, does she think that this decision is an example of good, solid, British common sense?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
First, I pay tribute to the police for the fantastic work that they have done. I assure the noble Lord that the Home Office has been working closely with the police to make sure that the new guidance is clear to officers. The police are updating their guidance regularly and those discussions will continue. The overwhelming majority of the public will follow the rules without the need for enforcement action or for the police to take action. That is welcome, but the police must have the ability to act if people are acting recklessly. They have been doing that around the country and we commend them for their great work.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, what plans are there to give museums and galleries the opportunity to reopen in July? These are much appreciated resources. Many of them are also at the heart of our tourist industry. While I completely accept that we could not necessarily just open the doors and let everybody come, we could presumably arrange booking systems so that numbers were controlled as well as distance maintained. Will my noble friend reflect on that and give me some encouragement?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
One of the many tragedies of the virus is that we are not able to enjoy the fantastic cultural life and sporting events that we may have been looking forward to in the summer. As the noble Lord will know, museums, cinemas and theatres are being looked at under step 3—July at the earliest. However, I have to stress again that all this is based on ensuring that we keep the disease under control. We have seen examples of supermarkets, and other businesses that have been able to remain open through this time, being able to find safe ways to socially distance. Museums and other organisations can learn from that and from the best practice in other countries coming out of lockdown. Then if, as we hope, we get to the point when they are able to open their doors—albeit, perhaps, to a smaller number of visitors—they can do so in a safe way and we can start to see a bit more of normal life return.
Lord Monks (Lab)
After a few days of muddle and mixed messages, it is very welcome that the Government have acted positively on the health and safety of workers. The TUC has described it as a step in the right direction. The challenge now is to live up to the Prime Minister’s promises. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked, will this involve extra resources for the HSE, if necessary, in addition to the welcome £14 million to date? Will it involve much-needed investment in PPE so that we do not have to experience the problems in care homes spreading to other workplaces? Will there be legal protection for whistleblowers? Are the Government likely to encourage the mobilisation of the network of union safety reps, who can do an important job on this? Will the self-employed get the same protection as employees?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Lord for mentioning and recognising the TUC’s comment that these guidelines are a step in the right direction. As I have said, it is a testament to the fact that unions, businesses, the Health and Safety Executive and the Government have been working very closely together because it is of paramount importance that we ensure that workplaces are safe for all those returning to work. As he rightly said, and as I mentioned, further funding has been provided to the HSE. I am sure that discussions will continue to make sure that everyone has the resources they need so that, slowly but surely, people are able to go back to their workplaces and start that side of their life again, which I am sure many people around the country want to do. I am sure there will be a positive partnership between employers and employees; we all want the best for everyone and for this country to come out of this terrible disease.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall pursue a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. The Prime Minister’s Statement says:
“Different parts of the UK may need to stay in full lockdown longer.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/5/20; col. 24.]
What evidence base will the Government use, and will they publish the past, current and future R rates for all parts of the United Kingdom so that future decisions can be shared, discussed and understood?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I hope I answered that question by talking about the role of the joint biosecurity centre, the new body that has been set up. It will have a critical role. One of its roles will be to identify specific local actions to address local spikes in infection in partnership with local agencies. It will work with the devolved Administrations and SAGE to provide guidance. We want to be transparent and we are continually looking at what data we can make available as our knowledge of this virus grows.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, in the new plan, how will the needs and best interests of individuals with protected characteristics, as required under the Equality Act and the Mental Capacity Act, be balanced with public health concerns? For example, just as in society at large, could family contact be resumed for people in care when both parties have recovered from Covid-19, or will blanket rules continue in care settings regardless of the mental well-being and best interests of individuals? I include here the one in four disabled adults of working age who live in care homes.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Of course we are absolutely cognisant of the real issues that many of the socially isolated are having, and we are very concerned about them, but we cannot put them, their carers and their families in danger—in a situation where the virus could start to get out of control once again. Of course we keep this under review, but we are proceeding with cautious steps because we have seen the tragedy in care homes and we want to make sure that it does not happen again. We want to make sure that everyone is safe and that we can move forward as a country. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are very aware of all these issues and we look at them in the round when we are making decisions as we start to move away from the lockdown.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The Prime Minister is rightly charting a staged return to normality, in the interests of our economy and our economic future. I agree with my noble friend that we can learn from abroad. Will the Government consider adopting the World Health Organization standards of one metre of social distancing rather than two, as Denmark has done as part of its recovery? For example, that could help to restore the scale of activity that we need in our vital construction sector, or in galleries and museums, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cormack.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
There is good reason for the two-metre social distancing rules, because experimental and mathematically modelled data support the view that the droplets associated with the spread of coronavirus—those expelled during breathing and talking—in the main drop to the ground within a two-metre radius of the person. There is science behind the two-metre rule. Having said that, as we continue with our hand washing along with social distancing, I hope that we will steadily move to having the disease even further under control. SAGE continually looks at this, but there is good reason for the two-metre rule at the moment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, given that we now know that the low paid in manual jobs face a greater risk of dying from the virus than high-paid white-collar workers, does the Minister consider that acceptable and what steps are proposed to rectify it? I join my noble friend Lord Monks in recommending that the Government look to TU safety reps as a significant resource to help tackle the current situation. Finally, one sector that the Government have particularly focused on to make a start under their “baby” return is construction. Of course, one thing we know about construction is that it is one of the riskier sectors so far as health and safety are concerned. There is a long history of challenges to the HSE. Although certain improvements have been made in recent times, it is an added challenge to the HSE to go about the task that it has been set. Are the Government satisfied with that?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
On the noble Lord’s first point, we are extremely concerned about the apparent disparities in how Covid-19 affects people. That is why Public Health England is undertaking a rapid review to provide insight into how factors such as ethnicity, deprivation, age, gender and obesity are disproportionately impacting people. That review is under way and the findings will be published at the end of the month. In relation to his other points, as I said, we are working closely with the unions and businesses in developing our guidance. I am sure that we will take advantage of the excellent union reps that the two noble Lords mentioned. We are working closely with business in all sectors, including construction, to make sure that the workforce who return go to a safe place. That is in all our interests, and I believe that employers and employees will work together to ensure that it happens.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement announced an escalation in the level of fines. The debate earlier this afternoon highlighted how much confusion there is around legally enforceable regulations and non-enforceable guidelines, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, highlighted the difficulties the police have. In order to develop some clarity, perhaps the Minister could give just two specific examples of public behaviour which the new increased fines are designed to stop.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, the Home Office is working closely with the police on the guidance, and I am sure that it will update it through the NPCC and the College of Policing. As the noble Lord rightly says, fines will go up to £100, which will be lowered to £50 if paid within 14 days. As now, if members of the public do not follow the rules, the police can arrest individuals who are acting unlawfully and instruct people to go home, leave an area, disperse or impose fines.
It is worth reiterating to noble Lords that the vast majority of people are respecting the rules and what is happening. Only a very small minority is not doing so, and it is absolutely right that the police should have the tools at their disposal to deal with that minority.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register. Yesterday, when answering questions on the Statement, the Prime Minister spoke of the huge opportunities for cleaner, greener transport in the Government’s current proposals. Does the Leader of the House agree that, when looking ahead to the enormous investment that will be required to rebuild our shattered economy, we need not to try to replicate exactly what we had before but to take the opportunities to build better and to forge a greener, fairer and more sustainable economy for the future?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Yes, I do agree. That is why we have, for instance, announced a £2 billion package to boost cycling and walking, including £250 million for an emergency travel fund for England to fund pop-up cycle lanes and cycle-only corridors. This is a personal priority for the Prime Minister, and I can assure the noble Baroness that it is also at the top of the agenda for the Secretary of State for Transport.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I know three people who have contracted Covid-19, one of whom became seriously ill. Fortunately, they are now all well again, thanks to the marvellous NHS. Unfortunately, it has come to light that members of the BAME communities are more likely to contract Covid-19 with fatal consequences compared with the rest of the population. I understand that a letter signed by 70 dignitaries has been sent to the Prime Minister asking for an independent inquiry to look into the reasons why this has happened. Can I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House if an independent inquiry will take place? If so, what is the timetable for that to happen?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am very sorry to hear about the friends of my noble friend Lord Sheikh and I am glad to hear about their recovery. I too pay tribute to the fantastic work done by all those in our NHS and care homes who keeping us safe. As I mentioned in a previous answer, Public Health England is undertaking a rapid review of how different factors, including ethnicity, are disproportionately impacting people. The review is being led by Professor Kevin Fenton, the London regional director of public health at Public Health England, and his findings will be published at the end of the month.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education has said that nothing can replace being in the classroom. Can the Leader of the House confirm that all primary school pupils will be able to return to school by the end of June and that further reassurances about this will be given to parents? If the R rate allows, will the Government also reconsider their plans for secondary schools so that all these pupils, whose mental well-being is also at stake, can return to school, even if only briefly, before the summer holidays? That will help to mitigate the growing inequality among children in this age group.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid that, as with everything, I cannot give categorical promises or guarantees. Everything is being done in a cautious way on the basis of the science, the data and public health. However, I can certainly say to the noble Baroness that it is our ambition, if it is feasible, for all primary school-age children to return to school for a month before the summer, and this will be kept under review. At this point, I am afraid that only secondary school pupils with exams next year will be able to have face-to-face contact with their teachers in order to support their remote learning. There are no plans for other secondary school pupils to return to school before the summer.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this Statement launched the Government’s document, Our Plan to Rebuild. It says:
“Anyone with symptoms should isolate immediately, alongside their households, and apply for a test. If a negative test is returned, then isolation is no longer required.”
But the NHS is widely reported as estimating a false negative rate of 30% for swab tests. On 1 May, Pulse Today reported that the advice from NHS England is for GPs and other staff who have tested negative not to return to work if they still have symptoms. Can the noble Baroness the Minister explain the dangerous, and potentially deadly, apparent gap between those two sets of advice?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
If people have symptoms, they should of course self-isolate, along with their household. As we have said all along, it is extremely important that people look after themselves, follow the advice and self-isolate if they think they have any symptoms. We are moving forward from the lockdown in an extremely cautious manner, and it is absolutely imperative that everybody puts their health, and the health of everyone around them, first.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, there is limited evidence about the extent of transmission of the virus between children and between children and adults. Returning to the issue of schools, I wonder whether my noble friend will ask the Government to publish their evidence on transmission of the virus between children. The Government must also look to France, which today is allowing the youngest children back into schools, in a way similar to that proposed for this country from the beginning of June. The Government should perhaps try to acquire data that would give reassurance, not least to teachers, about the safety of young people returning to school.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We will certainly look at international evidence. As countries come out of their lockdowns at different rates and through different measures, we will of course all learn from that. I assure my noble friend that the Government Office for Science is working to regularly publish the evidence, documents and studies that have formed the basis of SAGE’s discussions and advice to Ministers. We expect that to include the data raised by my noble friend on the reopening of schools.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question asked of the Leader of the House by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, can she confirm now that the Prime Minister did not actually consult the devolved nations about his change of message, from “Stay at Home” to “Stay Alert”, and the policy that followed? Will she therefore now explain why the Prime Minister thinks that it is safe for people in England to go back to work, while in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it is seen as too risky and premature?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Prime Minister has regular conversations with the devolved Administrations. As I said, the leaders of those Administrations are involved in all COBRA meetings and discussions. There is close dialogue. As Nicola Sturgeon said, it is
“perhaps reflecting the fact that our first cases came later than England’s … so we may be at a different—and slightly later—stage of the infection”.
As we move out of lockdown, while we want the four nations to move together, if there are slight differences, we will need to take that into account. However, I do not think that the divergence in approach between the four nations is as great as has been made out. We continue to work closely together because we all want the best for all of our citizens.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, the time allocated for the Statement is now up. The day’s Virtual Proceedings are now complete and are adjourned.