House of Commons

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 6 January 2021

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).

[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the first item of business, could I thank all the staff of the House Service and the joint departments for their ongoing commitment and hard work to ensure that the House can conduct its business? Due to the current severe public health situation, every effort has been made to enable today’s proceedings to take place with the bare minimum level of travel to and attendance at Westminster. I should inform hon. Members that when a speaking limit is in effect for Back Benchers, a countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. Before I call the Prime Minister, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of the statement is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Covid-19

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

11:34

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

Mr Speaker, I share your gratitude to the House of Commons staff for all their efforts and hard work to allow us to meet today in the way that we are. Before I begin my statement, I would like to say that I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), who is currently in hospital with covid, and we wish her a full and speedy recovery.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the measures we are taking to defeat this new variant of covid-19, protecting our NHS while it carries out the vaccinations that will finally free us from this wretched virus. There is a fundamental difference between the regulations before the House today and the position we have faced at any previous stage, because we now have the vaccines that are our means of escape, and we will use every available second of the lockdown to place this invisible shield around the elderly and the vulnerable.

Already, with Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca combined, we have immunised over 1.1 million people in England and over 1.3 million in the UK. Our NHS is following the plan drawn up by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which is aimed at saving the most lives in the fastest possible time. Given that the average age of covid fatalities is over 80, it is significant that we have already vaccinated more than 650,000 people in that age group, meaning that within two to three weeks almost one in four of the most vulnerable groups will have a significant degree of immunity. By 15 February, the NHS is committed to offering a vaccination to everyone in the top four priority groups, including older care home residents and staff, everyone over 70, all frontline NHS and care staff and all those who are clinically extremely vulnerable.

In working towards that target, there are already almost 1,000 vaccination centres across the country, including 595 GP-led sites, with a further 180 opening later this week, and 107 hospital sites, with another 100 later this week. Next week we will also have seven vaccination centres opening in places such as sports stadiums and exhibition centres. Pharmacies are already working with GPs to deliver the vaccine in many areas of the country, and I am grateful to Brigadier Prosser, who is leading the efforts of our armed forces in supporting this vaccine roll-out. We have already vaccinated more people in this country than the rest of Europe combined, and we will give the House the maximum possible transparency about our acceleration of this effort, publishing daily updates online from Monday, so that jab by jab hon. Members can scrutinise the progress being made every single day.

Yet as we take this giant leap towards finally overcoming the virus and reclaiming our lives, we have to contend with the new variant, which is between 50% and 70% more contagious. With the old variant, the tiers agreed by the House last month were working. But, alas, this mutation, spreading with frightening ease and speed in spite of the sterling work of the British public, has led to more cases than we have ever seen before—numbers that, alas, cannot be explained away by the meteoric rise in testing. When the Office for National Statistics reports that more than 2% of the population is now infected, and when the number of patients in hospitals in England is now 40% higher than during the first peak in April, it is inescapable that the facts are changing and we must change our response. And so we have no choice but to return to a national lockdown in England, with similar measures being adopted by the devolved Administrations, so that we can control this new variant until we can take the most likely victims out of its path with vaccines.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will open the debate on the full regulations shortly, but the key point, I am afraid, is that once again we are instructing everyone to stay at home, leaving only for limited reasons permitted by law, such as to shop for essentials, to work if people absolutely cannot work from home, to exercise, to seek medical assistance such as getting a covid test or to escape injury or harm, including domestic abuse. We are advising the clinically extremely vulnerable to begin shielding again, and, because we must do everything possible to stop the spread of the disease, we have asked schools and colleges to close their doors to all except vulnerable children and those of critical workers.

I do not think the House will be in any doubt about our determination—my determination—to keep schools open, especially primary schools, for as long as possible, because all the evidence shows that school is the best place for our children. Indeed, all the evidence shows that schools are safe and that the risk posed to children by coronavirus is vanishingly small. For most children, the most dangerous part of going to school, even in the midst of a global pandemic, remains, I am afraid, crossing the road in order to get there. But the data showed, and our scientific advisers agreed, that our efforts to contain the spread of this new variant would not be sufficient if schools continued to act as a vector, or potential vector, for spreading the virus between households.

I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to all the teachers, pupils and parents who are now making the rapid move to remote learning. We will do everything possible to support that process, building on the 560,000 laptops and tablets provided last year, with over 50,000 delivered to schools on Monday and more than 100,000 being delivered in total during the first week of term. We have partnered with some of the UK’s leading mobile operators to provide free mobile data to disadvantaged families to support access to education resources, and I am very grateful to EE, Three, Tesco Mobile, Smarty, Sky Mobile, Virgin Mobile and Vodafone for supporting this offer.

Oak National Academy will continue to provide video lessons, and it is very good news that the BBC is launching the biggest education programme in its history, with both primary and secondary school programmes across its platforms. We recognise it will not be possible or fair for all exams to go ahead this summer as normal, and the Education Secretary will make a statement shortly.

I know many people will ask whether the decision on schools could have been reached sooner, and the answer is that we have been doing everything in our power to keep them open, because children’s education is too vital and their futures too precious to be disrupted until every other avenue, every other option, has been closed off and every other course of action has been taken. That is why schools were the very last thing to close, as I have long promised they would be. When we begin to move out of lockdown, I promise that they will be the very first things to reopen. That moment may come after the February half-term, although we should remain extremely cautious about the timetable ahead.

As was the case last spring, our emergence from the lockdown cocoon will be not a big bang but a gradual unwrapping. That is why the legislation this House will vote on later today runs until 31 March, not because we expect the full national lockdown to continue until then, but to allow a steady, controlled and evidence-led move down through the tiers on a regional basis, carefully and brick by brick, as it were, breaking free of our confinement, but without risking the hard-won gains that our protections have given us.

These restrictions will be kept under continuous review, with a statutory requirement to review every two weeks and a legal obligation to remove them if they are no longer deemed necessary to limit the transmission of the virus. For as long as restrictions are in place we will continue to support everyone affected by them, from the continued provision of free school meals to the £4.6 billion of additional assistance for our retail, hospitality and leisure sectors announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday.

We are in a tough final stretch, made only tougher by the new variant, but this country will come together. The miracle of scientific endeavour, much of it right here in the UK, has given us not only sight of the finish line but a clear route to get there. After the marathon of last year, we are indeed now in a sprint—a race to vaccinate the vulnerable faster than the virus can reach them, and every needle in every arm makes a difference. As I say, we are already vaccinating faster than every comparable country, and that rate I hope will only increase, but if we are going to win this race for our population, we have to give our army of vaccinators the biggest head start we possibly can and that is why, to do that, we must once again stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives. I commend this statement to the House.

00:00

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for his telephone call on Monday to update me. Can I also thank him for his kind words about the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens)? She is still in hospital, but I am happy to say that she is now improving. I also want to thank everybody in our NHS and on the frontline for all the work they are doing at the moment in the most stressful of circumstances.

The situation we face is clearly very serious, perhaps the darkest moment of the pandemic. The virus is out of control, over 1 million people in England now have covid, the number of hospital admissions is rising and, tragically, so are the numbers of people dying. It is only the early days of January, and the NHS is under huge strain. In those circumstances, tougher restrictions are necessary. We will support them, we will vote for them and we urge everybody to comply with the new rules: stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives.

But this is not just bad luck and it is not inevitable; it follows a pattern. In the first wave of the pandemic, the Government were repeatedly too slow to act, and we ended 2020 with one of the highest death tolls in Europe and the worst hit economy of major economies. In the early summer, a Government report called “Preparing for a challenging winter” warned of the risk of a second wave, of the virus mutating and of the NHS being overwhelmed. It set out the preparations the Government needed to take, and I put that report to the Prime Minister at PMQs in July. Throughout the autumn, track and trace did not work. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies advised a circuit break in September, but the Prime Minister delayed for weeks before acting. We had a tiered system that did not work, and then we had the debacle of the delayed decision to change the rules on mixing at Christmas. The most recent advice about the situation we are now in was given on 22 December, but no action was taken for two weeks until Monday of this week.

These are the decisions that have led us to the position we are now in. The vaccine is now the only way out, and we must all support the national effort to get it rolled out as quickly as possible. We will do whatever we can to support the Government on this. We were the first country to get the vaccine. Let us be the first country to roll out that vaccine programme. But we need a plan to work to. The Prime Minister has given some indication in the last few days, but can he tell the House exactly what the plan is? Can the NHS deliver 2 million vaccines a week? I think it can and I hope it can, but does it have the resources and support to do so? We will support that, of course. Will there be sufficient doses available week on week to get us to the 14 million doses by mid-February? What can we do to help? It is vital that that happens. I am glad to hear that high street pharmacies will be helping. Can we use volunteers in support of this national effort?

Let me turn to financial support. Yesterday’s announcement will help, but the British Chambers of Commerce and others have already warned that it is not enough. There are big gaps and big questions. First, why is there still nothing to help the 3 million self-employed who have been excluded from the very start? That was unfair in March of last year and it was even more unfair in the autumn. It is totally unforgivable now. It may well be a whole year that that group will have gone without any meaningful support. That gap needs to be plugged.

Secondly, will the Prime Minister drop his plan to cut universal credit by £20 a week? That needs to be done now, and we will support it. Will he immediately extend the eviction ban? That is due to run out just in five days’ time now, just as we are going into this new phase. Thirdly, will he address the obvious issues with financial support for those required to isolate, including statutory sick pay and support for local councils? Will the Prime Minister finally recognise that now is the worst possible time to freeze pay for our key workers?

We all recognise the huge damage that closing schools will cause for many children and families, but Prime Minister knew that closures might be necessary, so there should have been a contingency plan. Up to 1.8 million children do not have access to a home computer and 900,000 children live in households that rely on mobile internet connections. Can the Prime Minister tell us when the Government are going to get the laptops to those who need them? He has spoken about the 50,000 delivered and the 100,000 more, but 1.8 million children do not have access to a home computer, so real urgency is needed as we go into the coming weeks. I welcome what the Prime Minister said about telecoms companies cutting the cost of online learning. It is vital that they do so. I am assuming that will happen straightaway, because we cannot delay.

Will the Prime Minister be straight about what will happen with exams this year? We cannot leave this until months down the line. That is a pressing question, in particular for those who are due to take BTEC exams in the next few days. Surely they must just be cancelled? Some leadership on this is desperately needed.

Next is our borders. The Prime Minister knows there is real concern about the rapid transmission of this disease. New strains are being detected in South Africa, Denmark and elsewhere. The quarantine system is not working. The Prime Minister said yesterday that we will be bringing in extra measures at the border. I have to ask why those measures have not already been introduced. They have been briefed to the media for days, but nothing has happened.

This is the third time the country has been asked to close its doors; we need to make sure it is the last. We will support the Prime Minister and the Government in these measures. We will carry the message and do whatever is asked of us, but we will demand that the Prime Minister keeps his side of the bargain and uses this latest lockdown to support families, protect businesses and get the vaccine rolled out as quickly and safely as possible.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who made some sensible points, in addition to some slightly party political ones. On the political points, it is worth remembering that the waves of coronavirus we have seen across western Europe in the last few weeks we are also seeing here, with the additional pressure of the new variant of the virus. Most people understand that.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about support for the self-employed. We have already given, I think, £13.7 billion to help the self-employed in particular, as part of a massive package of support for jobs and livelihoods across the whole of the UK totalling £260 billion. We will continue to support families through universal credit; as he knows, there has been an uplift of £1,000 at least until April. The eviction ban is under review. There has been an above-inflation pay increase for public sector workers; in particular, nurses have had a 12.8% increase over the last few years.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about laptops and devices, and quoted a figure of 50,000. In fact, 560,000 have gone to schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will make a statement later about what we will do to support teachers and pupils. I repeat my immense thanks to them and to families who are now working so hard in unexpected circumstances to teach kids at home. I also thank the mobile companies and the BBC for what they are doing to assist. The House will hear more later about the BTEC exams. Obviously, we must be fair to those who are taking BTECs, and we appreciate the hard work they have done.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked a good question about borders. It is vital that we protect our borders and protect this country from the readmission of the virus from overseas. That is why we took tough action in respect of South Africa when the new variant became apparent there and we will continue to take whatever action is necessary to protect this country from the readmission of the virus.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for supporting the vaccination programme. I must say that I do remember the derision with which he attacked the vaccine taskforce and that efforts that it went to to secure huge supplies.

[Keir Starmer]

indicated dissent.

[The Prime Minister]

I remember it well: it was at Prime Minister’s questions, Mr Speaker. It would be a good thing if the he could continue to keep up that spirit. Let me point out that not only did this country devise the first effective treatment of covid, secure the first stage 3 approval of a vaccine, and become the first to produce a vaccine that could be used at fridge temperature to great value to humanity across the world, but, Mr Speaker, as I stand before you today, it has vaccinated more people than the rest of Europe combined. It would be good to hear that from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]]

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to be taking the steps needed to protect the NHS at this very difficult time and I am very grateful for the work being done by my local Epsom and St Helier Trust team. The Prime Minister is also only too well aware that thousands of businesses, many of which fall outside the scope of Government support, face desperate times. Many of them support the Prime Minister in what he is doing but are very concerned that this House will not have an opportunity to take a further view on these regulations until the end of March. Will he give the House today an undertaking that he will personally lead a debate before the February half-term on progress towards reducing restrictions and that he will not wait until the end of March if it is possible to do so without overwhelming the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this House should, and, I think, will inevitably, be given an opportunity to debate and discuss these issues at a national level before the end of March, and I hope substantially before the end of March. What we are trying to do, as he knows, is to vaccinate the first four cohorts in the JCVI list by the middle of February. If we can do that, if there is no new mutation in the virus, and if the vaccine programme proceeds as planned, then there will be substantial opportunities for relaxing the restrictions. Schools will be our priority, as I have said, and I have no doubt that the House will be consulted, as you would expect, Mr Speaker.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]]

Mr Speaker, may I take the opportunity to wish you, your colleagues and members of staff a good new year? I also send my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens).

People across these islands have entered into this new year feeling a mix of hope and fear: hope that the vaccine will finally end this terrible pandemic, but real fear, too, about the increased cases, the hospital admissions and, sadly, the lives lost. As our First Minister explained on Monday, this phase of the pandemic is now a race: a race to suppress the virus and a race to vaccinate our most vulnerable. If we are asking people for one last effort, if we are asking them to endure weeks of lockdown, then they need more clarity, they need protection and they need financial support. Most importantly, the UK Government have to act in a timely manner. It was said of the French designer, Pierre Cardin, that he was one step ahead of tomorrow. Nobody would say that this Prime Minister is one step ahead of tomorrow, or acts and shows leadership in dealing with this health pandemic. He was slow to act in the spring of 2020, slow in the autumn, and here again reacts after the events to the threats that we all face.

I want to ask the Prime Minister four specific questions on vaccines, on travel and on financial support, and I would appreciate it if he answered each of them not just for us, but for all the public who want answers. First, on the vaccine, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said last month that the only thing that will solve the issue of vaccine availability are the “fill and finish” supplies, such as specialised vials. Can the Prime Minister tell us exactly what actions are being taken to ramp up these supplies?

On travel, is the Prime Minister prepared to learn from his Government’s past mistakes? Will he consider closing the UK border to all but essential travel to prevent new strains of the virus from spreading?

On support for the self-employed, why did the Chancellor again decide yesterday to exclude the 3 million freelancers and self-employed who have not received a penny of financial support since the start of this crisis? They are desperate and they need help, and they expect the Prime Minister to respond today.

Finally, on financial support for Scottish businesses, yesterday morning the Scottish Conservatives were busy making memes about an extra £375 million of Treasury support that they said was on its way to Scotland. Can the Prime Minister explain to Scottish businesses why, by the end of the day, it turned out there was no new money at all? Can the Prime Minister now give a personal commitment that the Scottish Government will get this money—this new money—for businesses in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. On his questions about the self-employed, we have supplied, as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), £13.7 billion already. We will continue to support people in any way that we can with a multitude of grants and loans already totalling, I think, about £260 billion, as I have said. The Barnett consequentials for Scotland from the new money will of course be passed on. As I said just now, we will make sure that we protect our borders from the readmission of the virus. He has seen what we did already in the case of the South African strain, and we will bring forward further measures to stop the readmission of the virus.

But I have to say that the general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions seemed to ignore the fact that, I am delighted to say, the whole of the UK has benefited massively from the natural strength of the UK economy and the ability of the UK Treasury to make these commitments, and the mere fact that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and every part of the United Kingdom has received the vaccine is entirely thanks to our national NHS.

[Keir Starmer]

indicated assent.

[The Prime Minister]

I make common ground with the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras: it is thanks to our United Kingdom NHS, and thanks to the strength of UK companies, that we are able to distribute a life-saving vaccine across the whole of our country. I think that is a point that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) might bear in mind.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]]

Most of us do appreciate the difficulty of the judgments my right hon. Friend is having to make, so I thank him, in particular, for the access he has given Members of this House to the Government’s medical and scientific advisers so that we can understand them better. Does he agree that just as it is important that everyone understands the reasons why we have gone into a national lockdown, it is just as important that everyone understands the circumstances that will allow us to leave it? Can I therefore ask him—although I appreciate that he cannot yet give a date—to be more definitive that when a specific point has been reached in the vaccination of priority groups, with the consequent reduction in the risks of hospitalisations and deaths, then the balance of risk between health, on the one hand, and livelihoods and learning, on the other, will be significantly different, and restrictions can be lifted?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point that I know will be on the minds of everybody in the House, and everybody watching this can understand now the kernel of the debate. I understand why he wants a more detailed timeline; I know that colleagues across the House would love to have a more detailed timeline. Let me try to repeat what I can most sensibly say today. If our understanding of the virus does not change dramatically again as it has, and if the vaccines take effect in the way that we think that they will and the roll-out continues to be successful, and above all, obviously, if everybody continues to play their part in following this lockdown and following the guidance to stay home, protect the NHS and save lives, then, clearly, around about the middle of February, 15 February, when we have taken those four cohorts and immunised them, or shortly thereafter, there will be substantial opportunities to relax the restrictions that we currently face—if all those conditions are satisfied. Schools will clearly be the priority, and the whole matter will quite properly be debated by this House of Commons.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]]

People are afraid and anxious. This lockdown should have come sooner, but we must all support it now and do all we can to vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible. But we also need more action to save people’s jobs, their businesses and their livelihoods. Small businesses have shown incredible resilience, but now they worry whether they can survive another lockdown. Three million people—most of them self-employed—have been excluded from Government support since the start, and the Prime Minister’s answers today have not addressed that. We must leave no one behind as we tackle this terrible virus. Employers and workers need support and certainty, and they need it now, so will the Prime Minister instruct the Chancellor to publish an emergency Budget and to include a business rates holiday next year, an extension to furlough until at least the summer and support for every self-employed person in the UK, including those he has so far so unfairly excluded?

[The Prime Minister]

There will be a Budget in the course of the next few weeks and months, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware. He is also aware that the Government have made substantial cuts to business rates and to VAT and have produced a package of £260 billion of support for businesses, jobs and livelihoods across the UK, and I repeat the points that I have made about the self-employed. I have massive sympathy with everybody who is facing a tough time at the moment. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman very much in what he said about the resilience of our businesses—I think they are showing fantastic resilience under a huge amount of pressure—but the best way to help them now is for us to follow this latest lockdown, get that vaccine rolled out and get our economy moving again in the way that we all want to. The faster we can get through this period, the bigger the bounce back will be, and I am confident that it will be a very substantial bounce back indeed.

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]]

Stoke-on-Trent is keen to play our part in the national vaccination programme. Our mass vaccination centre is ready and able to serve the residents of Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. However, it has not been scheduled to go live before the end of January. Will the Prime Minister ask the Health Secretary whether that can be expedited if the supply of vaccines is available earlier?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I will ask the Minister to write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

I would also like to send best wishes to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) and sincere thanks to everybody working on the frontline of the NHS.

A Conservative party newsletter recently told party members to say

“the first thing that comes into your head”

even if it is “nonsense”. Yesterday, it appears that the Chancellor took on board that advice when he unwrapped £227 million of already announced funding as new for Wales. This is, and I choose my words with extreme restraint, wilful misrepresentation, which deliberately misinforms desperate businesses in Wales. Will the Prime Minister apologise on behalf of his Chancellor and recognise that if Welsh covid measures are to be effective, there is an urgent need to lift the financial borrowing constraints imposed on Wales by Westminster?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure the right hon. Lady, for whom I have a keen regard, would not wish to accuse the Chancellor of wilful misrepresentation, Mr Speaker. All the cash that we have announced, obviously, is passported on; the important thing is that the Labour Government in Wales spend it sensibly. The UK Government are here to support businesses, jobs and livelihoods across the whole of the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say, while the right hon. Lady is on the line, that I am not over-happy with “wilful”? I think we have to think about the language we use within the Chamber. These times are unprecedented, but I really do think Members ought to be careful on the language they use.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I know he has had to take difficult decisions, and I understand why he has had to and I fully support him. I am deeply concerned, however, about the impact of covid-19 and lockdown on our children and on our future generations, especially those children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Does my right hon. Friend share those concerns and will he work with schools, especially the ones in my constituency, to make sure that they get the IT support and laptops that they need, so that we leave no child behind?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that question and that is why we are putting so much cash—£300 million—in to help schools and young people continue with their education online. We have discussed already the role of the BBC, mobile phone companies and internet providers in helping as well, and the 560,000 devices that we have already delivered as part of a programme of a million for the children that need them most—laptops, computers and other devices.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]]

It is extraordinary that, yet again, the Prime Minister did not say a word about the Government’s test, trace, isolate and support system. Vaccination and lockdown are essential tools but they do not replace the need to trace infections and isolate cases to help break the chain of transmission. It is an enduring scandal that we still do not have an effective contact tracing system, despite a whopping £22 billion being thrown at private companies and consultants, so will the Prime Minister fix it, including by ensuring that people can afford to self-isolate if they have to? Will he increase statutory sick pay and widen the eligibility criteria so that the nearly 2 million people locked out of it can finally benefit? Will he increase the value of support payments and offer hotel accommodation if people need it?

[The Prime Minister]

We have increased the support for those who are self-isolating and, obviously, have increased the penalties for those who fail to do so when they are asked to by Test and Trace. It is an absolutely vital part of our fight against the disease. What it has done, which I think people do not appreciate, is that it has actually allowed this country to have an incredibly detailed understanding of where the disease is and what kind of disease we are fighting. The UK is actually conducting 47% of all the genomic tests in the world to establish what is going on with the coronavirus and all its mutations, so NHS Test and Trace is a remarkable advance. Is it perfect? Of course it is not, but it is also indispensable to our fight against the disease, as is, of course, people’s self-isolation when they are contacted—you must self-isolate.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I pay tribute to everybody at Stepping Hill Hospital and GPs across Stockport for their superb efforts in rolling out the vaccine, where all care home residents and those over the age of 80 will have received at least their first jab by 15 January. Will the Prime Minister ensure that he blasts away any bureaucratic barriers that are getting in the way and ensure that vital vials and other such equipment are in abundant supply, because, frankly, there will be no excuses for any hindrance to this supreme national effort?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks entirely for me in what he says about the need to blast away bureaucratic obstructions. I am proud to say, at the moment, that we have vaccinated more than any other country in Europe and, indeed, more than every country in Europe put together, but that pace must not only be kept up; it must now, as the whole House can see—because everybody can do the maths—be accelerated, and we will be saying more about how we propose to do that.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Prime Minister, for the third time in nine months, the Government have introduced a damaging lockdown policy, which we know will cause thousands of businesses to go bankrupt, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, damage children’s education, lead the national debt to soar and remove basic liberties from people that we expect in a free democracy, all because the Government say, and their justification is, that we need to suppress the virus, protect the national health service and protect the vulnerable. Since those objectives were not achieved by the first two lockdowns, why does the Prime Minister believe that they will be achieved this time? Is there some firm evidence for it or are the Government just hoping that it will be third time lucky?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think anybody in this House takes any pleasure or satisfaction whatever in what we are being forced to do, but the right hon. Gentleman should know that lockdowns like this are being conducted and have been conducted across much of western Europe, basically because we all face the same phenomenon and because we have to protect our NHS and stop it being overwhelmed. That is what the previous lockdowns did: they stopped the NHS being overtopped by the waves of the pandemic. Had that happened, the death toll would have been unconscionable. That is why, when the right hon. Gentleman looks at what his constituents and the public think, he will see that they know overwhelmingly that we are right to protect them, protect the NHS and save lives.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I asked the people of Ipswich to come up with ideas for this question and what I decided to go for was the importance of grassroots sports clubs in Ipswich, particularly boxing clubs. In the summer, I visited Patrick’s Boxing Club, which got help in the first lockdown but at the moment is struggling. It has still got fixed costs—rent, utility bills—that add to the burden. There is also Unity FC and Ipswich Kick Boxing Academy, which has a fantastic “Jab Not Stab” scheme to help combat crime and antisocial behaviour. Will the Prime Minister promise me that, when he considers any further support for these crucial clubs, which are based in the most deprived parts of the town that I have the honour of representing, he takes into account not just the benefits for physical and mental health, but the key role they play in keeping kids on the straight and narrow, out of harm and out of trouble, and in making a fantastic contribution to our wonderful town?

[The Prime Minister]

Ipswich will benefit from not just kickboxing jabs, but vaccination jabs. That will enable us to get through this crisis all the faster. I am delighted by what my hon. Friend says, but we are supporting clubs such as the one he so eloquently describes by an extra £210 million to help wonderful community sports institutions such as Ipswich Kick Boxing Academy throughout the pandemic.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]]

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the campaign against covid does not fall equally on everyone in our society? For many, this third lockdown is one of devastating fear: of mental ill health, isolation, job loss, poverty, loss of their place of residence, and stress about the future. Will he at the very least ensure that statutory sick pay is increased to £320 a week, that universal credit is not cut, and that the protection of private tenants continues after the end of the lockdown? Above all else, will he ensure that every child in every school and every student has the chance to learn online by provision of a computer and, yes, free universal broadband?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to recapitulate what the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has already asked me, as though he were still doing his old job. I do not want to repeat all the points that I made. Obviously, we are investing heavily to support jobs and livelihoods throughout the country. On mental health, the right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the risk of increased suffering caused by the privations of lockdown. That is why we are investing hugely in mental health provision—another £13 billion, plus £18 million in support for our wonderful mental health charities across the country.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Pubs cannot compete with supermarkets for off-sales. Even within a household, people cannot play tennis or golf. Notwithstanding the assault on liberty and livelihoods, why are the regulations pervaded by a pettifogging malice?

[The Prime Minister]

Pettifogging, yes; malicious, no. I am going to have to take the hit here. The intention is to stop the virus, protect the NHS and save lives. To do that, we have to engage in restricting transmission between human beings. I know that my right hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members will find all sorts of reasons to oppose all sorts of restrictions, but in the end, we have to look at the overall budget of risk caused by transmission between members of the human race, and that is what we are trying to restrict.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I have just come from a call with the big business organisations. I know that the Prime Minister is meeting them later, so let me give him the heads-up. Businesses are on their knees. It has been a year of lost trade and mounting debt. Cash grants are welcome, but they are not enough, and most businesses will not get them anyway. What they desperately want is not more sticking plasters but a proper long-term plan to help them survive to the spring and then thrive beyond it. It cannot wait until the Budget, because many will be bust by then, so will the Prime Minister urgently tell his Chancellor to come to the House with a proper plan for jobs and businesses? I say to him, please do not insult us by re-rehearsing what he has already done, because honestly, it is just not enough.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady asks for a timetable, as indeed have many colleagues on both sides of the House. Business rightly wants as much certainty as possible. What we have now, for the first time since this pandemic began, is clear sight of the end and the way to the end. We have set a deadline, as she knows, of the middle of February—15 February—to vaccinate the first four cohorts. I am sure she will appreciate that those groups comprise the overwhelming majority of those who have already, alas, died from covid. She will readily appreciate the implications of that for our ability to reopen our economy, and she will also understand, I hope, the implications that that could have, if all the conditions that I have already described are satisfied, for businesses across the country. I do believe that there are real grounds now for them to be very hopeful and very confident about the months ahead.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

We have all seen the data, and people—normal people—do understand the need for this lockdown, but like so many Members on both sides of the House, I worry about our economy, jobs, businesses, mental health and children’s educational attainment. Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell us how normal people—people in Milton Keynes and beyond—will know that things are getting better.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right about people’s feelings across the whole country. They want a sense of when things are going to get better, and I have tried to give that today. I really think that with the pace of the vaccine roll-out, if it can accelerate in the way that I think everybody would want, we will reach an important moment on 15 February. As I have said many times in this House, I do believe things will be much better by the spring.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]]

Special schools were not mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement, but they will remain open over the course of lockdown. Will he please advise the House what advice and support they have received to stay open safely for the often vulnerable young people who need them, and whether special educational needs school staff, students and their parents will be given priority access to the vaccine to keep them safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank SEN schools, their staff, parents and pupils for everything that they are doing—and all the work that is being done, by the way, by teachers across the country to continue to look after the children of key workers and vulnerable kids. The point that the hon. Lady makes about vaccination is one that many colleagues across the House have made, bringing forward the case for this or that group. It is vital that we as politicians leave that to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which is driven by a desire to stamp out the disease as fast as possible and to reduce mortality.

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]]

I fully support these measures and recognise how difficult the decisions are. Before Christmas, we were told that testing was happening at the Public Health England facility at Porton Down that would tell us within a couple of weeks whether the vaccines worked against the new strain. Would the Prime Minister update us on the latest on that, and if there is a glitch with the vaccine programme, are we implementing a plan B involving, for example, mass testing of high-transmission areas, deprived communities and so on so that we can properly isolate as quickly as possible anyone who could transmit the virus?

[The Prime Minister]

There is no reason to think that any new strain of the virus is vaccine resistant. On my right hon. Friend’s point about testing, I can say that mass lateral flow testing in communities across the country will continue to be rolled out, because we still believe in its usefulness.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]]

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, whether it is on exams, financial support or the measures on test and trace, the Government seem to sit and wait for the situation to reach boiling point before they act. However, throughout the pandemic, most other Governments have acted early and have clearly communicated contingency plans. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the problem is his wait-and-see leadership strategy, which he needs urgently to revise so that the Government can get a grip?

[The Prime Minister]

I thought I understood the hon. Lady to be attacking the Government’s wait-and-see position on the vaccines, but I really do not think that anyone in their right mind could accuse us of moving too slowly in that respect. Indeed, she might add to her script that this country has vaccinated more than any other country in Europe put together.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s assurance that the House will be consulted on the lifting of restrictions, should that be possible, before the end of March. Many of us are concerned about being asked to approve a lockdown that could continue until 31 March. Can I ask him to reconsider and offer the House a vote at the end of January and at the end of February as well, not on whether to lift restrictions but on whether to continue them or not?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, and repeat what I have said several times. I cannot believe that it will be until the end of March that the House has to wait before having a new vote and a new discussion on the measures that we have to take.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]]

We have had Christmas on, Christmas off; schools in, schools out; eat out to help out; and stay at home. It is simply impossible to decipher the Prime Minister’s covid strategy. Given that the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging strains is not yet known, can he assure us that his strategy is not based on vaccines alone? To get our schools back, can he assure us that teachers will be a priority for vaccines, and can he detail his long-term covid exit strategy?

[The Prime Minister]

Possibly the best thing I can say in answer to that question is to repeat—and it is very, very important to repeat this—that we have no evidence that any strain of the virus is vaccine resistant. It is very important that the hon. Lady should express full confidence in the vaccine programme, which will be indispensable to our way out of this crisis.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

Educating our children and giving them the best possible start in life is one of society’s most important jobs, and I know that the Prime Minister has not taken the decision to close our schools lightly. Yesterday, I spoke to the director of children’s services at Durham County Council about ensuring that Bishop Auckland’s pupils can still access learning. On that, can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that every child across the country has access to high-quality remote education during the closures?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning for education in Bishop Auckland, and I repeat what I have already said today about everything that we are doing to roll out support to help remote learning of all kinds. It is a tough time for children, teachers and parents, but a huge amount is being done to supply remote devices and encourage remote learning of all kinds.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Given the examples of elections being held in other countries, including the elections held overnight in Georgia, can the Prime Minister confirm that it is his intention that the local elections in 2021 will go ahead as scheduled on 6 May, and will not be delayed any further?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course; that is what the law provides for, although we will obviously have to keep it under review.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting a world-leading vaccine strategy going? Clearly, its success will depend on the availability of both the vaccine and the number of staff who can administer it. As a qualified but non-practising doctor, I have volunteered to help with the scheme, and urge others to do the same. But can I ask the Prime Minister why, in order to give a simple covid jab, I have been required to complete courses on conflict resolution; equality, diversity and human rights; moving and handling loads; and preventing radicalisation? I urge him to get the NHS and the Department of Health to drop the bureaucracy, drop the political correctness, and do all they can actually to get the vaccine programme moving.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I can tell him that I was fit to be tied when I read several days ago an account of what he has described. I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary that all such obstacles and all such pointless pettifoggery has been removed. There should be absolutely nothing to stop my right hon. Friend volunteering to be a vaccinator.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]]

The decision to close schools this week was inevitable, but it will have a detrimental effect on many children, especially the most disadvantaged. School staff across Blaydon, such as those at Crookhill Primary School in my constituency, are responding brilliantly to the challenge, but it is just not the same for children as being in school. Will the Prime Minister commit now to working with teachers, trade unions and others to plan how we can level up the educational and life chances of our disadvantaged pupils post covid?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed; I will. We must tackle the impact of differential learning that the last 12 months have had. We will be looking in particular at the advantages of one-to-one tuition, which could be transformational—not just for kids who are falling behind, but for all kids.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) [V]]

Without question, one of the most important things that this Government did during the first lockdown was to strengthen universal credit. That has been a lifeline, not just for people who have lost their jobs, but for people who have kept going out to work during this pandemic—people on low wages, including in retail delivery jobs and cleaning jobs. Our plan is still to cut that support by £20 per week in less than three months’ time. I know that the Prime Minister understands this issue, but does he agree that now is really not the moment to weaken our welfare safety net, and that the right thing to do is to give families on low incomes greater security for the year ahead by extending support, rather than cutting it?

[The Prime Minister]

I fully understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes. All I will say is that we will of course keep this under review.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister will have heard the concern across the House for the 3 million British taxpayers who have been excluded from support since March last year. They have had a terrible Christmas and new year, and are looking at another three months with no support at all. It is no surprise that the Chancellor’s 92nd financial statement on Twitter felt like a kick in the teeth to those people with nothing. Does the Prime Minister believe that the excluded are important enough to get their own statement? If so, when will the Chancellor be coming to this House to deliver it, so that those taxpayers do not feel that they are completely abandoned by this Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

With great respect, I do not think that the hon. Lady can accuse my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of not keeping the House informed. I am sure that he will be using the earliest opportunity to update her and the rest of the House on the massive package of economic support that we are offering both to the self-employed and to others across the country.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement that these new regulations will be reviewed every two weeks, but can he reassure me that come mid-February, there will be a presumption, rather than a prospect, of an easing of restrictions? I understand that there cannot be a cast-iron guarantee as we are in a moving situation, but my constituents would like there to be a presumption, especially when it comes to schools.

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I think I share my hon. Friend’s constituents’ instincts. Perhaps a cautious presumption is what I would advise them to make.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]]

Ofcom estimates that 1.8 million children in our country are digitally excluded, with a lack of access to equipment or broadband. I would place a bet with the Prime Minister that that does not include a single pupil from his former school of Eton. Digital poverty is a class issue. The Labour policy of universal free broadband that he derided in 2019 is now desperately needed. Will the Prime Minister outline how he will solve the issue of digital poverty, which is widening the already vast educational inequalities in this country, so that not one child is left behind during this lockdown?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman will of course know what the Government are doing to roll out gigabit broadband across the whole country to give every part of the country access to superfast broadband. In terms of the needs of people who do not have access to broadband yet, he will have heard what we have said about the mobile phone and internet providers coming together today to provide cut-price access for those who need it across the country. I think that is the right thing to do.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Once we have vaccinated the high-risk groups, so that the vast majority of people who are at risk of death from covid are protected, what will be the metrics in decisions made on moving areas down the tiers and reopening schools?

[The Prime Minister]

The metrics will be exactly the same as they were under the previous tiering system. We look at the rate of reproduction of the disease, pressure on the NHS and the other factors that my hon. Friend would expect.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]]

The weather is even worse now than it was last March. Will there be a repeat of the “Everyone In” initiative for rough sleepers, with the Prime Minister guaranteeing a repeat of the emergency funding at least at the same level committed last March?

[The Prime Minister]

One of the consolations of the previous lockdown was that we did succeed in helping so many people off the streets—I think it was about 29,000—and we will continue to do everything in our power. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. We will do everything in our power to prevent people from finding themselves sleeping rough or homeless during this winter, and that remains the policy of the Government.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

The vaccine is a massive achievement of which we are right to be proud, and the Prime Minister should be congratulated on all his efforts in that achievement. We must cut away all barriers to speeding up the roll-out: bin bureaucracy, incentivise 24/7 working by PHE, pay bonuses, use drive-throughs and pharmacies, and mobilise troops and volunteers. Will my right hon. Friend make this roll-out a dynamic, can-do, logistical British miracle, saving lives and livelihoods and not wasting a single day in taking us out of this lockdown hell?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that my hon. Friend perfectly captures the mood of the country about the vaccine roll-out. That is what we all want to see. We want to see a great national effort now, and she is right to call attention not just to the role of the NHS, GP clinics, GP services and hospitals, but to the vital role that can be played by pharmacies and the armed services. We want to bring them all together to roll out this vaccine as fast as possible. The picture she paints is entirely correct.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]]

Surely those who cannot work because of Government restrictions should be compensated and supported. Given that the Chancellor has said that coronavirus restrictions could continue for months to come, will the Prime Minister commit to continuing furlough for as long as is needed and extending sector-specific furlough payments to the hardest-hit sectors? Will he ever do anything for the 3 million who have been completely excluded from any support?

[The Prime Minister]

They have not been excluded, and we continue to support people across the country. Furlough will indeed be continued further, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He should just bear in mind what I said to his colleague the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford): it is thanks to the might of the UK Treasury and the fundamental strength of the UK economy that we are able to make this support available across the whole of the UK.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and commend him for his actions. Obviously, our clearest way out of these restrictions is to deploy the vaccine at speed and scale to protect those most at risk of serious illness. Will he therefore lay out plans not only on the first four groups in the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation list, but on how we intend to get the vaccine to other key groups, such as teachers, police officers and home carers, to keep our country running day to day?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will have studied the JCVI’s list of priority groups, and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will be setting out a programme for rolling those vaccines out beyond the first four that I have already described.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]]

My constituent Ross has had no work since the first lockdown and is one of the people who have fallen through the gaps in the self-employed support scheme. His only income now is £598 per month universal credit. His rent, council tax and bills are £590 a month, so he is living on £8 a month. Could the Prime Minister live on £8 a month? If not, will he ask the Chancellor to look again at how he can help the people excluded by the self-employed support scheme?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that this has been raised many times already today by Members from across the House, but I must repeat what I have said: £13.7 billion has gone to support the self-employed already. I have no doubt that further measures will be forthcoming, but the overall package of support is £260 billion across the whole of the country.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) [V]]

The Prime Minister will know that Blue Collar Conservatism was instrumental in persuading the supermarkets to return the business rate relief that they did not need. We asked them to do that on the basis that there are many who have gone without support during this pandemic, and it was on that basis that they returned that money. So will he ensure that that £2 billion returned by the supermarkets will go to those who have not had any of the support so far and been excluded, because they cannot go another three months without any income?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely, and I thank my right hon. Friend and her fellow Blue Collar Conservatives for that initiative. It was entirely right, and those corporations—those supermarkets—were entirely right to return that cash. I can tell her that overall when we look at the Government’s support packages, we see that they go overwhelmingly towards the poorest and neediest in society; they are fundamentally a very, very progressive package of measures.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) [V]]

Cancer treatment has again been delayed; even though four-week delays are associated with increased mortality, many cases were delayed for longer than four weeks in the first lockdown. Today, the Health Service Journal reports that the NHS is having difficulty in agreeing payments with private providers for surgery and treatment. Will the Prime Minister take action to stop any profiteering and ensure that private providers use their capacity for NHS patients requiring urgent surgery? Will he also urgently bring a detailed plan to this House on how the Government intend to ensure that cancer patients get the treatment they need in good time?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I certainly can. One of the reasons for wanting to keep covid under control in the way that we hope to do with this lockdown is, of course, to allow the NHS to continue with cancer treatment and other vital services. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the need for all provision now to be dedicated to fighting covid or providing essential services for the British public, and he can expect to hear more about the way in which we intend to co-operate with private providers.

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) [V]]

So far, the Welsh Government have had £5.3 billion in additional funding for covid, but they are still sitting on more than £1 billion in unallocated money while my businesses in Delyn are in serious danger. Can my right hon. Friend apply any pressure on the Welsh Government to provide more assistance to Delyn businesses, or could those funds be reclaimed by the UK Government so that we can step in to help businesses where Welsh Labour is letting them down?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a good and important point. He is right to take that up with Welsh Labour, to hold it to account and to insist that the Welsh Government spend that money where it needs to be spent.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]]

Can the Prime Minister tell the House when every child in my Leeds constituency and across the country will have access to a laptop, when every parent who needs help will be able to afford the necessary broadband or phone charges so that their children can connect up to their lessons, teachers and classmates, and who they should contact if they cannot?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raises the very important needs of his constituents in respect of broadband connectivity and laptops, and I totally understand their concerns. Obviously, we are massively expanding those things and rolling them out, but for the detailed answer that he needs about each of his constituents and those in need, I will have to write to him, if I may, setting out exactly when they can expect the help that he talks about.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for listening to our representations on keeping places of worship open. Does this not show how, if we work together with a pragmatic approach, we can reopen the economy sensibly? Many of us who will vote for the Government tonight out of loyalty, or because we want to preserve the Government’s authority, are worried that every successive lockdown is less and less effective. That is because while every death is tragic, young people will have noticed reports that out of a population of tens of millions, only 400 healthy people between 16 and 60 have actually died.

Will the Prime Minister tell people like me in the priority groups that there has to be an element of self-reliance, self-isolation and looking after our own health, and that we cannot just rely on successive lockdowns? On carers, in particular, I noticed that the Gainsborough testing centre was turning away people who were not showing symptoms, but surely we want to encourage all carers of all elderly people to be tested. Let us get rid of all these bureaucratic hurdles and get more reliance on self-reliance.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to encourage people to go ahead and be tested, and I think he should encourage all the people of Gainsborough to do that when they have symptoms. As he will know, there are initiatives available for community testing with lateral flow testing that I think should be encouraged by colleagues across the House, as I know that they are. I totally support that. I also think that the British public and this House overwhelmingly support measures to protect the NHS and save lives. He makes a valid point about the way that coronavirus impacts on the population. It does fall disproportionately on the elderly and the vulnerable, but those lives must be saved where we possibly can, and I think that is what people of all generations in this country want to do.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister and the Government for all the help that they have given over the last nine to 10 months. However, may I highlight the aviation and aerospace sectors, which have almost entirely shut down since the beginning of the pandemic? As of 4 January, UK flight volumes were 73% below pre-crisis levels. There are now legal restrictions on travel and some countries have banned arrivals from the UK. This is having a catastrophic impact on aviation and aerospace and the millions of jobs that rely on them, but, unlike other industries such as hospitality, these industries have received no sector-specific support. In the light of the unique impacts being felt by these sectors, can I ask the Prime Minister to provide sector-specific support to aviation and aerospace to see them through this very deep crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has raised this with me before, and he is an ardent campaigner for aerospace. He is quite right: it is a vital industry for our country. As he knows, we have time to pay and other packages of support, but we will be ensuring that we do everything we can to get the aerospace industry in the UK back on its feet as fast as possible.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Every vaccination jab in the arm should be viewed as a pupil who can return to the classroom. It is vital that we view it through that equation.

I say to the Prime Minister that I have not always followed him through the Division Lobbies on the restrictions, but I will do so today because it clear to me that the vaccination changes the game and rids us of this pandemic. I ask him to ensure that the vaccination is available to rural areas, such as rural Rother which I represent, where we do not have a GP network or a hub in place as yet.

[The Prime Minister]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and for what he has just said. We want to roll out the vaccine across the whole country as fast as possible. It is, I hope, common ground in the House today that we are right as a country to first put jabs into the arms of those who are most at risk of mortality. That is the way to reduce the death toll and, indeed, to get our country back on its feet as fast as possible.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]]

We are in a race against time to save lives, save jobs and restore our freedoms. That is why we need a 24/7 vaccination programme that brings vaccination to every high street in the country. I therefore welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about the role of community pharmacy. Will he confirm that it is not just a few big chains that will be involved, but the thousands of independent community pharmacies, such as Goode’s chemist in Twickenham, which stand ready, waiting and able to vaccinate but have been knocked back. They would provide vital capacity and are able to reach people that mass vaccination hubs cannot.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to the potentially vital role of community pharmacies, of which there are about 12,000 in this country, as I am sure she knows. In my experience, they are great places: they are hygienic and the staff are knowledgeable and professional. I think we have already signed up hundreds to the campaign, and I assure her that there will be many more to follow.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

It is exceptionally welcome that the UK has consistently tested more people than any other country in the world. This House owes a debt of gratitude to Kate Bingham and her team for procuring the vaccine in such large amounts and such diversified quantities—something the EU vaccination scheme never managed to achieve. Will the Prime Minister reassure me and other south-west Members that we will see the vaccine rolled out and that the lockdown will not be extended any longer than is necessary?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his words about the vaccine taskforce. It was, as I say, satirised by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), which I think was a mistake. We will do everything we can to roll out the vaccine to my hon. Friend’s constituency and all constituencies across the country.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

On Sunday, the Prime Minister came on national television and, looking into the eyes of the British people, told worried parents that it was perfectly safe to send their dearly loved children to school. The following day, after being buffeted around by scientists, the Leader of the Opposition and the devolved Governments, he announced that it was not safe for children to go to school and promptly closed them all down. Does the Prime Minister agree that the constant last-minute U-turns and this erratic approach to policy making are not conducive to assuaging the anxieties of people who are desperately seeking stability, certainty and assured leadership?

[The Prime Minister]

I really must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw what he has just said. I did not at any stage say that schools were not safe—that is absolutely not what I said. In all fairness, he should correct that. I give him the opportunity to do so if he chooses.

[Mr Dhesi]

The Prime Minister closed down schools. Therefore, they are not safe for people to return to.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Prime Minister has put what he did say on the record. Let us move on.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]]

I have been contacted by several dentists and dental assistants who have been told locally that they do not qualify as health workers for early priority under the vaccination roll-out. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), a dentist himself, has campaigned tirelessly for dental teams to be in category 2 with other healthcare workers. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister advise, for clarity, whether dental teams are in fact in priority 2 with other healthcare workers for the vaccination roll-out?

[The Prime Minister]

Like my hon. Friend, I am a big fan of our colleague, our hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), the great dentist. I can tell him that all dentists in patient-facing roles, and members of their dental teams who may have social contact with patients, are eligible to be offered the covid vaccine. We encourage them all take it if they are offered it.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]]

My local hospital, Queen’s, is one of many that is facing critical pressure on the supply of oxygen to patients. Demand for oxygen is running at 100% or more of the supply available. Will the Prime Minister assure me and my constituents that action is being taken to ensure a safe and secure supply of oxygen? Will he tell me what contingency plans he has in place to ensure that hospitals are not overwhelmed and closed, critically ill patients are not moved, and every patient receives the right amount of oxygen when needed?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady. I will immediately look into the matter that she raises about oxygen at Queen’s Hospital. It had not been drawn to my attention before, but we will make sure that we get back to her as soon as we can.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) [V]]

Of course, the invisible shield goes first around the most vulnerable, and the JCVI determines that sequence. Once the highest-risk groups have been vaccinated, however, I encourage my right hon. Friend, with the JCVI, to look again at prioritising key workers, including teachers, because of the special role that teachers play in our society and because we prioritise education.

[The Prime Minister]

I fully understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes. I am sure that it will be borne in mind by the JCVI as it continues to make its judgments.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) [V]]

The Chancellor announced the financial support package via a 90-second video on Twitter yesterday. With him not coming before the House, it is difficult for us to ask questions, so perhaps the Prime Minister will help. Yesterday’s announcement about grants did not say how long this new one-off grant support is intended to last. Will the Prime Minister tell us what will happen with business support should the current lockdown have to be extended or the vaccine roll-out delayed?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that the Chancellor was very clear about the £4.6 billion, with its Barnett consequentials, which he announced to the House. I must say, I do not think that anyone could fault the Chancellor for his willingness to come to the House and to explain what we are going to do.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]]

Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking the armed forces for their extraordinary efforts to beat this virus, especially those in Rutland and Melton? At this time of national crisis, however, some of our enemies are seeking to exploit opportunities to undermine us, so will the Prime Minister reassure me that our vaccination programme will extend to those in our armed forces and reserves most at risk from catching covid in the course of their duties, especially those deployed abroad on mission-critical operations, so that their safety and ours is protected?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank our armed forces from the bottom of my heart. I very much share in what my hon. Friend has just said. They have played an outstanding role throughout this pandemic—where necessary, moving patients to hospital from remote places, conducting testing, and now having a big role with the vaccines as well. I am sure, like every other part of the public sector, they will be considered by the JCVI as it comes to make its decisions about the allocation of the vaccine.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) [V]]

The Prime Minister will be aware that, as school lessons move online, the cost of pay-as-you-go broadband is completely prohibitive for poor families in areas such as Hackney. He is talking about coming to cut-price arrangements, but what so many families need is access to free broadband—an excellent policy, which was in Labour’s 2019 manifesto. No child should be deprived of an education because their parents cannot afford the broadband cost, so will he look again at providing free broadband when it comes to accessing online education?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed, but I think the arrangements that are being put in place by the mobile phone companies and others will cover the vast bulk of the cost, at the very least. I am happy to come back to the right hon. Lady about exactly what is being offered.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]]

We in the Bridgewater and West Somerset constituency accept that the lockdown was vital and we appreciate the extra help for businesses, but will my right hon. Friend consider urgently the way in which Government help for local authorities is being paid? Somerset County Council has been given huge grants but has then diverted much of the money to balance its books, which is not what it was for. These cowboys want to become a new unitary authority. It is a con trick to use that cash, which was meant to fight covid. The Prime Minister is Somerset born and bred. I urge him to put a stop to this, so that the money goes to the people who need it most—the people of Somerset.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight what is going on in Somerset. The county obviously has a duty to use covid grants for that purpose and not for any other. I thank him for drawing attention to what is going on.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. To govern is to choose. A lot of tough decisions have been made by the UK Government and we have supported a number of the business support mechanisms that have been announced. However, according to the House of Commons Library this afternoon, the UK Government have chosen to spend £3.3 billion of borrowed money on the stamp duty freeze, which is a vast subsidy to the middle classes who are buying and selling domestic property, who do not need subsidy. Does the Prime Minister regret prioritising that and excluding so many people, small companies and freelancers in the productive economy who really do need support?

[The Prime Minister]

That is entirely upside down and misrepresents what the package of support has done. The £260 million is overwhelmingly progressive and goes disproportionately to support the poorest and neediest in society, which is what I think this House and this country would expect.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to the Deepings, with Sir John Hayes and his wife.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]]

Millions of Britons live in remote rural places, including here in Lincolnshire. The Prime Minister will know that isolation fuels fear, which exacerbates disadvantage, and that only vaccination will bring the safety that assuages those fears. Will he reassure my constituents that local doctors’ surgeries will be equipped and supplied so that they are able to vaccinate the vulnerable not later, but sooner?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it is our intention that doctors’ surgeries, which clearly play a crucial part in the vaccination programme, will be equipped as fast as possible with supplies of the vaccine—as plentiful, I hope, as the copies of “Wisden” that adorn my right hon. Friend’s shelf. That is what we intend to do. And may I say how delightful it was to see his wife Susan briefly in the background?

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]]

When the Chancellor announced his support schemes for businesses and workers last year, I warned him repeatedly that the coverage did not go far enough and that many people in Bradford would be unfairly excluded, putting jobs, businesses and the livelihoods of the self-employed at risk. Will the Prime Minister therefore listen to my calls and those of campaign groups such as ExcludedUK to ensure that the same mistakes are not made, and guarantee that everybody in Bradford who needs financial support during these difficult times will get it?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course we will listen to the calls of ExcludedUK as we listen to all such calls. I repeat the message that I have been giving today: the support packages are there to help businesses and protect jobs and livelihoods across the country, but they benefit disproportionately the poorest and the neediest.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I ask my right hon. Friend what the public health justification is for criminalising gatherings held exclusively between those who have already been vaccinated for more than three weeks, where there is no risk of infection or transmission? Will he use his libertarian instincts and immediately introduce an exemption for such gatherings, so that the many people in my constituency in the octogenarian group will be able to celebrate Brexit sooner rather than later?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think any power on Earth is going to prevent my hon. Friend from celebrating Brexit, but his iron logic is applied to the restrictions that we have been forced to bring in. All I can say is that, as I think most Members across the House understand, the whys and wherefores of each restriction are not necessarily susceptible to iron logic, but cumulatively, they are there to protect the public, and I believe the public understand that.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]]

The Prime Minister will be aware that the Welsh Labour Government have committed to providing the most generous financial package available to businesses across the UK. Sadly, in Pontypridd, even the very best support available has not been able to prevent mass redundancies and business closures. My constituents could have been helped if this Tory Government had stepped up to the plate sooner and committed to the Union when Wales went into an earlier lockdown. Can he explain why Wales continues to be an afterthought and what steps he will take to prevent people in Pontypridd from being excluded from any future support?

[The Prime Minister]

Wales is actually at the forefront of our thoughts and continues to be. We are anxious to continue to support the people of Wales in any way that we can. The salient point that I take from today is that there is £1 billion that the Welsh Labour Government have failed to spend in the way that they could, and I urge them to get on and do that, but the UK Government will continue to support Wales, as we support the people of the whole United Kingdom.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]]

In Norfolk, those most at risk from covid have already received 27,000 vaccination first injections since 9 December, which are now available in our hospitals and 11 primary care networks, including the excellent Fakenham Medical Practice in my constituency. From Monday, those sites will be joined by many others. We are ready to do whatever it takes to keep up with vaccine supply, so what are the chances of securing more than 2 million doses of vaccine per week?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to campaign for vaccines in Broadland and to scale up at speed across the country. I have said the pace of roll-out that I want to see. That is already, as I think the Health Secretary would confirm, extremely challenging for our GPs and our hospitals. It is a big, big target—it is a big, big ask of the country. As my hon. Friend will know, because he will have heard me say this several times already today, this Government have been going faster than any other country in Europe, and we intend to remain out in front.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) [V]]

In March last year, the Government and the devolved Administrations laudably adopted a united response to the pandemic, with a clear, jointly agreed message that was easy to communicate. But since then, they have pursued different approaches with different terminology and different messaging, which can and, I believe, does lead to confusion. Could my right hon. Friend work with the leaders of the devolved Administrations by following the example of the four chief medical officers, who have worked closely together, and returning to the consistency and clarity of messaging that prevailed last March?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point about the occasional dissonances between the UK Government and some of the devolved authorities, although actually, if we look beneath the political surface and some of the argy-bargy that goes on, the fundamental message is the same. It was very telling that the three devolved Administrations and the UK Government came together to enact fundamentally the same package of measures at the same time yesterday and today.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]]

I have listened closely to the Prime Minister, but at no point have I heard him apologise to education leaders, teachers, students and parents for the chaos earlier this week. He rightly asks the public to change our behaviours, which is in all our interests, but there is a reciprocal obligation on him, too. What has he learned from all this, and what will he do differently in future?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly wish to pay tribute to everybody involved in the education sector: teachers, parents, pupils, and everybody who has made a heroic effort to cope with this pandemic. I think the hon. Gentleman and I would agree that it was important to do everything we could as a country and a Government to keep kids in schools if we possibly could; indeed, I believe that was the policy of the Labour Opposition, at least on Monday morning. I understand why the Opposition wanted to keep schools open. We all wanted to keep schools open, but alas, the pandemic has not made that possible, and we have got to take the steps that we have taken. I hope that he will also support them.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]]

PHE data shows that younger adults with learning disabilities and autism are up to six times more likely to die of covid. Please can they be added to the priority vaccination list immediately? Also, during previous lockdowns, vital exemptions included autistic people being able to exercise more frequently, which was incredibly important in helping them cope and continue to have that much-needed routine in their lives. Will the Prime Minister confirm that these exemptions will apply for the new lockdown, so that autistic people are not left stranded, and will he commit to accessible information about this being published as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I will commit to better and fuller information if that is necessary, although of course as my right hon. Friend knows, it is a general principle of these restrictions that people have more freedoms when they need to exercise for health needs.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]]

If, as reports suggest, the Government intend requiring people arriving in the UK to have a negative PCR test within 72 hours of their arrival, how will British people currently abroad in areas where it is difficult to get quick turnaround PCR tests get home? I should declare an interest.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that the people of this country would want to see—as I do, and as I believe Members on the Benches opposite do—proper protection against the readmission of the virus. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman understands that, too.

[Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]]

I recently had the chance to volunteer at our local vaccination centre, hosted by Burton Albion Community Trust, and I am grateful for the work of Dr David Atherton, chair of our local primary care network, and all his colleagues involved in the roll-out of the vaccine to residents across Burton and Uttoxeter. Will the Prime Minister consider the consent process when looking at ways of speeding up roll-out? At the moment, I am advised that individual consent by a healthcare clinician takes 10 to 15 minutes. This means that it will take 41,000 hours to consent and vaccinate the priority groups in east Staffordshire alone. Will he consider a national consent model to help speed up this process?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting suggestion. I should stress that we have no plans to make vaccines compulsory in this country; however, we want to make it as smooth and as easy as possible, which I think is her objective, and I think she would join me in encouraging everybody who is offered a vaccine to take it up as soon as possible.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

I wonder whether the Prime Minister has had a cursory glance at Scotland and seen the massive approval ratings for our First Minister and her handling of the covid crisis. Has he observed the clear leadership she has offered our nation? Does he ever think about comparing his poor performance with hers and wish that he could offer the same type of leadership to the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

I must confess I have not given that particular matter any thought, because I have been occupied entirely with protecting the NHS, fighting coronavirus and saving lives. I respectfully say that that should be the hon. Gentleman’s priority as well, if I may say so, rather than these slightly abstract political considerations.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]]

Throughout this pandemic the UK Government have provided the Scottish Government with billions of pounds of additional support, but we know hundreds of millions remain unspent. These are vital funds that could help to protect jobs and support businesses. Is there anything further that could be done to encourage the Scottish Government to get these moneys out to Scottish businesses as quickly as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

The best thing I can do is encourage my hon. Friend in the excellent work he is doing in holding the Scottish nationalist Government to account, and encourage them to get on and use the funds that the UK Government are giving to the people of Scotland to support jobs in Scotland.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that councils have borne the brunt of covid, particularly during lockdown, and have given all our communities maximum support. Leeds has incurred £40 million of additional costs, as the council is not covered by the grants the Government have given, and will now face further lockdown costs, with an overall £100 million budget shortfall, in the main caused by years of central Government underfunding. Will the Prime Minister ask his good friend, the Chancellor, to grant local councils a one-off payment to offset the additional costs incurred due to covid-19 and ensure the financial stability of councils this year and next?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, I know that many councils find themselves under great pressure, although some have handled their budgets better than others. We have given £4.6 billion, I believe, to support local councils, and we will continue to support them. I thank the staff and workforce of councils for the huge and vital role they all help to play in fighting this disease.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) [V]]

I received a worrying call this morning from the chair of Barnet Council’s health overview and scrutiny committee indicating that it may be that only 13 care homes in the borough have received vaccinations. Will the Prime Minister intervene to make sure the frail elderly and their carers in Barnet get the vaccinations they need as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will. I have said that I want to have maximum transparency, and I want to see an accelerated roll-out of vaccination in care homes. So far, I believe that 10% of care home residents and 14% of care home staff have received the vaccine, but that clearly needs to be stepped up.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]]

It has been great to see vaccination already starting in the Rhondda, but obviously we can only give the vaccine when it arrives. The Prime Minister quite rightly said earlier that we should be prioritising the vaccine for those who are at risk of mortality. Rhondda Cynon Taf, unfortunately, has the highest rate of death per 100,000 of any local authority in the country. We have a very large percentage of people who are extremely vulnerable, and we have a higher than average percentage of people who are working in the NHS, so can I urge the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, to prioritise communities like the Rhondda and make sure that Rhondda’s surgeries are getting not just 70 or 80 but hundreds of doses of vaccine a week so that we can vaccinate everybody who is at risk?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point about the way in which many people in the Rhondda will naturally fall into the high qualifying groups that have already been identified by the JCVI.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the Chancellor’s £4.6 billion in new lockdown grants, but can the Prime Minister please look again at more support for hospitality, pubs, breweries, the entertainment industry, tourism and weddings, as well as the self-employed and those excluded so far? Specifically, will he look at delaying the tax return deadline to help freelancers and the self-employed, and also look at extending the business rates holiday and the VAT reduction? Finally, will he look at setting up a hospitality and tourism recovery fund?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I know that our right hon. Friend the Chancellor is going to consider all measures necessary to allow the hospitality sector to bounce back just as fast as we can get it out of the restrictions that businesses currently face and get them bouncing back. That will depend, as the House has heard extensively today, on our ability to roll out this vaccine, but above all it depends on our ability to follow the rules, restrictions and guidance in these measures, and I hope very much that hon. Members will support them this afternoon.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

00:05

Sitting suspended.

Covid-19: Educational Settings

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

00:05

[The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding schools in national lockdown.

The last thing any Education Secretary wants to do is announce that schools will close[Official Report, 20 January 2021, Vol. 687, c. 3MC.], and this is not a decision that the Government ever wanted to take. I would like to reassure everyone that our schools have not suddenly become unsafe, but limiting the number of people who attend them is essential when the covid rates are climbing as they are now. We must curb the escalating cases of covid throughout the country and prevent the national health service from being overwhelmed. That is why, today, I am setting out the contingency plans I had prepared but had hoped would never have to implement. I would like to thank all of our teachers, our education staff and our social workers for all that they have been doing to keep children and young people safe and learning.

During the lockdown, early years settings remain open nationally to all, providing vital early education and childcare. Schools will be open too for vulnerable children and the children of critical workers. Those at university will predominantly study online, although there are a small number of exceptions, including those studying medicine, healthcare and education.

Unwelcome though this latest lockdown is—and I am very conscious of the real challenges that parents are facing with their children at home—we are far better placed to cope with it than we were last March. We are now better prepared to deliver online learning. This is an important step forward in supporting children to make the progress with their education that they so desperately need. We will also do what we can to help their parents, and I thank all those parents and carers who are having to step up once more to take on the challenge of home learning.

We have set out clear, legally binding requirements for schools to provide high-quality remote education. This is mandatory for all state-funded schools and will be enforced by Ofsted. We expect schools to provide between three and five hours of teaching a day, depending on the child’s age. If parents feel their child’s school is not providing suitable remote education, they should first raise their concerns with the teacher or headteacher, and, failing that, report the matter to Ofsted. Ofsted will inspect schools of any grade where it has serious concerns about the quality of remote education being provided.

We have significantly stepped up the digital support we are providing to schools and parents. The fantastic Oak National Academy continues to provide video lessons for all ages across all subjects, and yesterday the BBC announced it will be delivering the biggest push on education in its history, bringing 14 weeks of educational programmes and lessons to every household in the country.

Our delivery of laptops and tablets continues apace: we have purchased more than 1 million laptops and tablets and have already delivered more than 560,000 of them to schools and local authorities. With an extra 100,000 being distributed this week alone, by the end of next week, we will have delivered three quarters of a million devices. We are also working with all the UK’s leading mobile network operators to provide free data for key educational sites. We are grateful to EE, 3, Tesco Mobile, Smarty, Sky Mobile, Virgin Mobile, O2 and Vodafone for supporting this offer. We have also been delivering 4G routers to families who need to access the internet.

Another area where we have learnt lessons is exams. Last year, all four nations of the United Kingdom found that their arrangements for awarding grades did not deliver what they needed, with the painful impact felt by students and their parents. Although exams are the fairest way we have of assessing what a student knows, the impact of the pandemic means that it is not possible to have these exams this year. I can confirm that GCSE, A-level and AS-level exams will not go ahead this summer.

This year, we will put our trust in teachers rather than algorithms. My Department and Ofqual had already worked up a range of contingency options. While the details will need to be fine-tuned in consultation with Ofqual, the exam boards and teaching representative organisations, I can confirm now that I wish to use a form of teacher-assessed grades, with training and support provided to ensure that these are awarded fairly and consistently across the country.

I know that students and staff have worked hard to prepare for the January exams and assessments of vocational and technical qualifications, and we want to allow schools and colleges to continue these assessments where they judge it is right to do so. No college should feel pressured to offer these, and we will ensure that all students are able to progress fairly, just as we will with VTQs in the summer.

I know that, understandably, there is concern about free school meals. We will provide extra funding to support schools to provide food parcels or meals to eligible children. Where schools cannot offer food parcels or use local solutions, we will ensure that a national voucher scheme is in place, so that every eligible child can access free school meals while their school remains closed.

Finally, I would like to turn to our programme of testing for the virus. There has been a brilliant, concerted effort in secondary schools and colleges to deliver testing for the start of this term, and none of the work done to roll that out is going to be wasted. Regular testing will take place of staff and students in school and in due course help us to reopen schools as soon as possible. Testing is going to be the centre of our plans to send children back to school, back to the classroom and back to college as soon as possible.

I never wanted to be in a position where we had to close schools again.[Official Report, 20 January 2021, Vol. 687, c. 3MC.] Schools should always have their gates open, welcoming children and being at the heart of their community. The moment that the virus permits, all our children will be back in school with their teachers and friends. But until then we have put in place the measures we need to make sure that they continue to progress. For that reason, I commend this statement to the House.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

A happy new year, Mr Speaker. May I begin by paying tribute to the deputy general secretary of the NASUWT, Gareth Young, who tragically died shortly before Christmas? I am sure the House will join me in sending condolences to his loved ones and to his friends and colleagues in the union.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but it is disappointing that he did not make a new year’s resolution to avoid U-turns or chronic incompetence. Once again, where the Secretary of State goes, chaos and confusion follow, and it is children, families, and education staff across the country who pay the price for his incompetence. I can suggest a new year’s resolution for the Secretary of State: that he at least start answering my questions.

Every pupil who is not in school must be able to access education. We must do everything we can to safeguard learning throughout this lockdown. I pay tribute to everyone who has made it possible to keep pupils learning online—the incredible leaders, teachers and support staff in schools and colleges, and those such as Oak and the BBC who are doing a huge amount to make learning accessible.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment on digital devices, and I am glad he has listened to Labour and to the charities across the country that called for zero rating of educational sites, but Ofqual estimates that up to 1.78 million children do not have access to a device. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that, under his plans, every child who needs a device will have one as soon as possible and that every one of those children will be able to learn remotely? May I also repeat the question the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister earlier: will the welcome data deal done with mobile providers take effect immediately?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on free school meals, and I hope he can guarantee that every child eligible for this support is already receiving it. If not, can he assure me that they will do so within days?

Months ago, the Education Secretary gave a cast-iron commitment that exams would go ahead. At that moment, we should have known they were doomed to be cancelled. I wanted exams to go ahead fairly, but I was always clear that there must be a plan B if that was not possible. For months, there was no sign of any such plan, although the risk that exams could not happen has always been entirely predictable. The Secretary of State says he will be providing support to teachers to award grades. Can he tell me when they will receive that support and what form it will take, and can he confirm that it will be available in all schools? Can he tell me exactly what will be done to ensure that all grades are fair and consistent and support pupils to move on in their education or employment?

I heard what the Secretary of State said about technical and vocational exams, but frankly he is failing to show leadership on the exams taking place in January, and he is simply leaving it to schools and colleges to decide what they should do in these difficult circumstances. Will he now do the right thing and cancel this week’s BTEC exams, as parents, colleges and the Association of Colleges are calling for?

Staff in every part of our education system have faced a hugely challenging job and done extraordinary things to keep children safe and educated throughout the pandemic. Too often, though, the Secretary of State has refused to listen to their concerns or engage meaningfully with the expertise of professionals on the frontline. He can start to make it up to them today. Is the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation working on a strategy to vaccinate all education staff to keep them safe and get children back in the classroom? Does he believe that they should be prioritised for vaccination to keep them safe and to allow schools and colleges to reopen?

Early years settings remain open to all children, but the Secretary of State has failed to explain how this will be safe for staff and families, so can he tell us what scientific advice he has received that made him think that they will be safe, and can he honestly say that he is following the science? Whether providers are open or closed, will he finally reconsider the unjustifiable decision to move early years funding in line with current occupancy, which will push tens of thousands of providers to the brink of collapse?

Finally, I turn to the return of schools in the months ahead. The decision to close them is not one taken easily or lightly, and although it is the right thing to do to control the virus and save lives, it has huge consequences for children’s learning and development. That is why Labour has always said that schools should be the last thing to close and the first to reopen. Yesterday, the Prime Minister could not guarantee that children would be back in school before the summer. Can the Secretary of State tell us when he expects children to be safely back in the classroom?

At every stage of the pandemic, young people have been an afterthought for the Government, and now we are back where we were nine months ago, with schools closed and exams cancelled. There is time to act, but the Secretary of State must act now to ensure that all pupils can learn remotely, that families are supported and that the most vulnerable are safeguarded.

[Gavin Williamson]

I would very much like to join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to Gareth. I had the great privilege of working with Gareth during his time as deputy general secretary of the NASUWT, as well as with his colleagues there. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with his family and with his friends and colleagues.

The hon. Lady raises a number of very important points, including the roll-out of digital devices and our commitment to deliver 1 million digital devices across the country. We will be getting three quarters of a million of those devices out by the end of next week, supporting schools in delivering the full allocation of devices that they need and looking at how we can go further. It has been a great privilege to work with those brilliant teachers, those inspiring leaders, and to help fund and support them in setting up the Oak National Academy—a brilliant online school that is being viewed not just right across this country, but right across the world, for its quality of teaching. We want to see that used more and more as a vital teaching resource.

The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns about free school meals and how important this is for every one of our constituents. That is why we are putting the funding and support in place. There are many parts of the country where it will be best for schools to deliver those free school meals themselves, and they want to do that, but that will not be the case in other parts of the country where schools will want to do it as part of the national voucher scheme. That is why we will be standing up that scheme over the next few days and making sure that schools are not out of pocket and, most importantly of all, that children and families are supported at this incredibly difficult time.

The hon. Lady asks whether there will be training and guidance for teachers across the country as we move to teacher-assessed grades, and I can absolutely confirm that that will be the case. We have always been aware that there could be a situation where we would not be in a position to be able to proceed with examinations. We have always had a clear view that the best way of assessing children is through examination, so I will not apologise for being enthusiastic to ensure that we have been able to be in a position to roll out exams, but we do recognise that due to where we are as a result of this pandemic, we have to take a different course, and that is why we are taking the route that we are.

The hon. Lady mentioned technical and vocational qualifications. As she will know, it is very important that we give colleges, schools and all providers, including independent training providers, the necessary flexibility, because a lot of young people will need to complete some of their professional competency qualifications in order to take up work and job opportunities, such as those on electricians’ or gas courses where they have to do a practical assessment in order to be able to get the qualifications to take the work, the jobs and the opportunities. We want to ensure that the door is kept open for them. That is why we have taken the decision to give providers the discretion, because they will be the ones who best and most accurately understand the needs of their students and those who possibly need these qualifications to be able to progress into a job that they would not be able to do if they did not have that option.

On vaccination, the Government have already set out the important need to vaccinate those who are most likely to be hospitalised if they catch this disease, and not just hospitalised but most at risk of death. Like the hon. Lady, and like everyone in the education community, I very much want to see the vaccination of all those who are tirelessly, every single day through the week and every week, keeping schools open for the children of critical workers and vulnerable children, when schools are fully reopened again, but coupled with this is a really important step forward, the mass testing programme that we have already started rolling out in schools. The mass testing programme in schools will be one of the largest testing programmes that this country has ever seen. It is ready to go—ready to be implemented—and it will be an important plank in ensuring that we can get schools opened at the earliest possible opportunity.

It will not surprise the hon. Lady that we listen to the best scientific and public health advice in making the decision to keep early years open. We all have a clear understanding of how important early years education is for every child. As I have always said, I will do everything I can to keep every educational establishment open if that is possible and if it is the right thing to do. When we were given the health advice that we could be in a position to keep early years open, which is so important not just for those children themselves but for families, I felt that that was the right decision to take.

I do not want to see any school closed for a moment longer than it has to be. That is why, in June, we all worked so hard and fought so hard to ensure that schools opened right across the country for primary years. That is why, during June, we did so much to ensure that years 10 and 12 were able to return to school at the earliest possible opportunity. That is why, in September, we saw the opening of schools right across the country and all children being able to return to school.

I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that I will not let schools be closed for a moment longer than they need to be. I will do everything I can to ensure that every school is open, so that children are able to benefit from the brilliant teaching that goes on in so many of our primary schools, secondary schools and colleges, because I know that is the best place for children. That is what I want for my children, I know that is what Members want for their children, but most importantly, that is what we want for our nation’s children. That is why I will give everything in order to ensure that schools are the first things to be opened in every instance, because that is what is best for every one of our children.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now go to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Robert Halfon.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]]

I strongly welcome the Government’s laptop scheme, but we know that there will still be possibly hundreds of thousands of people on the wrong side of the digital divide. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those students who just do not have an internet connection or computers at home will be able to go to school alongside children of critical workers? Will he also confirm that any centre-assessed grade system will not only maintain standards but provide a level playing field for disadvantaged children and have a fair appeals process? Will he ensure that there are independent assessors—perhaps retired teachers or Ofsted inspectors—to provide a check and balance for each assessed grade awarded?

Finally, I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about wanting to open schools again, and I know that he believes that strongly. Will he do everything possible to ensure that teachers and support staff are given priority for vaccination alongside NHS workers, so that we can get our schools open again sooner rather than later?

[Gavin Williamson]

The reason we are rolling out and expanding our devices package is that we realise how important it is for all children, especially those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. In the previous situation where schools had to be closed, during the months of March, April and May, children who did not have access to digital devices were able to access education in school, and I can confirm that we are issuing the same standard and the same guidance today.[Official Report, 20 January 2021, Vol. 687, c. 3MC.]

On disadvantaged children and the centre-assessed grades and teacher assessment, we will do everything we can to ensure that children are not left behind due to either their background or the community in which they have grown up and are learning. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend and his Committee and taking their advice on any additional actions that we need to undertake to ensure fairness. I will certainly take on board his ideas and thinking about bringing in volunteers and people who want to support education, and about ensuring that teacher assessment is fair and robust and that it maintains standards and, most importantly, fairness for the children who are taking those qualifications.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]]

We should not, of course, be surprised at this latest U-turn on schools. Any student teacher knows that planning is a key skill, but it is one that the Secretary of State has yet to master. His decisions have been made in a reactionary and last-minute manner. Schools in England have predictably gone from being open, with threats of legal action if they are closed, to being snapped shut in an instant, giving parents no time to put in place arrangements.

Let me say to all Members that we need to be careful about this narrative that children are falling behind. They are falling behind only on an external scale that we have defined for them. We cannot use the same metrics this year as we have before. Much as we all want schools to be open, young people are learning other skills too. That said, it is good to hear that the BBC is producing educational resources. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether there will be resources available for the Scottish curriculum at national 5, higher and advanced higher level?

Teachers are fed up with politicians paying tribute to them one minute and sending them into unsafe environments the next. The risk posed to children in school is small—we have evidence for that—but as the Prime Minister said earlier, pupils can act as vectors, and let us be clear that if a member of staff in a school catches covid, there is increased strain on the remaining staff, so it should not be only high-risk staff who are vaccinated. Before we talk about opening schools, we need a clear position on vaccinations for teachers and school staff. The First Minister has committed to look at that. The Secretary of State has said that he will do everything he can to ensure that schools open, so will he ensure that teachers are a priority for vaccination so that schools can open with confidence?

Finally, there are many students who are now learning at home completely and are not going to return to university after Christmas. They still have to pay for university accommodation. What support will the Secretary of State look at giving to those young people who have to pay out in that manner?

[Gavin Williamson]

It was interesting to listen to the hon. Lady’s comments about students, which are probably indicative of some of the challenges in the Scottish education system, given that it has fallen down the rankings of the programme for international student assessment. It is really important that we support children so that they can learn. It is really important that we do everything we can to ensure that children are in a position to learn about maths, English, the sciences and the arts. It seems indicative in what she was saying that the Scottish National party is not very interested in making sure that children benefit from a knowledge-rich curriculum.

I would be happy to contact the director-general of the British Broadcasting Corporation on the matters that the hon. Lady raised, and I will write to her with details on that. It is always a privilege to work with colleagues across all nations of the United Kingdom, and it is really important that we share what works well and what works best. I would always be happy to work with her. We have funded extensively the Oak National Academy, which has an incredibly rich curriculum resource, and I notice from the latest figures that it is used by a lot of students in Scotland as well as in England. I would be very happy to share some of the work that we are doing to help to support students in Scotland as well as students in England.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State. The economic recovery will be skills based, and the Government have rightly placed much emphasis on the importance of BTECs. However, there is worry, confusion and uncertainty in colleges and schools. Many have cancelled this month’s exams, but others have not. They should not have been placed in a position of having to make their own choice as to whether to go ahead with exams. The Government should have shown clear leadership so that all students across the country were in the same situation. Will the Secretary of State work with Ofqual, the exam boards and the Association of Colleges to put in place as quickly as possible new arrangements that will provide students and teachers with certainty, clarity and confidence?

[Gavin Williamson]

As my hon. Friend will have heard in my statement, that is exactly what I have said we would do. For clarity, there are many colleges that know for their students’ future prospects they need to complete assessments this month if those students are to be able access work and employment opportunities. So no, I am not going to go down the route that my hon. Friend suggested of taking that opportunity potentially to access work and other opportunities away from them, because I do not believe that that would be right for those children.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]]

Teachers and school staff have put themselves at enormous risk during the pandemic to keep schools open. Now that the Prime Minister has accepted that schools are the epicentre of high community covid transmission, it is essential that the Government give teachers and school staff the priority access to covid vaccination that they deserve. Will the Secretary of State look at adding them to category 7, as that would make teachers and school staff a top priority for vaccinations after those who are 65 and over, all those who are clinically vulnerable, and our NHS and social care staff?

[Gavin Williamson]

At every stage, we have put the safety of students, pupils, teachers and the whole workforce—and including the whole community—at the heart of everything we have done. All the evidence shows that the work, the precautions and the measures that have been put in place mean that schools have been able to operate safely and well. We will constantly work with the whole sector to ensure that every measure is undertaken so that that continues. That is why we are ready to roll out a mass testing programme, delivering millions of tests right across the board. That will happen in schools as they welcome the children of critical workers as well as vulnerable children into them. When schools fully return and can welcome all children back, the testing regime will be at the centre of that return.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]]

I understand why GCSEs and A-levels have been cancelled and I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that the substitute system will be robust and fair. What can he do to confirm for the young people of Hinckley and Bosworth that students will be rewarded for how they perform, that they are not disadvantaged by the school they go to and that the teachers who conduct the assessments have buy-in and ownership of what they are doing in the current situation?

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our great advantage is that we have the opportunity and the time to roll out extensive training, guidance and support for those teachers making that assessment, to ensure that it is accurate and fair and reflects children’s abilities. We will undertake that with schools over the coming months. We endeavour to ensure that teachers and all those who work in the education system are supported in my hon. Friend’s constituency as they are throughout the country.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

It was irresponsible of the Government to announce the cancellation of GCSE and A-level exams and to say nothing about BTEC exams, with no details of an alternative plan being agreed. Students and their families in Luton South have already suffered greatly over the past nine months and are deeply anxious about the continued uncertainty that has been created. Many students have contacted me to say that they are suffering negative impacts on their mental health as a result. What plans has the Secretary of State to provide additional mental health support for our children and young people?

[Gavin Williamson]

Of course one of the great advantages of schools being back all the way through the latter half of last year is that teachers and those working in schools have been in the best possible place to assess and work with children and to have the best understanding of their needs and some of their problems, including mental health challenges. We will work with the education sector to support them. We have already taken several actions to support schools and education settings with children who have suffered mental health problems as a result of covid and of being out of school. We will continue to do that and step up those measures in the coming months.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State not just for his statement but for the huge effort he must be putting in to try to balance conflicting priorities. As a father to an A-level student who was hoping to take her exams this year, I can relate to the anxiety that so many young people and their parents must feel in Dudley North and across the country due to the uncertainty of the situation. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will make every effort to remove that uncertainty by bringing clarity at the earliest opportunity, so that students can better focus on their studies and teaching staff on the best approach to support them?

[Gavin Williamson]

As my own daughter was due take her GCSE exams later this year, I can assure my hon. Friend that we very much hope that this statement has given a clear sense of certainty and direction. We will be following this up with further detailed consultation: Ofqual will be leading a two-week consultation period, which will be launched next week. It is very important that we get feedback from the sector to ensure that the details of this policy are properly understood, and work best not just for schools and colleges but, most importantly, for those who are receiving the grades.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) [V]]

Given that the company Computacenter, which was awarded the £96 million contract with no competition, failed to deliver all the laptop kits to vulnerable children in the first lockdown, why is the Secretary of State sticking with Tory party donors from that company this time?

[Gavin Williamson]

I pay tribute to Computacenter, which has done an amazing job of distributing hundreds of thousands of devices right across the country. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we did a direct award on the first contract, as Computacenter was one of the few businesses that was in a position to be able to assist us at that time. Since then, tenders have gone out and Computacenter has won those tenders through fair competition.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]]

Some North Yorkshire schools are operating a full, formal timetable, with checks and balances including roll calls and marking, but some schools are not. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all schools should use this kind of best practice to ensure that students work as hard and as effectively remotely as they do when they physically attend school?

[Gavin Williamson]

As a former North Yorkshire County councillor and former member of the education committee of North Yorkshire County Council, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that we keep as much formal education in place as possible. Schools have moved forwards in leaps and bounds in what they are able to offer, but we recognise that there has been variability. That is why we have taken the actions that we have, including the actions that we will take with Ofsted, to ensure that good, high-quality remote education is delivered in all our schools, right across the country.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]]

I would like to place on record my thanks to the National Education Union and to Unison for the work that they have been doing to keep school staff and pupils safe. In my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree, I have been inundated with inquiries from worried parents and nursery staff about nurseries remaining open, and the risk that that poses, particularly when elderly grandparents, as part of support bubbles, are often used to pick up children. I am afraid that the narrative from the Secretary of State that this group is the least at risk is not enough and does not instil confidence. Will he fully explain to my constituents why nurseries and early years settings are not closing, with the exception of providing services to the children of key workers?

[Gavin Williamson]

Early evidence from SAGE has shown that early years provision had a smaller relative impact on transmission rates than primary schools, which in turn had a smaller relative impact than secondary schools; that is why the decision was taken. The hon. Lady mentions the National Education Union. I thank the National Education Union and Unison for recognising that the action they took and the advice that gave to their members on Sunday was incorrect, and for withdrawing that advice. It was the wrong advice, and I am glad that they have reflected on it and recognised that it was the wrong advice.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) [V]]

Ministers will know how bitterly disappointed I was when schools were so abruptly closed, because of the impact on mental health, the attainment gap and safeguarding. To give certainty and to enable schools to plan ahead, will the Secretary of State make the February half-term the default target date for return, barring any new crisis? And for those schools remaining open for key workers and vulnerable children, can we make sure that this time they are not turning away children on an education, health and care plan, in particular, on the basis that schools could not safely look after them? I am already hearing complaints from parents that their children who are entitled to attend are being placed on waiting lists.

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that children on an EHC plan are entitled to and should be allowed into school and receive the care and support that school provides to those incredibly important children, so I absolutely, categorically make that totally clear to all schools and all colleges as well. I would like to see schools open tomorrow, as he will know. I never want to see schools in a position where they are not able to welcome children, but we have had to take this incredibly difficult decision. I want to see all schools opening on 22 February, but we obviously do have to take into account the scientific and health advice. Certainly, from a Department and a schooling point of view, every one of us is working towards welcoming all children back on 22 February, but we obviously continue to have to listen to the advice of both the scientific and public health community as to how we continue to beat this virus.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

The Secretary of State has made a timely decision to scrap GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels, and I very much hope that we can avoid the heartache that some of my constituents suffered last year when their algorithm-adjusted grades caused them to miss out on university places they had worked so hard for. This year, since exams are not being sat or needing to be marked, there is no need to delay the announcement of grades until August. An earlier announcement will help students and parents to plan their next steps and universities to manage a fair admissions process, and it will leave time for appeals and resits, so will the Secretary of State, in his discussions with Ofqual, consider bringing forward the date on which assessment grades are released?

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, and it is something that I have already raised in discussions with Ofqual. We obviously have to make that judgment call in line with the whole system. We do not want the whole system of awarding to be dictated by the date when youngsters get their grades, but it will be one of those issues that is in active consideration, because, as she says, it gives students more time if there is a need for appeals, and it also gives them more time to make the best choices for them and their future.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) [V]]

The Secretary of State should know the incredible dedication and self-sacrifice shown by teachers and staff throughout Romford and Havering since the start of this pandemic. Their determination to reorganise the schools to keep everyone safe and to continue to provide the highest standard of education must be commended, but with schools now closing as part of the lockdown, they will have to do everything they can to move classes for the majority of students online to minimise the impact on their education. However, as in-person teaching will still be going ahead for vulnerable children and the children of critical workers, will my right hon. Friend please clarify whether only one parent or both need to be critical workers in order for their children to continue to attend school in person?

[Gavin Williamson]

I very much join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to not just the teachers in Romford, but all those support staff who open up the schools, welcome the children and are such an important part of the fabric of that school community. In answer directly to his question, if one parent is a critical worker, it is deemed that they would have access to that school place for their child.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]]

Many of my university student constituents have contacted me because they are desperately worried about the impact that covid restrictions are having on their learning, research, educational success, future careers, finances and mental health and wellbeing. Does the Secretary of State believe it is fair for them to continue to pay full fees and full rent when they are not receiving the university experience they expected, and what will he do to support students, especially those facing financial hardship?

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady will probably be aware that just before Christmas, the Government announced additional support for university students, with an extra package to help those youngsters who are most vulnerable. We will continue to work with the sector to look at how best we can support students and the sector as a whole.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]]

I cannot hide my disappointment and sadness to see school gates closed to so many students from across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. Remote learning has many challenges, from unsuitable learning environments to no online connectivity and not having the necessary digital devices. Will my right hon. Friend continue discussions with me and the Minister for School Standards to get textbooks distributed to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, so that they do not fall victim to the digital divide while learning remotely?

[Gavin Williamson]

I have asked officials to organise a meeting between my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and me next week to discuss this. We all recognise what an important role textbooks play in helping and supporting learning, and there has been some brilliant work and investment in producing exceptionally high-quality material. I look forward to meeting him next week to discuss how we can get textbooks distributed, especially to some of the most disadvantaged communities across our country.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s U-turn on GCSEs and A-levels, late though it was, adding to the pressure on schools and teachers. I am sorry that his approach on BTECs appears to be an afterthought and an abdication of responsibility, but I want to ask him about primary assessments. Does he accept that proceeding with SATs this year would place an unnecessary and pointless burden on schools, and will he take action to cancel this year’s tests and to do so in good time?

[Gavin Williamson]

I always enjoyed working with the hon. Member, in terms of the work we did with the Motor Neurone Disease Association over a number of years. He often speaks a lot of good sense—just, sadly, in the wrong party. I can confirm that we will not be proceeding with SATs this year. We recognise that that would be an additional burden on schools, and it is very important that we are focused on welcoming students back into the classroom at the earliest opportunity.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the work being done to roll out online learning, but for a significant proportion of my constituents there is a small practical problem: up to 13% of households either have very slow broadband or no access to it at all, and mobile data is non-existent in many villages. What practical support can he offer pupils living in such households, competing against other members of the household and trying to work or learn with no or little broadband?

[Gavin Williamson]

This is an incredibly challenging problem for many people living in rural communities. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what further measures we could take. I am beginning to think about some of the additional resource of textbooks and other resources that can maybe be made available to families and communities that have these acute problems, where it may not be something we can work around in terms of a technical solution. There may be other routes forward, but I will ask my Department to organise swiftly a meeting between him and me to discuss this issue and any other educational issues in his constituency.

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]]

The pandemic has highlighted the injustice of tuition fees. Students are incurring on average £57,000-worth of debt to be isolated in university halls and to be restricted to online learning, and beyond that, education must be a universal right, not a costly privilege. The last decade of extortionate tuition fees has saddled young people with debt, deterred working-class people from gaining higher education and reduced our universities to profit-seeking businesses. Will the Government take this opportunity to support students by refunding rents, scrapping tuition fees and cancelling student debt for good?

[Gavin Williamson]

The statistics bear out something rather different from what the hon. Lady said. We have seen a massive expansion of the university sector, with more young people going to university than ever before. If she took the time to look at the statistics and the facts, as opposed to not basing her question on the statistics or facts, she would discover that more children from the most disadvantaged families are going to university—often they are the first from that family—than ever before. That is something that this party should feel incredibly proud of, and I would like to see even more youngsters from the most deprived backgrounds going to some of the best universities in the country.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]]

Dr Adrian James, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists has described the covid-19 pandemic as the greatest threat to mental health

“since the second world war”.

As chair of the health all-party parliamentary group, I have been receiving concerned emails from parents across the United Kingdom regarding mental health. Given that children have experienced isolation and trauma—many have experienced bereavement—will the Secretary of State now take the opportunity to announce ring-fenced funding for a much-needed mental health and wellbeing strategy for children?

[Gavin Williamson]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising such an incredibly important point, and it would be great to have an opportunity to meet her and other members of the all-party parliamentary group to discuss some of the wider issues that we face not only in schools in England, but in schools across the whole of the United Kingdom. There have been various different initiatives, some for the higher education sector that were UK-wide, and which our universities have done so much on, but also some initiatives in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It would be really good to have a four-nations approach to how we support young people with the real challenges of mental health. I look forward to having that discussion with her, because I know she feels passionately about this issue, as so many Members of this House do. It is very much a cross-party issue, and I very much hope we can find some cross-party solutions on how we can best support our young people.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask my right hon. Friend about early learning? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) has already raised the point, but I would rather like my right hon. Friend to explain why in Bromley, early learning centres—they are semi-schools really—are still open. They have a real problem, because all of them are privatised, and there would be a certain loss of income, which would be a problem. Can I ask him—not that I dispute what he is going to say—for an explanation as to why these places are open when primary schools are not?

[Gavin Williamson]

I assure my hon. Friend that at every stage we will go above and beyond to keep education settings open. The Prime Minister has many times outlined the Government’s commitment to and priority for education so, if we can, we will keep a sector of the education system open, because not only do the children who are in accrue enormous benefits—whether it is in a nursery, an early years setting, or a classroom in a primary or secondary school—but it is also incredibly important for parents and families, who often rely on those settings and schools to support them. When the advice came through—just to reiterate it—that the early evidence from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies showed that early years provision had a much smaller relative impact on transmission rates than primary schools, which, again, have a much lower relative transmission impact than secondary schools, we felt that that was the right thing to do. Yes, it is about supporting the children, but it is also about supporting the families.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]]

We all want children back in school as soon as possible, so why do we not work together to make that happen? With that in mind, will the Secretary of State tell me when he last met teachers’ unions and what practical steps he agreed with them that the Department would take—for example, acquiring more space for schools, so that children and teachers can spread out? What steps did he agree that could make schools even safer so that we can get children back in school as quickly as possible?

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Where there is a shared commitment to see schools open, it is important to work together. I meet lots of organisations, including trade unions, on a very regular basis. Nowadays, I am afraid, we do not get to meet physically, and it is all online, but we have regular meetings. Only in the past week, I have had the opportunity to speak with a number of union leaders.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]]

Happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone else in the House. For those students due to have sat GCSEs, and AS and A-levels later this year, we have had to make the difficult decision to cancel the exams, which will without doubt cause a great deal of anxiety. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and the House that his Department will make every effort to provide those students with the vital clarity that they will need in the weeks ahead?

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend has been a great champion, defending his schools and doing everything he can to ensure that parents in his constituency benefit from being able to have access to their schools, but he makes an important point about clarity. I hope that what we have set out today brings a lot of clarity. The further detailed consultation that Ofqual will roll out in the early part of next week will be the next stage of consulting schools on the next steps. We recognise that, when that is fully completed, it is really important that we support schools, the teaching profession, and colleges and lecturers in those next steps and the awarding of grades in the summer for A-levels, GCSEs, and other vocational and technical qualifications.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]]

Despite serious safety concerns, we were told yesterday that BTECs were still going ahead, only to be told late last night that it was simply up to schools and colleges to decide whether it was safe. The Secretary of State ignored education unions and organisations when they repeatedly told him that it was not safe to reopen schools, colleges and nurseries on Monday, and nurseries are still open in full today, despite widespread anger and disbelief in the sector and without any robust scientific evidence from the Secretary of State that nurseries will not act as a vector for transmission of the virus.

Safety is the Secretary of State’s responsibility. Up to one in 50 people now have the virus, and the number continues to climb. Will he now listen to education unions and organisations, cancel BTEC exams, urgently take the same safety approach on nurseries as he has done with schools, and provide upgraded risk assessment guidance and vaccine access to all settings that are currently open to vulnerable and key worker children?

[Gavin Williamson]

May I say what a delight it is to have the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) as shadow Secretary of State? At least she seems to be enthusiastic about having children in schools, colleges and other settings, unlike the previous shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey).

At every stage—I think the hon. Lady understands this—we have put the safety and security of children and the workforce at the very heart of what we do. As the chief medical officers not just of England, but of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have said, the best place for children is in school, but we have had to take unprecedented action as a result of the advice from the chief medical officer for England that the nation had to move to covid alert level 5. When the decision was taken on Monday to move to covid alert level 5, it was right that additional actions were taken, as reluctant as I was to see us in that position.

I think it is a little unfair of the hon. Lady to imply that the safety and security of staff and children are not at the heart of all our actions. They are at the heart of all our actions, but we know that children benefit from being in school and having the opportunity to sit in front of their teacher in the classroom. That is why Conservative Members have always been so enthusiastic for schools to have children in. I hope that she will eventually become a convert to that idea, as her successor has done.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Last year, the approach to GCSEs and A-levels meant that private candidates, such as home educated children, were unable to obtain a grade. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this year they will be able to do so?

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend speaks not just for her constituents, but for many thousands of youngsters right across the country who are worried about this. I have asked Ofqual to take up this issue, to look at it directly and to make sure that there are measures in place so that those students will be in a position to get a grade. I have asked Ofqual to include that as part of the consultation that it will be doing next week. We have already discussed how this can be done, and we believe that it will be possible to do so.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State clearly prefers testing, rather than vaccination, as the means to make sure our teachers and learners will be safe when schools can reopen. The Prime Minister wants that to happen in six or seven weeks’ time. To have an adequate testing regime in every school by that period will require working around the clock in every minute available between now and then. Will the Secretary of State confirm that every school in my constituency has access to the support it needs to make sure that such a regime will be in place in time?

[Gavin Williamson]

We have already seen the mass distribution of testing kits, and all the equipment that is required, in schools and colleges that take years 7 and above. We will be looking at how we can roll out testing beyond secondary schools into primary settings and earlier years to support staff.

I am as enthusiastic about vaccination as the hon. Gentleman is, but we are very much forward with our programme of mass testing for children, with all secondary schools receiving the initial deliveries. All schools will be getting that level of support in secondary settings, and we are looking at expanding that in primary settings as well. That would include all the schools in his constituency, as well as those in all our constituencies.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate that the Secretary of State is giving thorough and detailed answers to a great many questions, but we have already taken up considerably more than an hour on this statement. There are still 13 people to participate and I would like to give everyone the chance to ask their question, but I must ask them not to make speeches or statements. Just ask a question, and if it is a short question the Secretary of State will be able to give quite a short answer.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]]

Secretary of State, the future of the country is very much in your hands—the children are our future. I pay tribute to my local schools, who have risen to the challenge and continue to deliver an exemplary education. Closing schools is one thing; what is your plan to open them? What are your criteria? It cannot be to end lockdown having had a devastating effect on children’s mental health. What is your vision and what is your plan for optimising children’s life chances and giving a clear map of the future for children, parents, teachers, universities and employers? What, in your eyes, does good look like?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I did tell the hon. Lady not to make a speech but to ask a question. She has asked several questions, which I am sure the Secretary of State will answer, but I must insist that while we have virtual proceedings in this Chamber, people who participate virtually adhere to the same rules that we adhere to in the Chamber. Nobody calls the Secretary of State “you”. “You” means the Chair; the Secretary of State is the right hon. Gentleman.

[Gavin Williamson]

I will endeavour to be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to all those who work in schools, colleges and nurseries in Newton Abbot, and I add my thanks for the work that they do. We have been clear that the testing regime is a clear element in opening schools once more. We rely on the pressure that the NHS is currently feeling starting to lift, as that is one of the key reasons we had to take the difficult and unpalatable decision to close schools.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

I have been contacted by a distraught young lady from my constituency who works full time and is a private candidate studying for her A-levels. With exams now cancelled, students in standard schooling will have predicted grade assessments from their teachers, but self-taught students have no such thing. Last year, thousands of private A-level candidates went without any grade when their exams were cancelled. Will the Secretary of State work with the exam boards to make provision for self-taught students like my constituent and to do what is necessary to ensure that they are not overlooked and that their money, time and study really do pay off?

[Gavin Williamson]

I certainly will do that. We have already had those discussions with Ofqual and we will have them, in turn, with exam boards. I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey).

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

As someone who was campaigning to keep schools open until a few days ago, I recognise how difficult these decisions have been for my right hon. Friend. I want to press him on two points. He has made his views on vaccination in schools clear, but I implore him to look again at vaccination in SEN schools, where the line between teaching and caring is very blurred. Secondly, will he review catch-up funding for schools, especially in areas of deprivation, to ensure that it is targeted and that the attainment gap does not widen as a result of this lockdown?

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend and I have both championed the importance of keeping all schools open at every stage. I very much thank him for his support. I spy in the distance the Health Secretary, who is progressing slowly to the Chamber. I guarantee that I will make those arguments as forcibly as possible about recognising children and the workforce in special schools, where there is often a crossover between education and care. We will make those arguments, while recognising the broad clinical requirements under which the Department of Health and Social Care has to operate. I will certainly echo those comments to the Health Secretary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I allowed the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) two questions because I could not get in quickly enough to stop the second one. From now on, one question, no speeches, no statements.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]]

Ofqual suggests that as many as 1.78 million children do not have access to a computer. What the Education Secretary has announced today is just a 10% reduction in those numbers by the end of next week, which will still leave 1.6 million children unable to access a computer. Bridging the digital divide is essential, so when will those 1.6 million children receive their laptops, and when will he address the situation of the 900,000 children who do not have data access?

[Gavin Williamson]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement earlier, which covered most of the points he raises.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) [V]]

I know that my right hon. Friend did everything he could to keep schools open, and that he shares my concern for the welfare of the hundreds of thousands of young people now isolated at home. Will he look urgently at the reports of harms being caused to children by social isolation?

[Gavin Williamson]

Absolutely. It is incredible how social isolation has a real impact on young people. Children miss out on so much from not being at school— not just their teacher’s input but socialisation with friends. I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this and what more we can do to support schools, teachers and the education community to support our children.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) [V]]

Where and when will families be able to find out exactly what free services the mobile operators are providing, and how will the Secretary of State make sure that it is as straightforward as possible to access? Is he making sure that the devolved Governments are fully looped in on this and that they will get any Barnett consequentials of additional spending on laptop and tablet distribution?

[Gavin Williamson]

We of course always work closely with the devolved Governments. The benefits of the Union are demonstrated in the fact that we are able to work together and at considerable scale to deliver benefits to all parents and children. Any additional spend on anything has Barnett consequentials, which means that, again, Scotland benefits from being in the United Kingdom and the financial support that the whole UK gains from being together.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]]

I know from my own children that a live lesson taught online is much more effective than learning resources being placed online. While teachers always need to be able to use their discretion to take account of specific circumstances, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the default expectation during this lockdown is for live online teaching?

[Gavin Williamson]

We have already set out really detailed guidance for all schools, setting the expectation levels for all schools and what they provide to pupils. We recognise that there will be a blend in the range of different teaching, but we have set clear expectations and if schools fall below them, parents can take recourse either with the school directly or ultimately through Ofsted.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]]

As students have been advised not to return to university for the foreseeable future, most will be left paying for accommodation that they cannot use. It is clearly unfair that students renting private accommodation will be left thousands of pounds out of pocket, and the Government’s miserly £20 million contribution to the university hardship fund obviously is not enough. Does the Education Secretary agree that the Government have a responsibility to refund students their accommodation costs?

[Gavin Williamson]

As I have already set out, before Christmas the Government recognised the need to give additional support to students, through the universities. That is why we put the additional financial arrangements in place to support them.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

I put on the record my thanks to all the teachers and support workers in Telford. My single question to my right hon. Friend is whether he agrees that just handing out laptops is no substitute for the support and guidance a child receives from a dedicated, committed teacher. Will he do everything in his power to enable teachers to return to school, including considering vaccinations?

[Gavin Williamson]

I would very much like to add my thanks to all the teachers in Telford, especially as one of my daughters is very privileged to be able to benefit from those teachers in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I echo her point that supporting children’s learning is not just about giving them a device; it is about how that device is used and how that child is supported, and the work we have undertaken over the past few months to support that through the Oak National Academy and the resources that are available is an important part of that. In terms of vaccinations and testing, we will always be pushing at the boundaries to maximise that for our education settings right across the country.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]]

The Secretary of State has placed the decision about whether to open maintained nursery schools on governing boards. Will he make public health a priority, and guarantee full funding during this crisis to relieve boards such as the Bedford Nursery Schools Federation of the feeling of being coerced into remaining open to protect their future viability?

[Gavin Williamson]

We recognise that there are a lot of nursery schools that want to be in a position to open their doors. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave earlier in this session about the reasons why we took that decision.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State for updating the House and answering questions so fully. Could he tell me: if a university student has travelled back to their halls of residence and now is going to receive remote learning, should they stay at university, or should they return home?

[Gavin Williamson]

We would encourage that university student to stay where they are, in order to be able to conduct their remote learning, although obviously university students who are not doing practical subjects should not have returned to university at this stage.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]]

Students in Bath and across the country feel massively let down. They are paying full tuition fees on top of rent for accommodation that they are not allowed to live in—we have just heard that answer from the Secretary of State. I am aware that this question has been asked several times already this afternoon, but we have not had a proper answer yet, so will the Secretary of State now commit to the rapid implementation of a review of this academic year, with the power to make recommendations for financial compensation?

[Gavin Williamson]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I share my right hon. Friend’s concern over schools being closed, especially for children in Wealden who do not have access to technology. Can he double confirm that those children without access to tech are now seen as vulnerable, and can immediately access physical education—I mean, attend school—and will not have to jump through hoops to be able to get into school?

[Gavin Williamson]

I can absolutely confirm that. That was issued in our initial guidance on school closures back in March last year. We have repeated that self-same guidance all the way through where schools have been in an unfortunate position, because we have had to recognise that during the latter stages of last year, there were schools that were closed, and even during that time children who did not have access to that type of education were able to access education settings.[Official Report, 20 January 2021, Vol. 687, c. 4MC.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

In order to allow the safe changeover of colleagues in the Chamber, I will now suspend the House for three minutes.

14:44

Sitting suspended.

00:06

On resuming—

Sittings of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),

That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until 11 January 2021.—(Tom Pursglove.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (Today)

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, at today’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents), debate on the Motion in the name of Secretary Matt Hancock relating to Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 3) and (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 may continue until Seven o’clock, at which time the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to bring proceedings to a conclusion; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Tom Pursglove.)

14:48

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Can I start by thanking the Leader of the House for extending virtual participation in debates? It has made a huge difference to our colleagues to be able to take part.

Could I ask the right hon. Member, on the business of the House, whether the Government are likely to move any motion relating to virtual participation in Committees—many statutory instruments are coming through—and also whether there are likely to be any changes to sitting Fridays? Our colleagues are very keen to take part in all aspects of the House’s business.

14:49

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

May I preface this by thanking the House for getting everything ready to come back today? I seem to need to amend my business statement in future to say that there will be a recall of Parliament on a frequent basis, but I hope this will change as we move into the new year.

The plan for Back-Bench business on Fridays is that it should continue. Therefore, Members will be able to participate in that, and will be able to do so remotely. Westminster Hall will continue, but will continue physically, as will Committees. There is a small broadcasting team shared between both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. When we looked into the cost of extending remote participation to Westminster Hall, it was going to be over £100,000, and there are limits to how much taxpayers’ money can be spent on this. However, it is important to ensure that proper scrutiny takes place, and it is very popular with Members and the Backbench Business Committee. So private Members’ Bills are to continue, Committees are to continue as they are and Westminster Hall is to continue as it is.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you for that informative piece of information.

Question put and agreed to.

Public Health

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

14:50

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

I beg to move,

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 3) and (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 8), dated 5 January 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 January, be approved.

The new variant of coronavirus presents us with a renewed challenge, here in Britain and around the world. Our strategy throughout has been to suppress the virus until a vaccine can make us safe, and while our collective efforts were working on the old variant, when faced with a new variant that is between 50% and 70% more transmissible, there has been no choice but to respond. I understand that these regulations have serious consequences, and I regret the huge costs they bring, but I know just as surely that these costs are far outweighed by the costs we would bear without action.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Do not viruses, especially when they become as widespread as this one, always mutate? Have the Government not planned for that?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course, we have been not only watching for mutations but, indeed, testing for mutations throughout, and it is partly because the UK has the biggest genomic testing capability of any country in the world that we have been able to pick this one up. There may be new mutations in other countries that do not have this scale of genomic testing, and just under 50% of all the sequenced genomes of covid-19 that are deposited with the World Health Organisation are deposited by the UK because of this capability.

That leads to a challenge, which is that it is the countries that have the genomic testing capability that spot the new variant and report it. There are countries that may have variations that are not known about and are not discovered in this way and cannot be reported, but that is the nature of the pandemic. My strong view is that we should be transparent and clear with our international friends when we find a new variant that is difficult to deal with.

When I have previously come to ask for the House’s support for national restrictions, we had to take it on trust that there would be an exit, because it was before a vaccine had been approved. Today I come to the House seeking approval of these regulations knowing, from the huge pressure on the NHS right now, that this action is necessary today, but also with the certain knowledge that we have a way out.

Before turning to the detail of the regulations, I want to set out the plan for how we get out of them, because that is critical. This country was the first in the world to deploy not one but two vaccines, and more than 1.3 million people have been vaccinated already, including a quarter of the over-80s.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I do not like it one bit, but I will support the Health Secretary tonight. The reason I will do it, and I suspect the reason why there is such high public support for these measures, is the position in which the NHS finds itself and the level 5 ruling. If we have, by the middle of February, vaccinated the top four groups, who are the ones likely to overwhelm the NHS, does the logic not follow that at that point we will be able to lift the restrictions on our constituents’ lives?

[Matt Hancock]

I will come on precisely to my hon. Friend’s point, because that is a critical question that I know people are rightly asking: if we are going to have these restrictions, how do we get out of them and, frankly, how do we get out of all the restrictions that we have had to put in place?

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State mentions the vaccine as one of the crucial routes out of this, and I pay absolute tribute to all the incredible scientists and NHS staff who are preparing to deliver it. However, one of the things my constituents are asking me is how we can be sure that the production of the vaccine will meet the ambitions the Prime Minister and others have set out and that we are building the types of facility we need to continue to ramp up production to the highest levels we can. Can the Secretary of State explain what is going on, because I was concerned to hear about the factory in Wales that is not operating seven days a week? Why is that? Is it because it is not getting enough supply into its system?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before the Secretary of State answers the question, let me say that we can have interventions of course—this is a debate—but they must not be long interventions. I give notice now that the time limit for Back-Bench speeches will be three minutes from the beginning, and even with three minutes not everyone on the Order Paper will be called, because there is not enough time.

[Matt Hancock]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to answer these interventions briefly, but they are important because people want to know what is the way out of these restrictions, and that is absolutely central to the case I am making.

The fill and finish plant in Wrexham is doing a brilliant job, but it can fill and finish vials only at the speed at which the vaccine material, which is a biological material, not a chemical compound, can be produced. It is doing a brilliant job at the pace that it needs to go. AstraZeneca and Pfizer are manufacturing the material itself, and they are also working as fast as they can, and I pay tribute to them and their manufacturing teams, who are doing a terrific job.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Approving these regulations today would allow for lockdown for three months, until the end of March. The Secretary of State will have heard my exchange with the Prime Minister earlier, when the Prime Minister said that he did not think we would have to wait that long for an opportunity to choose whether to end the regulations. Will the Secretary of State go further and give a commitment to a further vote at the end of January and the end of February, so that the House will have control over what is happening?

[Matt Hancock]

While these regulations do provide for new restrictions until the end of March, that is not because we expect the full national lockdown to continue until then, but to allow the steady, controlled and evidence-led move down through the tiers on a local basis. Those tier changes do require a vote in Parliament. The restrictions will therefore be kept under continuous review; there is a statutory requirement to review them every two weeks and a legal obligation to remove them if they are no longer deemed necessary to limit the transmission of the virus.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I thank the Secretary of State; I understand the reasons for the regulations, and I fully support them. Does the Health Department, in conjunction with the Education Secretary, have any intention to ensure that teachers are given priority for a vaccine because of the work that they do, along with nurseries and children’s special needs? If we ensure that they have it, we can continue with some reality.

[Matt Hancock]

Of course we are considering who, once we have vaccinated those who are clinically vulnerable, should be the next priority for vaccination. Teachers, of course, have a very strong case, as have those who work in nurseries. Many colleagues on both sides of the House have made that point, and we will consider it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Just to pick up one point, the Secretary of State cites the certain knowledge that there is a way out. The whole point of the intervention by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) is that there is uncertainty. What contingency plans are there if a mutation proves resistant to either of the vaccines and we have to be in these measures for longer? In particular, will the Secretary of State consider the fact that we have barely drawn on the numerous people in the armed forces to create extra NHS capacity? We could do so much more of that if necessary. Is that part of the plan?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, it is very much part of the plan; it is happening right now. On mutations and the link to the vaccine, as with flu, where mutations mean we have to change the vaccine each year, any vaccine might have to be updated in the future, but that is not our understanding of the situation now. Of course that is being double-checked and tested, both with the scientists at Porton Down and, as we roll out the vaccine in areas where there is a high degree of the new variant, and by the pharmacological surveillance of those who have been vaccinated, which will allow us to see for real the impact of the vaccine on the new variant. The goal, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, is that by the middle of next month we plan to have offered the first dose to everyone in the top four priority groups, and they currently account for four out of five covid fatalities. I am not sure that this point has fully been addressed, but the strong correlation between age and fatality from covid means we will be able to vaccinate those who account for four out of every five fatalities within the top four cohorts. It does then take two to three weeks from the first dose to reach immunity, but the vaccine is therefore the way out of this pandemic and the way to a better year ahead.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, but then I want to make some progress on the detail of the regulations.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful; it is on the specific point that my right hon. Friend has raised. He knows I understand it, because it is exactly the one I raised with him in this House last week when we were recalled, and I welcomed the Prime Minister’s commitment to it. To go back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), my right hon. Friend is clear that once we have vaccinated those four groups and they have got immunity, we have therefore taken care of 80% of the risk of death. So what possible reason is there at that point for not rapidly relaxing the restrictions in place on the rest of our country?

[Matt Hancock]

We have to see the impact of that vaccination on the reduction in the number of deaths, which I very much hope we will see at that point. That is why we will take an evidence-led move down through the tiers when—I hope—we have broken the link between cases and hospitalisations and deaths. We will need to see the protection in lived reality on the ground, but we will watch this like a hawk. My aim is to keep these restrictions in place for not a moment longer than they are necessary.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for everything he is doing, but the logic of his anticipating what is going to happen in two, three or four weeks’ time from the number of cases we are getting at the moment is that we can do the same in reverse. That is to say that when we have a sufficient number of people vaccinated, we can anticipate how many deaths will have been avoided in two, three or four weeks’ time. As this cuts both ways, that means that he will be able to make a decision on when we should end these restrictions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has just suggested.

[Matt Hancock]

The logic of the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is right, and we want to see that happen in empirical evidence on the ground. This hope for the weeks ahead does not, however, take away from the serious and immediate threat posed now, and I wish to turn to what is in the regulations and the actions we need to take.

The Office for National Statistics has reported that one in 50 of the population has the disease, some with symptoms and some without. The latest figures show that we have 30,074 covid patients in UK hospitals and that the NHS is under significant pressure. Admissions are now higher than at any point in the pandemic, and so on Monday all four UK chief medical officers recommended that we move the country to covid-19 alert level 5. In practice, that means that they believe that without action there is a material risk of healthcare services being overwhelmed. It is for that reason that we have placed England into a national lockdown, alongside action taken in each of the devolved nations. Every single citizen needs to take steps to control this new variant, and this personal responsibility is important. To give the NHS a fighting chance to do its vital work of saving lives, it is on all of us to support it.

The regulations set out that everyone must stay at home save for a limited number of reasons permitted in law, including: essential shopping; work, if it cannot reasonably be done from home; education or childcare if eligible to attend; medical needs, including getting a covid test or getting vaccinated; exercise; escaping domestic abuse; and for support bubbles where people are eligible. These regulations are based on the existing tier 4 regulations, with some additional measures that reinforce the stay-at-home imperative.

These include: stopping the sale of alcohol through takeaway or click and collect services; and closing sport and leisure facilities, although allowing playgrounds and allotments to remain open. I know that these further restrictions are difficult, but, unfortunately, they are necessary, because we must minimise social interaction to get this virus back under control. These measures came into force first thing this morning under the emergency procedure and will remain in force subject to the approval of this House today.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have just been talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) who is a doctor. He showed me the ridiculous form that he has had to fill in to be able to give this simple jab—all this diversity and equality training. When he is inoculating an old lady, he is not going to ask her whether she has come into contact with jihadis or whatever. The Secretary of State must cut through all this bureaucratic rubbish.

[Matt Hancock]

I am a man after my hon. Friend’s heart. I can tell the House that we have removed a series of unnecessary training modules that had been put in place, including fire safety, terrorism and others. I will write to him with the full panoply of training that is not required and that we have been able to remove. We made this change as of this morning, and I am glad to say that it is now in force. I am a fan of busting bureaucracy, and in this case I agree that it is not necessary to undertake anti-terrorism training in order to inject a vaccine.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I notice also a story about not delivering vaccines on Sunday. As I understand it, it is thought that there will be sufficient vaccines to be able to do seven-day inoculations. If somebody runs short, they will get topped up, which is a little different from what The Daily Telegraph said today.

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The supply of vaccines can take place on all seven days of the week, but, in a regular way, we do it on six days of the week and then, on the seventh day, people can either rest or deliver further vaccine if that is what is necessary. As a result of this delivery schedule, there has been no point at which any area has been short of vaccine. We have a challenge, which is to increase the amount of vaccine available. The current rate-limiting factor on the vaccine roll-out is the supply of approved, tested, safe vaccine, and we are working with both AstraZeneca and Pfizer to increase that supply as fast as possible. They are doing a brilliant job, but that is the current rate-limiting step. As that supply increases, we will need more people to give vaccinations. We will need to get pharmacists involved in the vaccination. I very much hope to get my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), a former doctor, and others involved in vaccinations. We will need more people, but the current rate-limiting factor is the supply of vaccines.

That is not to say that the companies are not supplying on the schedule that was agreed; they are, and they are doing their bit, but we do need to increase that supply and then the NHS will increase its delivery. I hope to make that point crystal clear, because Public Health England work to get the vaccine out is not a rate-limiting factor, the current discussion with pharmacists is not a rate-limiting factor, and the fill and finish is not a rate-limiting factor. What is a rate-limiting factor is the amount of the actual juice—the actual vaccine—that is available, which is not manufactured like a chemical. It is a biological product. I do not know whether you bake your own bread, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I sometimes do and it is a bit like the creation and the growth of yeast. That is probably the best way to think of it. It is a complicated and difficult task and that is the rate-limiting factor. I pay tribute to those who are engaged in the manufacturing process of this critical product.

[Steve Brine]

My right hon. Friend knows that I am obsessed with this point. He mentioned the agreed schedule of delivery. Will he consider publishing that, so that we can see what the agreed schedule is?

[Matt Hancock]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the agreed schedule of delivery will enable us to offer vaccinations to everyone in the top four priority groups by the middle of February. That is why the Prime Minister was able to commit us to that schedule.

I want to talk about the support that has been outlined. We are providing an additional £4.6 billion of support to businesses, including those in retail, hospitality and leisure that have been forced to close their doors once again, on top of the £280 billion plan for jobs, which includes the extension of the furlough scheme until April.

[Mr Harper]

I will be brief—I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) raised his point because earlier this week we had a fantastic call with our hon. Friend the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, who is responsible for vaccine delivery, in which we asked a number of times about the agreed schedule but did not get a clear answer. If it has been agreed with the companies, why can my right hon. Friend not just publish it, so that we know when the vaccine will arrive? That will give people confidence that we will deliver on the Prime Minister’s commitment to the country.

[Matt Hancock]

I will happily take that point away, but I can tell my right hon. Friend that that supply allows for delivery on the schedule and the target the Prime Minister set, to which my whole team is working.

[John Spellar]

The Secretary of State stressed that the problem is really in production of the vaccine. Presumably, the number of sites on which that is done is limited. Why have we not expanded the number of sites?

[Matt Hancock]

We have; we spent the summer working on that. The vaccine has sprung into prominence in the public debate over the past month or so, but we were working on that though the whole of last year, and I am glad to be able to assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is further expansion still to come.

I will end my speech by reiterating that we know that if we do not act now, eventually the NHS will not be able to cope. No Member of this House wants to witness the scenes that have been seen elsewhere in the world of hospitals overrun and doctors forced to choose who to treat and who to turn away. Although the winter weeks will be difficult, we now know what the way out looks like. Accelerating the deployment of covid vaccines, making the most vulnerable groups safe, and everyone playing their part on the way is the route out of this pandemic.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for everything he has done on this. Will he join me in thanking the residents of Wolverhampton for the community testing that they have done, especially Bilal mosque and Sedgley Street gurdwara, where people have all come together to defeat this virus?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes I will. I am glad I took that final intervention. The people of Wolverhampton have come together to deliver community testing in an incredibly impressive way. I have heard about the work of the gurdwara, bringing together leaders of all different faiths to make sure that we get testing out into the community. We need to do the same with the vaccine programme, because both are critical.

In the meantime, we must stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives. That eventually will carry us to a brighter future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), I confirm that a three-minute limit will be imposed immediately on Back-Bench speeches.

15:13

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

We will support the regulations, but like the Secretary of State, I did not come into politics to restrict people’s freedoms in this way. As one who represents Leicester, a city that has effectively been in a form of restrictions since last March, I well understand the devastating impact restrictions can have on our economy, on our way of life and on the mental health and wellbeing of our constituents. Indeed, many of our constituents will feel devastated by the prospect of weeks and weeks, perhaps longer—possibly until the end of March—in isolation, feeling anxious and lonely.

Last year, in the months following the long lockdown, 19.6 million prescriptions for antidepressants were issued—a 4% increase on the same period the year before—to more than 6 million people in England, which is the highest number on record. If we are to support lockdown we need assurances from Ministers that mental health services will be fully resourced, will stay open and can respond to people’s needs throughout lockdown.

I know that many people find solace in prayer, so I am grateful that communal prayer can continue during lockdown. With the indulgence of the House, may I take the opportunity to thank Leicester City Council, Peter Soulsby and our councillors, especially those for the wards of Stoneygate, Wycliffe and Spinney Hills, who have worked hard with our many mosques, temples, gurdwaras, synagogues and churches across Leicester to ensure covid-secure worship?

[Jim Shannon]

I think it is important to have prayer. Does the shadow spokesman agree with the call I have made in the past for a national day of prayer in this country?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I think that that is a very good recommendation. May I extend an invitation to the hon. Gentleman to return to Leicester to watch our great football team, when we are allowed and are out of lockdown? Perhaps I will take him around and show him some of the great inter-faith work that we do in Leicester as well.

The lockdown will have a huge impact on the wellbeing of our children, so a plan to get our children back safely to school is a priority. There are thousands of children out of school in overcrowded, cramped accommodation, unable to access learning properly from home. There are other children at risk of abuse and violence. Members may know that I have spoken of my own experiences growing up in a home with a parent who had a problem with alcohol. Many children face the prospect of being locked in their home with a parent who abuses drink or drugs, so I urge Ministers to work with and fund children’s advocacy and support groups such as the National Association for Children of Alcoholics, with which I have worked closely, that will do so much throughout this lockdown.

Today, I agree with the Secretary of State. We do, unfortunately, have to restrict freedoms further to safeguard freedoms for the future and save lives. As he said, the tragic reality is that the virus is out of control. To be blunt, there is no freedom for our constituents if they are in the graveyard. There is little freedom either for those who suffer the enduring, debilitating effects of long covid. Yesterday, almost 55,000 cases were reported in England—one in 50, as the Secretary of State said, have the virus. The numbers in hospital are higher than in April, with over 1,800 in intensive care. Yesterday, there were over 3,300 hospitalisations—a record—and admissions are going up in every region.

This is a national emergency, and a national lockdown is necessary. Indeed, we should have locked down sooner. We are voting this lockdown through on Twelfth night, yet in the run-up to Christmas the alarm bells should have been ringing. The Secretary of State came to the House on 14 December to report a new strain, now known as the B117 strain. He told the House:

“Initial analysis suggests that this variant is growing faster than the existing variants.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2020; Vol. 686, c. 23.]

The Prime Minister learned of the rapid spread of the new variant on 18 December. The New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group met that day and concluded that the new strain added at least 0.4 to the R. On 21 December, the chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, said that the new strain was “everywhere” and cases would rise after the “inevitable mixing” at Christmas. He said:

“The lesson…you have to learn about this virus…is that it’s important to get ahead of it in terms of actions”.

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies met on 22 December, the following day, and concluded:

“It is highly unlikely that measures with stringency and adherence in line with the measures in England in November…would be sufficient to maintain R below 1 in the presence of the new variant.”

Here we are, two weeks later, with half a million infections and 33,000 hospitalisations since 22 December. This is a national tragedy. Why does the Prime Minister, with all the scientific expertise at his disposal, all the power to make a difference, always seem to be the last to grasp what needs to happen? He has not been short of data—he has been short of judgment, and yet again we are all paying the price.

As the Secretary of State has said, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Vaccination is how ultimately we are released from these restrictions. I pay tribute to everyone involved in helping to distribute and administer 1.3 million vaccine doses so far. This a great achievement, but we need to go further and faster.  The Prime Minister has promised that almost 14 million people will be offered the vaccine by mid-Feb. That depends on about 2 million doses a week, on average. Both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have assured us in recent days that that is doable, based on orders, but, in the past, Ministers told us that they had agreements for 30 million AstraZeneca doses by September 2020 and 10 million Pfizer doses by the end of 2020, so I think that people just want to understand the figures and want clarity. How many of the ordered doses have been manufactured, how many of the ordered doses have been delivered to the NHS, and how many batches are awaiting clearance through the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency clearing processes? Two million a week would be fantastic, but it should not be the limit of our ambitions. We should be aiming to scale up to 3 million, to 5 million, to 6 million jabs a week over the coming months. If we can vaccinate 29.6 million people, deaths and hospitalisations will be reduced by 99%. That is what we should be aiming at now.

[Steve Brine]

Obviously the Opposition will support this tonight, but, further to the exchanges that a number of Government Members had with the Secretary of State, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House at what point he and the Leader of the Opposition will be calling for our constituents to be released from the restrictions? Please do not say, “When it becomes obvious it is going to happen.”

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question. Of course, as we vaccinate more, mortality rates will improve more and we will be able to save people’s lives, but there will be others who remain unvaccinated and exposed to the virus, and will possibly develop debilitating symptoms of long covid as a result of that exposure. I do believe that we can begin to ease restrictions once we increase the proportions of those who are vaccinated, but we will not be able to go back to normal yet, because the virus will still be circulating. Even though they may not end up in hospital and on ventilation, many who have contracted this virus have remained incredibly ill as a result.

[Dr Murrison]

I am really pleased by the generally positive way in which the hon. Gentleman is approaching this; it does him great credit. Can I perhaps help him out by making a suggestion? Every year, we accept a certain amount of deaths—tragic, sad deaths—from seasonal flu, up to 28,000 in recent years. Would it be reasonable to anticipate the number of deaths that are going to be caused by this virus and try to make a political judgment—for a political judgment is what it is—on what we feel is acceptable, and that will give us our criteria for deciding on when to lift this lockdown?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, like the former Public Health Minister, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), but this is not just a simple calculation about the number of deaths that are prevented. The right hon. Gentleman has more clinical experience than I have, obviously, but we know that there are people who suffer long-term, debilitating conditions as a result of this virus, with reports of people developing psychosis, long-term breathing problems, and problems with the rhythm of their heart. It remains an extremely dangerous virus, regardless of whether people end up in hospital and on ventilation. But he is quite right: in the end, this will be a judgment for politicians and a judgment for this House. It is not a judgment for the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, although I would hope that our judgments, in the end, are guided by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I, too, commend the hon. Gentleman for the constructive approach he is adopting. He clearly has a very good relationship with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Will he assent to the proposition that public confidence in this vaccination programme is critical if we want people to comply with these lockdown measures, and we must do nothing that creates false expectations or unrealistic expectations about how the vaccination programme will go? We must be modest in what we promise and hopefully we will overachieve. Can he assist my right hon. Friend in that objective?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I think that as a rule in politics it is always better to under-promise and over-deliver. Maybe the Whip on the Treasury Bench could send that advice to the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister tends to have the opposite approach to some of these matters, I would say.

Our big target should be to vaccinate more, particularly among NHS staff. Many NHS staff on the frontline, in the face of danger, are scared. They are exhausted. Many have said to me that they feel they were sent out in the initial weeks of the first wave without the protection of personal protective equipment, and now they are exposed again without the protection of inoculation. Will Ministers move heaven and earth to get all frontline NHS staff vaccinated urgently, and can we have a clear date by which NHS staff on the frontline will receive the vaccine? If manufacturers can increase supply, what more can be done to improve distribution? In addition to GPs, our community pharmacists have tremendous links with hard-to-reach communities. We need to make full use of them.

Vaccination not only saves lives, and is not only the route out of restrictions; it is also urgent, because we are now in a race against time. The B117 strain is fast becoming dominant, and it has done so in just a matter of weeks. The more virus there is circulating, the more opportunities there are for further mutations that could give the virus greater advantage—possibly a variant on which vaccines no longer work, risking another devastating covid wave in winter 2021. Vaccination, both at home and across the globe, is now fiercely urgent, and the race to vaccinate is therefore literally a race against evolution.

We will also support this lockdown tonight because we know we have to reduce transmission. That is why we are asking people to stay at home. But not everyone can work from home on their laptops. There are 10 million key workers in the United Kingdom, of whom only 14% can work from home—key workers, many of whom are low paid and often use public transport to travel to work in jobs that, by necessity, involve greater social mixing, who are more exposed to risk. Often, because of their home circumstances, they end up exposing others to risk as well. We witnessed that in Leicester, where it is suspected that a spike back in the summer was the result of a spillover of infections into the community from those sweatshops that did not adhere to proper health and safety rules.

We need to make sure that our workplaces are covid-secure; otherwise, we will not get on top of transmission. What support are the Government offering to install ventilation systems in workplaces? Will the Government introduce a safety threshold for ventilation of indoor workplaces without outside air? Given that the B117 strain is so much more transmissible, are the Government considering reintroducing the 2-metre rule? Given that fewer than 20% of those who should isolate do so fully, will the Government finally accept that sick workers need proper sick pay and support? Otherwise, those workers will be forced to work, spreading this illness.

The British public have done so much over the last year and have made great sacrifices. We are a great country, and our people can and will rise to the occasion. All anyone asks is that the Government do the right thing at the right time: make all workplaces covid-secure; vaccinate health workers as soon as possible; introduce decent sick pay and support to isolate, and roll out a mass vaccination plan like we have never seen before. This is a race against time—a race against evolution—and we will support this lockdown tonight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I will now introduce the three-minute limit. I remind hon. and right hon. Members that when a speaking limit is in effect for Back Benchers, a countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. and right hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. and right hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will operate.

15:28

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I begin by thanking the Health Secretary, his Ministers and his advisers for all they are doing, working day and night to try to keep the country safe.

While I understand the Government’s health measures, I really worry about school closures. We need to know whether a risk assessment has been done of the loss of learning, the impact on mental health and the safeguarding hazards for children not in school.

Not so long ago, 1,500 members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health wrote that school closures significantly affect children’s wellbeing. We now know that there has been a huge, fourfold increase in eating disorders among young people, partly due to school closures and social isolation. Children’s groups and charities have warned of a new frontier of vulnerabilities: children out of school exposed to online harms, county lines gangs, and tough situations at home, such as domestic abuse. We also know that school closures put enormous pressure on parents’ livelihoods and wellbeing as they have to juggle their work while looking after their children or reduce their hours.

I urge the Government to consider the following. First, they should ensure that teachers and support workers are given priority for vaccinations alongside NHS workers, solely for the purpose of getting schools open sooner rather than later. Secondly, more resources should be put into mental health, having practitioners in all schools to help with the fallout from closures and isolation so that pupils, parents, teachers and support staff can access mental health support whenever they need it. Thirdly, the Department for Education and Ofsted should partner with schools as candid friends to ensure quality remote education for all pupils. The chief inspector of schools, Amanda Spielman, has said that one day of national school closures equals around 40,000 child years in total. That is a grim statistic.

As a country, we must make a choice: do we value the coming generation of our young children or not? Will we risk their life chances of climbing the educational ladder of opportunity by shutting real schooling from their lives? We need a guarantee that the plan for schools to reopen after the February half-term is signed in blood and not just a guideline. While we absolutely have to be careful of this awful virus, we cannot risk an epidemic of educational poverty and mental ill health affecting our younger generations for years to come.

15:31

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]]

A year ago, when the SARS-Cov-2 virus emerged, there was no handbook on covid. All Governments had to feel their way, but there is little excuse for repeating the same mistakes a year on. “Go early and go hard” has been public health experts’ consistent advice. Michael Ryan of the World Health Organisation said at the start of the pandemic:

“The virus will always get you if you don’t move quickly”.

Yet just last week, the Health Secretary still refused to put England into tier 4, despite surging case numbers and the devolved nations already being under tight restrictions since Christmas.

After the late lockdown in March and rushed reopening in May, the Government allowed rates of infection in England to run seven times higher than in Scotland or Northern Ireland over the summer, and at the time, chose not to agree a zero-tolerance covid policy to eliminate community spread of the virus on a UK-wide basis. The gains of lockdown were gradually lost, as eat out to help out drove up cases in August and September, thus beginning the second wave.

The UK is one of the few countries that never closed its borders and many new strains of covid were imported by people travelling to Europe on summer holidays. Even now, in the middle of the second wave, the UK does not have strict testing and residential or monitored quarantine for arrivals. On the contrary, the Government have sought to grant further exemptions from quarantine rules.

In September, the Prime Minister ignored the tenfold rise in covid cases and his own advisory group to listen yet again to the proponents of disease-driven rather than vaccine-based herd immunity, leading to a six-week delay in instigating the autumn lockdown. Herd immunity can be safely achieved only through the use of a vaccine, and even then, only if the vaccine prevents transmission of the virus and thus also protects the unvaccinated. That is the hope, but we do not yet know if either of the vaccines used in the UK will achieve that.

It is understandable that Governments are wary about the use of tight covid restrictions and their impact on our economy and society, but it is a false dichotomy to set public health against the economy and lives against livelihoods. People simply choose not to endanger themselves or their families and need to have confidence that the risk of catching the virus is very low. Allowing increased levels of spread—and, therefore, high rates of viral replication—also contributes to more frequent mutations, and increases the risk of generating yet more problematic new variants.

With cases growing exponentially, it simply is not possible to vaccinate our way out of the current surge so I welcome the decision for this lockdown, but it is tough on everyone, and both individuals and businesses will need support to get through it. That is why it is bitterly disappointing to hear that the £375 million of support for businesses in Scotland promised by the Chancellor just yesterday has now been rescinded, leaving Scotland with no new funding to deal with the economic impact of the current shutdown.

The Government must also consider what strategy they will follow at the end of the lockdown. It should be maintained long enough to achieve suppression of community transmission and to establish a more systematic approach to test, trace and isolate. It is critical to provide both financial and practical support to those who need to isolate, as it is only isolation that actually breaks the chains of infection.

Strict controls at external borders would avoid importing more covid cases and new variants. Such a covid-secure approach would allow the domestic UK economy to reopen fully, with the Government then able to target financial support at the industries associated with international travel, such as aviation and aerospace, which have been so badly impacted by the pandemic. Countries such as New Zealand, Singapore and Korea, which have tight travel restrictions and quarantines, have eliminated community transmission and been able fully to open up their economies and societies, including schools, hospitality and domestic tourism. We only have to look at their Christmas and new year celebrations to see what could be on offer to us here if we get things right.

15:36

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

May I preface my remarks by saying that I accept that we are in a serious situation? It is worse in some areas than in others, but hospital admissions are rising across the country, albeit that improved treatments mean that fewer people, as a percentage, are progressing from admission through to intensive care units, and fewer people as a proportion are dying as a result of the virus. Therefore, some of the pressure, I understand, is on general beds more than on ICU.

In this context, restrictions may be necessary. We should certainly all take personal responsibility, and I share my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary’s enthusiasm for an effective and rapid vaccination programme. But that does not absolve this House of its responsibility to protect the liberties of the British people or to hold the Government to account. Neither of those things would be consistent with approving regulations that would allow a full lockdown to be in place for the next three months, to 31 March. Today, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have given me reassuring words that they do not want that, but the regulations give the power to decide that to the Government, not to this House. I urge the Secretary of State again to reconsider and see whether he might be able to promise a further vote at the end of January and at the end of February, so that this House will decide whether these extreme controls remain in place for that long, not the Government.

I share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) about getting schools back as soon as realistically possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that I have considerable concerns about the fundamental human rights that are being taken away under these measures, including the right to see our children or grandchildren. These really are the most basic rights, and are now to be taken away for up to a year for some people. These points are critical, but I will not repeat them.

Finally, let me say to the Secretary of State that people will tolerate restrictions where they can see a genuine rationale—some common sense—behind them. I return to some of the questions that I was asking back in the spring, during the first lockdown. Why does it make sense that I can buy flowers in a supermarket, but an open-air market cannot sell them? Why is it illegal to go out for a walk on my own twice in the same day? And why, when it is legal for two members of the same household to take a walk across a golf course, is it illegal for them to play golf while they are doing it?

15:39

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]]

Today, I would like to focus on one particular group who have felt forgotten throughout this pandemic: disabled people. In reading the updated regulations, I can see that no assessment of the impact of lockdown on disabled people has taken place. That must change. Disabled people must be central to our decision making, not an afterthought.

Communication has been poor. Shielding letters have been arriving far too late, leaving many unsure of what guidance they should be following. At Monday’s press conference, shielding was reintroduced, yet the Government website does not have any updated guidance for shielders. The guidance that is there is not in an accessible format. People urgently need this evidence to ensure that they can continue to be paid. The Government’s press conferences, which are communicating extremely important public information, are still taking place without a British Sign Language interpreter. It is unbelievable that this has not been sorted.

At the start of this crisis, disabled people raised with me their concerns about accessing food, medicines, PPE and social care. Many have faced increased costs, yet we still have not seen any uplift to legacy benefits. Ministers originally said that this would take up to eight weeks to sort. Ten months later, no progress has been made. Will this increase ever materialise? The Women and Equalities Committee report “Unequal impact? Coronavirus, disability and access to services” calls for an independent inquiry into the causes of adverse outcomes for disabled people. ONS statistics show that two thirds of those who have died from coronavirus in England and Wales have been disabled. We also need the Scottish Government to collate this data, to enable us to fully understand the impact of the pandemic on disabled people. Sadly, the funding for disabled people’s organisations has been cut.

Being guided by disabled people’s experience is essential. I want to thank everyone who has contacted me about today’s debate; I am only sorry that time restraints mean that I cannot raise everyone’s points. I will end by asking one simple question. As the Government’s Disability Unit looks to recruit 14 disability and access ambassadors, how many of those will be experts by experience? How many will be disabled people? I hope the answer is all of them, but I fear not. The Government must ensure that disabled people’s voices are at the heart of decision making, and that is more crucial than ever during a pandemic.

15:42

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]]

I am pleased there is more that finds common cause across the political divide in this time of national emergency than divides us. These regulations are retrospective and not amendable. That, sadly, reflects the impotence of Back Benchers, which should be rectified, and I would like to identify myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). The regulations last until the end of March, but there should be weekly reviews and a debate on the Floor of the House at least every two weeks during this period when such draconian restrictions have been placed on our citizens.

The vaccination effort in this country is remarkable, but we need to do more, particularly when so much fake news is being circulated. Many of my constituents are constantly picking up fake stories about everything from so-called cures and drugs that protect someone from covid to conspiracy theories and priority being given to privileged people. Can we boost the Government communications effort, so that firm rebuttals and accurate information are issued rapidly and widely to prevent more fear and anxiety? Can we have a frequently asked questions section on the Government website, to help combat this fake news? Can we add teaching staff to the priority list, alongside young adults with learning disabilities and autism, as the PHE data has shown their vulnerability? The Prime Minister missed the opportunity to respond to my question earlier today.

Throughout the last year, Heathrow has provided a valued air bridge for repatriation flights and vital cargo, including medicines and PPE. It is facing a proposed reduction of only 7% in its £118 million rates bill, while airports in Scotland and Northern Ireland and even supermarkets have a 100% waiver. We are lagging behind other international countries, so can we have more support for the aviation sector and review it, so that its services are not threatened?

We need more assistance for the excluded, and we need to examine how we can spread the help to that group, who have received nothing for nearly a year. These regulations stop golf and outside activities. This is patently ridiculous and we need some common sense, for goodness’ sake, as this sort of nonsense damages our credibility.

Most of all, we need an exit scenario set out and the goals identified publicly, as the most frequent question is, “When is this going to end?” The Prime Minister has set a 15 February date as a milestone and we need to know, for example, at what stage we hope to have sufficient people vaccinated to, say, open our schools safely again, or at what point the levels of incidence and spread of the virus will allow retail and hospitality to reopen.

I finish by saying, locally, how fantastic Buckinghamshire Council and Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust have been throughout this terrible period. People will never know the amazing work that they have put in to keep our county functioning and our residents safe. Let us not forget what further burdens these regulations place upon them and our tireless public sector workers, and if we have to face these restrictions on our liberty, let us at least do the frontline staff the courtesy of observing them.

15:45

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

With case rates rising and hospitals under pressure, it is clear that these regulations are necessary and I will be supporting them today. The situation in hospitals is particularly concerning. In London, we are seeing the cancellation of non-covid care, including urgent cancer treatments. This was one of the most damaging consequences of the first wave, when many people had to wait months for urgent treatment and diagnostic tests. This cannot be allowed to happen again. Will the Secretary of State set out exactly what steps they are taking to guarantee that the most urgent cancer treatment can still go ahead over the next six weeks?

This lockdown also comes at a time when health and care staff have been working flat out for almost a year. They have gone above and beyond this year, from working with inadequate PPE last spring to stepping up over Christmas to ensure that patients continued to receive treatment. This week, a constituent who works in the NHS wrote to me and said this:

“I am tired as an NHS employee, I am tired of working beyond my contracted hours because there aren’t enough staff in work. I am tired of covering for colleagues who are shielding or pregnant and cannot have direct patient contact. I am tired of not having enough equipment to do my job because it is stuck in the supply chain. I am tired of having to tell bereaved women that their whole families cannot visit due to social distancing, I am very tired.”

At the start of this crisis, we came together as a nation to thank our health and care staff, but I feel that this sense of unity and support for them has been lost. Whether it is doctors being bombarded with abuse from covid deniers on social media or outside hospitals, or NHS staff not being prioritised for vaccines, we are no longer showing staff the respect and appreciation they deserve for the amazing job they are doing in this pandemic, and we need to change this. Staff are now being asked to work flat out caring for covid patients or on delivering vaccines. The Government must take a lead on showing appreciation for staff, starting with vaccinations for everyone on the frontline.

When we debated the tier 4 regulations a week ago, I said that restrictions work only if people can and do follow them. Throughout this crisis, one of the major barriers to self-isolation has been that people cannot afford to do the right thing. The £500 self-isolation payment is available only to those with no other financial resources, so people with savings are being denied this payment. In Salford, four out of five people who applied for the payment were turned down. We are asking people to spend their savings intended for house deposits or even treatments such as IVF to support themselves and their families while they self-isolate. This is not right. Nobody should be worse off because they are doing the right thing in a pandemic. The Government should extend statutory sick pay at the level of lost wages to everyone asked to self-isolate. Anything less risks people continuing to break self-isolation through financial necessity.

These regulations are necessary, but they may not be sufficient. I hope that the Secretary of State can ensure that everyone is supported to do the right thing and beat this virus.

15:48

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I certainly will be supporting these regulations tonight, with a heavy heart, but nevertheless, they are clearly required at this particular juncture. I doubt that there is anybody in this country who loathes and detests more the restrictions on liberties and livelihoods that these regulations reiterate than the Prime Minister. I am confident that he would not be recommending them to the House unless they were absolutely necessary in his judgment. However, I think it is important that the House is provided with more granularity on numbers and it needs to have a better idea of what constitutes an exit strategy and the trigger points that would allow for that strategy.

Jabs offered are not the same as jabs put in arms, which is what is crucial. We need to have published—I suggest daily, since Ministers must have this information—what is being contracted for, the factory-gate delivery against that contract, the jabs in arms and the jabs that are awaiting deployment because of the three-week downtime caused by batch and sterility testing. We need to know how many jabs have been applied in the past 24 hours by priority group.

[Steve Brine]

I will add one to that, if I may: jabs given per area. In Hampshire, we are in a good place—I expect to hear so tonight in our briefing call, because we can scale up when the supply is there—but I know, from talking to colleagues across the House, that it is not the same everywhere. We need to know where the weaknesses are—or, rather, the vaccine Minister does, so that he may address that.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and that data clearly has to be available, because it is gathered locally. That would be very useful, particularly for constituency Members of Parliament.

The thing that worries me most is the exit strategy. The Secretary of State, perfectly reasonably, said that we have a sort of exit strategy in that we now have a vaccine, which we clearly did not have at the beginning of last year. However, we need to decide—this is a political decision, ultimately—what constitutes the criteria for coming out of this lockdown. Generally, it has been suggested, that will happen when we have vaccinated everyone up to group 4 in the JCVI’s list of priorities—that is perfectly reasonable—so when everyone over the age of 70 has been jabbed, as opposed to everyone over the age of 70 being offered a jab. The two, as I said, are quite different.

We need to challenge and push back on that, however, because notwithstanding the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), long covid, awful though it is for those who are afflicted by it, does not constitute a reason for continued lockdown and the penalty that this country is paying societally, medically and economically for what we are about to vote on this evening. That does not stack up; what stacks up is the awful grisly calculus of lives saved.

We have a benchmark, which is the number of lives that, tragically, we are compelled to accept every year are lost to seasonal flu deaths. That gives a reasonable benchmark of what, politically, in society we might be capable of accepting and, because we can project how many deaths will happen—Ministers are keen to do that in recommending to the House, correctly, that we vote in support this evening—they must have an idea, given the number of people who have been vaccinated in key groups, how many deaths there will be in the ensuing month, or two months or whatever one might choose.

I will just push back, very finally, on one other issue: the people in group 4. It is reasonable, perhaps, for those who can be expected to remain safe through shielding to be considered part of group 5, because that will enable many of people over 65 to be vaccinated, which will enable us potentially to come out of this awful lockdown just a little bit sooner and to meet the challenging targets that have been set by the Prime Minister.

15:53

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

Thanks to the superhuman efforts of our NHS teams, and to the Prime Minister’s forward thinking back in March 2020 in throwing all our UK resources into supporting industry and the global virology scientific networks in search of vaccines to becalm the threat of covid-19, there is light at the end of this lockdown tunnel. That total commitment across Government has proven worthwhile, and from all those across north Northumberland I pass on enormous thanks for the 24/7 dedication to finding a vaccine, alongside delivering that vaccine, now rolling off the production lines into glass vials in their millions, into trucks and to our hospitals, GP surgeries and, in the weeks ahead I hope, to sports centres and pharmacies.

My constituents, while frustrated at having to remain isolated from family and friends once again, are in a better place about supporting the PM’s difficult decision this week, because their vulnerable family members are indeed being vaccinated. However, we are anxious about the challenges of home schooling once again for all but SEND and key workers’ children. There will be many a difficult moment in all those households as students struggle to make the progress they would be able to make in the classroom. We must ensure, please, that the restricted schooling part of the lockdown is as short as possible, and that all pupils from primary to tertiary are back in their classrooms as soon as the R rate decline becomes clear. We know that schools are safe places, thanks to the efforts made by all our headteachers and their teams over many months, so the damage to our next generation must be as limited as possible.

I am particularly concerned that the cancellation of GCSEs and A-levels in their usual form will leave many long-term gaps in learning, created by the loss of a definite deadline to work to. As a mother of two children, both of whom worked only to an immovable deadline, this would have been a disaster in my household. I can only be grateful that they are now both grown up.

I know that compliance with the regulations in Northumberland will be high, because we appreciate the risk of our NHS being unable to deliver on the needs of all our patients if our excellent Northumbria NHS is overwhelmed. I want to end on an optimistic note. Last week I had the privilege of dropping into the Well Close surgery in Berwick to see for myself our primary care network’s roll-out of the first doses of the Pfizer vaccine. I can only say it was like going into a Christmas party, with the sound of bubbling, excitable voices as my wonderful over-80s queued patiently. They were given a timer because they had to sit and wait for 15 minutes to make sure they did not have a bad reaction, and then there was a ping as they were allowed to go home again, as if they had been fully cooked in their baking oven. It was simply the most extraordinary and encouraging afternoon that I have spent in many months. I thank Hilary Brown, who runs the service, as well as Dr Ben Burville in Amble and the whole team in the Alnwick cricket club for making sure that so many of my over-80s are now protected.

15:56

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Government of the people by the people means little if it cannot persuade, yet surely lacking here is the consistency that is vital to achieve that. Repeatedly, this Government have simply offered chaos in its place. No wonder the public are fed up.

Millions still have not had any financial support. Hundreds of thousands have lost their jobs in hospitality or retail, with little alternative in sight. Clarity Products in my borough employs residents who are disabled, but despite money being claimed from the taxman for them to be furloughed by their boss, Nicholas Marks, many still have not been paid. People cannot get a new job because they were furloughed before the regulations were less restrictive. People will not go and test because they cannot afford to self-isolate. In my own community, 75% of claims for isolation payments are being reviewed.

Parents of children over the age of one but under five cannot form a support bubble, as if a 14-month-old is no trouble at all compared with an 11-month-old. Nursery staff are terrified because nobody can explain why primaries are being closed to reduce the number of community interactions but nurseries are not. This legislation removes the school run as a legitimate reason to leave the house. Ministers tell us that that is to reduce virus transmission, but they cannot explain that to a family that has one child in pre-school and one in primary. Ministers cannot explain that to the kids in special schools, whose needs seem to be simply an afterthought at best; or to those who still do not have access to the internet, and whose teachers now have to tell them that they still do not have laptops. I pay tribute to the headteachers in Walthamstow, who told us today that their first task has been to buy sandwiches for the kids who are hungry and vulnerable but whose families do not qualify for free school meals.

Care homes are ignored in the regulations, so it is not clear whether visits are still possible. The shielded have been told again to lock down, but nobody can explain why they are not a priority within the priority groups for vaccination. The homeless are now being left out again on our streets this winter.

This Government have been consistent only in avoiding scrutiny, whether by shutting this place down or ignoring questions. Ministers have finally admitted today that they will not tell us what performance standards they are holding Serco to for the test and trace scheme, but apparently they do know that Serco has not broken them. What a kick in the teeth it is to all in the NHS who are working flat out to save lives when they see these private companies make millions from the NHS but fail to deliver. Meanwhile, NHS staff struggle for oxygen supplies, turn ambulances away and do not know when they will get the vaccine themselves.

We will vote for these regulations. We want them to work, but if we want to persuade the public to support them, Ministers owe it to the public to own up to what has gone wrong—to say, “Sorry it is so confusing. Sorry it is so chaotic. Sorry you can’t hug your grandparents right now.” Every family making sacrifices deserves that apology, and they deserve to have the Government do better.

15:59

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) [V]]

It would be an understatement to say that people have restriction fatigue. I, like others, hate having to have the sorts of curtailments on people’s freedoms that a lockdown means. It is right—indeed, it is essential—that these regulations be time-limited, and I welcome the stipulations on regular reviews. I support the regulations because the contrast and choice before us is not between having curtailments or not; it is about the very difficult things that we do now as a country and a society, against even harder things that we would have to do in the future.

The data are startling in Hampshire, as elsewhere, with a dramatic growth in case rates since the start of December. Without truly stringent measures, there is a real risk of overwhelming the NHS. “Overwhelming” and “overtopping” have become commonplace phrases, but we need to stop, pause and reflect on their true meaning and implications far beyond covid.

The difference now, of course, as the Secretary of State has said, is vaccination. We can see, ultimately, a way through. It has been impressive to see the speed with which the Hampshire vaccination programme has got off the ground. Clearly, all hands now have to be put to the programme. I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said about the removal of red-tape barriers to volunteering. Clearly, close attention needs to be given to every stage of the vaccine’s production, distribution and administration.

As well as business support during lockdown, we are clearly going to need a sector by sector plan for how to come out of this, including for pubs, hotels and so-called non-essential retail, which are essential to our high streets and to the events business. We are going to need a national effort and mission on the return to school—preparing ahead of it, repairing the impact that this period will have again on children’s lives, and trying to get them back on track. It will need different approaches for different age groups and different individual children. Some will have fallen back in some subjects, not others. Some, of course, will have had truly terrible experiences in this time, and that will also put a strain on children’s services departments, which we need to recognise. More generally, more attention than ever before will need to be given to the mental health of children and young people, and to a return to physical exercise in some cases.

There will need to be specific interventions in schools. The tragedy, of course, is that some of those had already started. The £1 billion fund is in place and, obviously, needs to be kept under review. I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said earlier about one-to-one tuition, but we also need to think about what needs to be done to overcome the constraints on that. In some places it is already hard to find supply teachers, let alone one-to-one tutors. There will be a more important role than ever before for volunteer readers, mentoring programmes and strengthening links with business. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can assure me that that is being considered across Government.

16:02

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]]

Just over a month ago, this House voted on the tier system. I voted against. It was clearly inadequate to get the virus under control. I warned that a lockdown would be needed in the new year if the Government took their foot of the brake, but they ploughed on, recklessly ignoring their own scientists, adding to our shameful death toll.

I voted against the tier system also because of the lack of economic support. This lockdown is now necessary because Government failures let the virus run out of control, but lockdown alone will not be enough to drive the virus down and keep it down. A wider public health package must be in place alongside the vaccine. That must be driven by the principles of a zero-covid suppression strategy, which has seen the virus virtually eliminated in many east Asian and Pacific countries, and which, if followed here, would have saved thousands of lives and allowed us to reopen the economy.

The lockdown must also go hand in hand with an emergency financial package for our communities. This out-of-touch Government can tell people to stay at home, but too many simply cannot afford to do so. Poverty and destitution should not be the price our communities pay for Government failures to tackle the virus. Just as the banks were once bailed out, we need a people’s bail-out for our communities if we are to defeat this virus.

That means all non-essential workers who cannot work from home being furloughed on full pay. All parents who cannot work because they are dealing with childcare should be guaranteed furlough on full pay. Sick pay should be introduced at real living wage levels so that people can afford to isolate. It means a minimum income guarantee, including for all self-employed people, and rent relief as well as an evictions ban so that no one loses their home. Every child should be guaranteed a laptop and internet access to learn at home, and with universities moved online, tuition fees should be scrapped and accommodation costs reimbursed.

This Government’s actions, inactions, delays and negligence have unnecessarily condemned tens of thousands of people in our communities to early graves. I hope that justice is one day done. Their lack of financial support for people is causing wider social harm. It is shameful that that has not been addressed today.

16:05

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]]

I am glad to be able to take part in this debate. There is no doubt that this lockdown was needed and required, and quite rightly it has now been enacted. However, my constituency covers the vast rural area of the Exmoor and the levels in Somerset, and one of the things I would ask the Government to consider is the roll-out of the vaccine. As in many rural constituencies, a lot of my area is a long way from next door, and it is very difficult for people to get to vaccine centres. At the moment, unless we have more places doing vaccines, it is very hard to see what we can do to quicken them up, especially in areas such as mine. There is no doubt that we need to do more.

I will praise, if I may, the four district councils in Somerset—not all of my persuasion. Not only have they done a remarkable job in getting information out across the districts and the county to make sure we are kept apprised of what is available, they have made sure that where hospitals are being used and where they can use healthcare, those services are being put forward very nicely indeed. However, I cannot say that about the county council. People have heard me talk about Somerset County Council in this Chamber: quite simply, it is to be left wanting at the very highest level. I am ashamed to say that it is of the Government’s persuasion, but it is not doing the job.

There is one area that I want to concentrate on, which is of course the Hinckley Point C nuclear power station. We must keep it going, not only to fulfil our commitment but because, due to the way Hinckley works and the continuous pour of cement, it is crucial. It is a national and international infrastructure project, and it is of enormous importance locally and nationally to make sure that we keep the workers there safe, but also keep them working.

This means that a lot of the people who live in the area, who are of an age where they tend to have children, are finding it very hard to get childcare while ensuring they can continue their work. Those people are crucially needed on site, so my conclusion is that when it comes to schools, we need to think about this very carefully. I am very grateful for what the Government have done and for the way in which the BBC, for once, has actually stepped up to the mark, but we need to look at what we do with those children whose parents are working. I have enormous distribution warehouses in my constituency that need people there all the time to keep the system going and keep the supply chain alive and well. I urge the Government to make sure we keep on vaccinating those who need to be vaccinated to keep the economy going, and keep the vaccines local. That is crucial. If we can achieve those things, I believe we will have done our job, not only as a Government but as parliamentarians.

16:08

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]]

I will support these measures, but I regret the need to implement them. The public are weary of the Government’s U-turns, dither and delay at crucial moments throughout this pandemic, when what we needed was decisive leadership. Nothing highlights the Government’s incompetence more than their approach to education, and to schools in particular.

At the end of last term, the Government threatened legal action to keep schools open in Greenwich, while at the same time planning to keep all schools closed in January. All the time, the Government were aware that a new variant was ripping through Kent and the south-east, and today, the Government recognised that this new variant was rapidly causing schools to be a vector in our communities. It has been obvious from the start of this pandemic that education was going to be severely disrupted due to school bubbles having to regularly isolate, and that online learning was going to be a regular part of children’s education, but the Secretary of State is yet again way behind the curve. He failed to get devices out to children during the first lockdown, and according to Ofqual, 1.8 million children in this country face lockdown without access to digital devices. A report in July warned the Government of a second spike this winter and also warned there was a possibility of a new variant, yet there has been too little urgency from the Government to get devices out to those who need them. Too many children are going to suffer due to the inability of the Government to read the facts before them.

Now our schools are closed, and confidence in the Government is shot through. Teachers have seen how the virus has ripped through their schools, and parents are worried for their families. To create confidence in the safety of schools, staff will need to be vaccinated as soon as possible. Teachers do not need scientists or experts to tell them the risk to which they are exposed when they are in school. Figures published today in TES show that the infection rate among staff in Greenwich schools was almost three times the rate of the local community. Teachers see these figures, and they need to be confident that they are safe when they return to their classrooms. They have seen at first hand the number of colleagues and pupils forced to isolate and those who have tested positive. The Government must not wait to be forced into yet another U-turn. Teachers need to be tested alongside other essential workers, and the Government should accept that now.

16:11

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) [V]]

I want to make a few short points about the impact of covid on babies and young people, but first can I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his excellent support for the early years review that I am chairing, which will soon announce its recommendations? My review has heard from many families what a tough time they have had in lockdown. Many struggle at the best of times with a new baby. Add to that being in lockdown with other children who also need attention, and even the simplest of tasks can feel like a massive challenge.

First, I sincerely urge my right hon. Friend to send an instruction to all our superb perinatal workers—from health visitors to mental health and breastfeeding advisers —to keep providing the support and advice that new parents need, not just for reasons of safeguarding but for the many who are really struggling to cope right now.

Secondly, I heartily commend the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and others in Government for their determination to keep early years settings open at this time. It is not just to help parents work from home, but, crucially, so that infants and young children do not lose out on their future development through this lockdown.

Finally, I am really concerned, as so many colleagues are, about any loss of schooling for our young people. While, like many, I applaud the BBC for introducing an element of curriculum-based teaching, I would urge my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care, for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and for Education to join forces, and press the BBC to fulfil its role as our public service broadcaster and to take on the job of committing to teaching the whole curriculum.

It is great that the Beeb will deliver reading, writing and maths to primary school children, but at secondary school the challenges are different. Students are studying a variety of subjects at different points, so the BBC should build a pick and mix package of lessons for students to choose what they need, and then teachers, who have done such a superb job under such difficult circumstances, could use those resources as a core to build from. Exercise, nutrition and even support for mental health could form a part of each day’s televised curriculum, giving a bit of a boost to young people.

Our national broadcaster benefits from £157 a year from each licence. This is a chance to provide public service broadcasting at its finest, and it could remove at a stroke the twin challenges of a lack of reliable broadband and a lack of laptop access. Nothing can replace a strong family, good schooling and sound teaching, but our babies and our children and young people deserve the very best that we can provide.

16:14

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this most important debate on the public health crisis facing this country.

I believe that it is right to go into lockdown and stay at home as much as possible to protect ourselves and others, and I will be supporting the measures today. However, these actions should have come much sooner. This is sadly the result of a long line of Government failures, from the lockdown coming too late in March last year, through the fiasco of test and trace, to the chopping and changing of tiers and relaxations in the lead-up to the latest lockdown. I have many concerns about the lockdown, not least economic ones, particularly in respect of people who are not supported at all by Government programmes or the Chancellor’s support packages, but today I will concentrate on just one: the situation in our schools and the impact on public health.

At the eleventh hour, schools were instructed to close. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital skills, I have raised the lack of data and devices for school-age children throughout the pandemic—for the past 10 months—often working with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). Ten months on, it is still not sorted. Even with today’s announcement by the Secretary of State for Education, about 1 million school-age children will lack adequate data and devices to learn effectively. That is a disgrace.

Children in that position have now been classified as vulnerable, compounding the situation in our schools. Schools have been given no guidance on which children are to be in school and which are not. Do they have to impose limits? Should they include spacing? There is no guidance. I have spoken to many headteachers in my area today.

Alternative education hardly gets a mention. It has a frequently changing school population and the devices to do not follow the pupils.

What is the prioritisation for vulnerable children and for children with two key worker parents, one key worker with another parent working full time or a key worker with another parent not in work? Social care and hospitals will come to a standstill if this is not sorted. Teachers cannot be in two places at once: they cannot teach what is potentially more than half the school population in lessons and teach online.

All of those issues need to be addressed for the lockdown to be effective, for our frontline healthcare and social care system to cope, and for all our children and young people to receive an equitable and fair level of education.

16:17

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

None of us wishes to pass such restrictions on all our freedoms. We are a parliamentary democracy that cherishes freedom, but here we are about to pass draconian restrictions on our personal liberties.

Our job must be to encourage, cajole and demand of the Government that they do everything in their power for the vaccines to be manufactured, distributed and offered to our fellow citizens as soon as possible. Ministers are working at breakneck speed. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, his fellow Ministers, senior civil servants in central Government who are managing the vaccination programme, and all the other public stakeholders—the NHS, doctors, nurses—organisations and individuals who are helping to distribute the vaccines as quickly as possible. The more vaccination centres we have properly staffed and resourced with vaccines, the quicker we can vaccinate our constituents, and thus the quicker we can consider lifting these draconian regulations.

Turning to South Leicestershire, yesterday I met the chief executive officer of the local clinical commissioning group, Andy Williams, along with his colleagues from the Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust and Lutterworth GPs. I thank him for meeting me at such short notice. I have been reassured by him and his team that they are working to ensure that my constituents are offered the opportunity of receiving the vaccine in Lutterworth, Blaby and across South Leicestershire.

I know that the House will want to pay tribute to NHS stakeholders such as Andy Williams and the CCG for all the work they are doing to open vaccination centres wherever possible in each of our constituencies across the country. I impressed on Andy Williams that the decision we are about to take today as legislators of the sovereign British Parliament in restricting freedoms and, in effect, closing down large parts of our economy and our education centres can be lifted only when he and his NHS colleagues succeed in their logistical organisation of opening and operating vaccination centres. It is right that we scrutinise the work of the CCGs across our country and all related NHS and other stakeholders involved in this mammoth task. I will be supporting the Government today, but only under the clear understanding that they are doing all they can to obtain vaccines and distribute them quickly to all our constituents.

16:20

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Millions of citizens will be watching helplessly as the Government plod towards another damaging lockdown and respond to the pied piper advisers in SAGE and their mournful dirge of fear and terror. That is where we are going with these restrictions today. Unlike the poor children of the town of Hamelin, at least we know what the destination is, because we have been there before. We have seen the economic damage that lockdowns do. We have seen the damage they do to people’s mental health. We have seen the damage they do to education. We know what lockdown is doing to our country’s finances, yet, despite what the Government tell us, we are doing this lockdown to achieve the aims we were told would be achieved by the first lockdown. We had suppressed the virus. We had put our foot on its neck. That was the term the Prime Minister used, yet once, twice and now for the third time we are doing exactly the same thing.

I understand that the Government have tried to support industry and people who have been affected, and that is to be welcomed. Coming from Northern Ireland as a Unionist, I know that the support measures introduced by the Assembly in Northern Ireland could not have been done had we not been part of the Union and not had the resources that the Union makes available to devolved Administrations. Those who cry after a break-up of the Union ought to remember that. It is only by being part of a bigger unit that we can ensure we at least have the support measures.

We have this lockdown, and I am fairly sure that the 31 March date is there because the Government intend it to last for that period.

[Jim Shannon]

Does my right hon. Friend share the concern that I and many others have about the mental health of children? It has been strained like never before. Does he feel it is time for there to be online counselling services in every school, to ensure that young people have the help they need as a matter of urgency?

[Sammy Wilson]

That is one of the points I was going to come on to. If we are in for this long lockdown, the Government first of all cannot continue to abandon the self-employed who have been affected by previous lockdowns and still find themselves penniless and without any support.

Secondly, the Government cannot allow children’s education to be disrupted for that length of time. As a former teacher, I know how long periods—even summer holidays—can disrupt children’s education, and it is the poorest people who are affected by that, because very often they do not have the resources and the children do not have the space. The parents do not have the ability to help their children through the time off school. It is important that schools get back. Despite the impression given by some trade unions, I know that most teachers do want to get teaching their children in school. Indeed, some of them have been on to me this weekend, saying, “We want to get back to school, but we fear for our safety”—because there is an atmosphere of fear. Some priority must be given to ensuring that teachers are treated as frontline workers and are vaccinated quickly, so that they can continue to have face-to-face education with children.

Northern Ireland depends very much on aviation, because of the sea barrier between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There needs to be a package of support for the aviation industry. There is no strategy there, and a package of support needs to be made available.

The one thing I would say is that these restrictions, if they are going to be in place until 31 March, have to be examined regularly by this Parliament, and there needs to be a commitment by the Minister to bring them back on a regular basis, so that they can be voted on.

16:24

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

May I begin by acknowledging the difficulty of the task faced by Health Ministers and the Prime Minister in this crisis? We have a proportion of the public who want a full lockdown, irrespective of the consequences to the economy, and we have another proportion of the population who want no lockdown whatever, irrespective of the consequences to public health. However, even those who reluctantly accept the need for further restrictions must be mindful of the balance between the authority of Government and the responsibility of citizens, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) that we need to have sufficient parliamentary oversight during the period for which these restrictions are in place. I hope to hear from the Minister a Government commitment to more debate and regular votes during this period so that Parliament can express its view on behalf of the public.

I would like to say a few words about the vaccine programme. First, I congratulate the Government on having a world-leading immunisation programme, with two very difficult elements that have to be kept in balance—the supply of the vaccine and an adequate number of vaccinators. Of course, those two elements of the logistics have to go hand in hand and at the same speed—not an easy task for Ministers.

We will have to have a surge capacity in vaccinators to be able to deal with demographic and regional differences across the country and to avoid rate-limiting steps in the process. I made a point to the Prime Minister this morning about how difficult it has been for former GPs such as myself to get back into the vaccinating process and about the number of courses we have been asked to complete. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State announce this afternoon that there will be some changes to that, and I think that is the fastest action I have ever known from a Government in 28 years—raise the issue with the Prime Minister in the morning, and get an answer from the Secretary of State in the afternoon. Incidentally, I think there is an easy fix to this problem. We can get those who want to come into the programme to fulfil two of the better modules—Core Knowledge for COVID-19 Vaccinators and Minimum Requirements for Staff Returning to the NHS.

However, we will also require more scrutiny of the vaccine process itself if we are to be confident in endorsing the public health policy that we have. We need to look better at the modelling and the data that is out there about the effectiveness of a single dose in creating sufficient population immunity, if that is to take place rather than the two doses, and we need to look at an assessment of the Pfizer vaccine in producing continued immune response in the three weeks after the first dose, as was originally envisaged, and in the extended extend 12-week period. It is essential that we know that these things are based on proper scientific data. The key to the success of the strategy will be our ability to understand the data and to unlock the lockdown and get back to normal.

This has been a very difficult time for everyone. We must at least learn the lessons for the future, because the pandemic will not be a once-in-a-generation event.

16:27

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]]

The recent sharp rise in covid-19 cases across the UK makes it imperative that we have a national lockdown. One in 50 people in England has the virus. In Wirral, there were 606 cases per 100,000 in the week to 1 January—well above the rate in the average area in England, which had 481. Sadly, nearly 600 coronavirus-related deaths have been registered in Wirral since the start of the pandemic. My thoughts are with the families and friends of those people at this very sad time.

We all have to do everything we can to halt the spread of the virus, to save lives and to protect the NHS. As people right across the country play their part by staying at home, the Government must do their job and deliver the vaccine. As part of that, they must make it easier for retired NHS staff to help with the vaccination programme. One retired clinician has written to me to say that he is trying to register as a vaccinator but found the NHS Professionals website unusable. The Government must take immediate action to address that and to make it easier for those with valuable medical expertise to volunteer at this time of national crisis. He also asked whether vaccinators will receive priority for the vaccine as frontline NHS staff. That is something that the Government must do to protect these people and to encourage others to come forward.

With these national restrictions in force, the Government must step up and provide real support to the businesses and workers who will be affected up and down the country. Will the Minister impress on the Chancellor the importance of extending statutory sick pay to all workers, including the self-employed, and raising its level?

In December, Sir Michael Marmot reported:

“England entered the pandemic with its public services in a depleted state and its tax and benefit system regeared to the disadvantage of lower income groups… The levels of social, environmental and economic inequality in society are damaging health and wellbeing.”

Will the Minister take action on the social inequalities that are driving health inequalities, and join me and others on both sides of the House in calling on the Chancellor to stop the £20 a week cut to universal credit?

Last month, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care stood at the Dispatch Box and assured me that his Government are increasing the public health grant next year, but a junior Minister subsequently told me that local authority spending on the public health grant will merely be maintained, so will the Secretary of State clear up the confusion in his Department, commit clearly to increasing the public health grant and set out how much that increase will be?

We all have a part to play in tackling this virus, and the Government must ensure they deliver on the vaccine, provide businesses and workers with the support they need, invest in public health departments and protect the NHS as a public service.

16:30

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

I will try to be brief. The two areas I want to focus on are getting out of the position in which we find ourselves, and how we live with this virus for a long time to come.

I think people generally accept that we are where we are because of the new strain of the virus, and that the Prime Minister had a difficult choice—lock down again or risk the capacity of the NHS—but people want to get out of these restrictions as soon as possible. The cost of this virus is written on the nation’s finances and on people’s livelihoods, their mental health and their children’s future.

We now have a clear path out of the lockdown with the vaccine, but we need to see what the road map to recovery looks like and start delivering on it. This is a small boats moment. I very much hope that the Government will actively engage with and mobilise community pharmacies, growing the base of locations where vaccinations can take place and enabling vaccine delivery 24/7.

With every person vaccinated, we get closer to the end of the tunnel that we keep talking about. But freedom is not just about the ability to leave our house; it is about life chances and opportunities. Areas like the north, which have effectively been in lockdown for months, need a clear road map for economic recovery, too. The pandemic cannot lead to further deprivation and more closed opportunities for communities like mine in Barrow and Furness. We need to roll out stimulus packages so that we are able to build back from this.

We also need to take people with us, and I applaud the Government’s efforts at transparency on the data they are sharing, but we need to go further by sharing daily vaccination levels by area and by being clear about the point on the journey when we start easing restrictions and what the journey back down the tier system will look like.

Finally, it appears that we will be living with this virus for some time. Through incredible endeavour, we have a vaccine that works against the strain that is currently in circulation in the UK. There is already disquiet about the South African strain, so we need a clear plan for how we live with this virus and its children. There is an opportunity to strengthen the bioscience and biomanufacturing industries in the UK. The vaccines taskforce has made huge strides in this area already, but we should be looking to expand the tools on our belt, not just vaccines but monoclonal antibodies, to help those who have suppressed immune responses and for whom a vaccine may not be the answer.

We cannot afford any more delays. Every £1 spent on prevention will save many more pounds in the future, save lives and get life back to normal sooner rather than later.

16:33

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]]

Even before Christmas, anxiety was building and building as scientists warned about what was ahead. The public could see what was coming, and it seemed that the only person who did not want to face up to the scale of the current covid-19 situation was the Prime Minister. At one of the MP briefings with the Secretary of State, the Public Health England lead clearly stated that the change point for London came at the end of November, yet no action was taken by Ministers until it was far too late, again.

At every point in this crisis, the Government have been reactive, not proactive, waiting until we are at a crisis point to do anything. We have over 76,000 people dead, families pushed to the edge, and hard-working healthcare workers and hospitals at breaking point. This is not the situation in other countries, yet it is here, and it is not all down to the new variant. The failure of this Government to plan more than a few days ahead means that people, organisations and businesses are given days’—sometimes hours’—notice of changes to rules. People cannot live like that and should not have to. This anxiety is perhaps most acutely seen with young people. Today, I spoke to the head of our fantastic Luton sixth form. There are 752 BTEC students, many of whom are taking exams this month. Again, they are left out of guidance, left waiting for confirmation of their futures. It is time that this Government stopped treating BTEC students as an afterthought and give them the certainty that they deserve. If, as we all want to see, we are to be ready to get back into classrooms in Luton North and across the country at the end of February, nursery staff, teachers, school-support staff and school cleaners must be included as part of a vaccination strategy.

Will a vaccination strategy be published any time soon? Ramping up is not a coherent strategy. We should know by now how long it will take to manufacture the necessary vaccines. What measures will be put in place to make sure that they are disseminated and delivered? Why not publish a schedule of delivery? Will people who cannot be vaccinated be protected with ongoing shielding measures? What is the estimated critical mass needed to be vaccinated before we can start to relax restrictions? What measures will need to be introduced or be continued while vaccinations are rolled out, or, if vaccinations fail, to combat any new variants? These are just the very basics of any vaccination programme, yet we have heard very few answers from this Government. To provide hope and a route out of the restrictions before us, we need to see an exit strategy. The public needs to be informed at every step of the way, not only when it is too late.

00:06

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House staff for ensuring that we were able to be recalled today for the second time in a week to debate these important matters. It is important that this House is at the centre of this debate.

I recognise that the new variant, the significant growth in cases and the resulting pressure on the NHS means that we are in a different position than the one that we faced in November. For that reason, I will not be opposing these regulations, as I did when the Government brought them forward in November. None the less, I do agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) said, which is that running the regulations all the way to the end of March is too far a distance in the future. It seems that the obvious checkpoint for the Government to come back to this House to seek the authority to proceed is the middle of February, when the Prime Minister set a very clear goal to have vaccinated the four first groups that the JCVI set out and when the Government will have to make a decision about whether schools return after the February half-term. It seems to me that that would be the point when the Government should bring that information to the House, set out their proposals hopefully to relax restrictions and to get children back to school, and seek the House’s authority to do so. I suggest that Ministers go away and reflect on that and come back to us next week when the House returns after the recess. I think that that would be welcomed by colleagues.

[Steve Brine]

On the point about schools, I just wonder what my right hon. Friend’s view is on the vaccination of teachers. If keeping schools open is such a priority for the Government, as it is and as it should be, then surely however difficult it is to move that group up the vaccination list, it has to be something that we consider. To open up schools after half-term, it has to be something that we do pretty much pronto.

[Mr Harper]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, and it has been made by others, but I have to say that, for me—obviously, I am not a clinical expert—the JCVI has got it right. No matter how important schools are, the priority must be focused on reducing the number of people who are going to die and the pressure on the health service. Those are the right choices to make. The risk to many teachers—those who are much younger and those who do not have underlying health conditions—is very low. If they are in the high-risk groups with, for example, a serious underlying health condition, they will already be on the list to be vaccinated earlier according to what has been set out. That is the right approach. As soon as we move away from that, every group of frontline workers potentially exposed to the virus will make an argument that they should be higher up the list, and that would not be a sensible way for the Government to proceed, so they should stick to the process set out by the JCVI.

I have two final points. On the vaccination schedule, maximum transparency, as the Prime Minister said, is welcome. In reporting daily vaccination numbers—by daily I assume that we mean seven days a week, not just five—I urge the Government to publish as much information as possible, including by region and by cohort, so that we can see how this is going and which regions of the country are going well. Potentially, we could have some positive competition where people are trying to do better. My own region in Gloucestershire is making good progress, and I would be pleased to see that information in the public domain. The agreed delivery schedule for suppliers ought to be published, as that would give people confidence and we could all focus, putting it in terms that the Prime Minister would use, on getting vaccination done. That should be the nation’s No. 1 goal in the next few weeks.

Finally—and I know that this has been discussed outside the House—vaccinating priority groups does not just reduce the risk of death by a huge amount, by about 80%, but reduces hospitalisations by almost 60%, which reduces the pressure on the national health service. Both those factors mean that once we have vaccinated the first four groups we can be bold about looking forward to relaxing restrictions, and I hope that the Government can come forward at the earliest possible opportunity.

16:40

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]]

I am immensely proud of the people of Hartlepool for the way in which they have faced up to this crisis and the spirit of determination that they have shown in overcoming the barriers of the pandemic. I especially thank all the volunteers in Hartlepool for the work that they have done. They have done so much and kept our communities together, and I would like to record my gratitude for the work that they have done.

On lockdown, there are many unresolved issues, particularly on work. There is a distinct lack of clarity regarding the rules about who should or should not work, and who should stay at home. On the recent example of schools, why did the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health and Social Care persist on Monday with their line that schools should go back, only for the Prime Minister on Tuesday to say that schools should be shut? The implications for health and safety and for work are enormous, and the lack of clarity does not help my constituents in matters like that.

On health provision, I would like more from the Government on inputs into health commitments in my constituency, particularly on mental health. The ramping up of vaccine provision is essential, and is important for my constituents’ wellbeing. Like everyone else in the country, the people of Hartlepool just want to see the light at the end of the tunnel that is always being mentioned. They want the roll-out of the vaccine to be ratcheted up so that the nightmare can end for them and order can be re-established sooner, rather than later. They understand the need for the lockdown, and the majority support it, but they also want clear leadership and direction from the Government—no more dithering and delay. Given the current R rate in Hartlepool, it would be irresponsible not to support the position adopted by the Government or to disobey the rules, but I say to the Minister, please, please do not test our patience. The people of Hartlepool have survived two lockdowns. They will survive a third lockdown. They have the stamina and community spirit to do it, but I urge the Minister not to let them down: get those vaccines out there and get our people and businesses supported here in Hartlepool and the north-east.

16:43

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) [V]]

I am in total agreement with the Government that the emergence of the new, more transmissible strain of the virus has, once again, changed the logic of where we stand and how we should act. This week, we have effectively ended the difficult balancing act of trying to split the difference between containing the virus and keeping as much of our economy and society open as we can. A combination of having two safe and effective vaccines and the emergence of the new covid variant means that our focus is now overwhelmingly on containment. That is the right choice and, indeed, probably the only choice that any Government could make at this moment in time. For Ministers to acknowledge this is not to show weakness, nor was it wrong to try to do everything in our power to retain some semblance of normality, especially in our schools. Let us not for a moment pretend that there are not very serious trade-offs in re-entering lockdown: the pain felt by the lonely; the struggling business owners; children unable to attend class and parents trying to raise them at home while working. This is all real and deep and miserable. None the less, the data is impossible to argue with. One in 50 people in our country is ill with this virus, and the numbers are rising. I therefore warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that we will vaccinate all those in tiers 1 to 4 of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s strategy by the middle of next month.

It is great news that 1.3 million people have now been vaccinated—more than in the rest of Europe combined—but we have no time to waste in accelerating the roll-out. Every week that we are in this situation costs thousands of lives and billions of pounds. I have the highest regard for the vaccines Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and wish him every success in mobilising every deployable resource to combat this monster. Any business that can fight weak links in the supply chain should be enlisted to help. Any building that can sensibly be turned into a vaccination hub should be requisitioned. Administering the vaccine should include the full use of the armed forces, dentists, community pharmacists, vets and retired medical professionals. We must not be encumbered by needless bureaucracy, and we must not be constrained by normal working hours. I welcome the new daily vaccine statistics that we will receive from Monday. To help monitor progress, it would also be helpful to know our projected weekly trajectory for getting priority groups vaccinated.

I want to focus quickly on one other issue: maintaining the highest quality education offer this winter. Our schools must not hesitate in accepting the children of key workers, and, if a school has an unusually high proportion of key workers’ children, options should be looked at with neighbouring schools to provide support. We need to focus on ensuring rigorous attendance by children in remote learning, and to ensure that no child misses out because of a lack of internet or appropriate devices in their home. I warmly welcome today’s announcement from the Education Secretary on that point.

This is a national crisis and I am absolutely confident that we will overcome it together.

16:47

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]]

So here we are again: another month, another late lockdown, and all the harm that lockdown brings with it—lost learning, lost livelihoods and loneliness. Yet once again, this drastic and painful action has tragically become our only option, given the alarming rate at which the virus is tearing through our country and the immense pressure on the NHS.

A clear exit strategy from lockdown, to which vaccines are central, is critical so my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I reiterate once again our request to Ministers to publish a clear plan as to how they will meet their initial target of vaccinating the most vulnerable, but also all adults beyond that. This plan needs to involve not just the NHS, but the military, the private sector, the voluntary sector, local government and community pharmacies, whether they are big chains or independents. We need a 24/7 vaccination programme brought to every high street in the country, so that those who are in hard-to-reach groups or those who find the hubs hard to reach can access these life-saving jabs. If the Prime Minister is serious when he says that every needle in every arm makes a difference, why is a physiotherapist in my constituency who has completed all the paperwork and training yet to be called upon? We cannot afford to lose a single day.

Alongside vaccination, we have to continue finding, testing, tracing and isolating every case, and, importantly, supporting every individual with the virus and their contacts. Although we will be better protected from serious illness through vaccination, we must stop transmission, not least given the emergence of ever more variants. That is why it is utterly astonishing that none of the announcements in recent days has mentioned test, trace, isolate. Have Ministers given up on this vital and basic public health tool? People need to be paid to stay at home for 10 days if they have been told to self-isolate, and that is on full pay—not sick pay and not £500 after lots of red tape. It is far cheaper than endless lockdowns. It must come with practical support too.

Finally, compliance and trust is built through transparent communication. What are we all working towards? In particular, what do the numbers need to look like before Ministers will reopen schools? We must not underestimate the impact on children’s learning and wellbeing, and the pressures and stresses that parents, who feel like they have been constantly forgotten about, are under. That is why a robust exit strategy is key, and it is about much more than just vaccination. We cannot keep blaming mutants and variants, we cannot keep blaming the public, and we cannot afford any more deadly delays and incompetence. Responsibility lies squarely at the Government’s door to deliver an efficient vaccination plan, to improve test, trace and isolate, and to communicate openly with the public.

16:50

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

All Governments have to make difficult decisions, but no other in peacetime has had to restrict our freedom so profoundly, and our role as MPs is to scrutinise that. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team for the briefings with medical experts provided to all Members to give professional interpretation of the data. However, every person we represent wants to know that the action that is being taken today is absolutely necessary and that there is a clear way out so that people can get their lives back as soon as possible.

The clear way out that my right hon. Friend has identified is the vaccine roll-out. The fact that the UK has led the way in getting two vaccines approved and has already had more people vaccinated than all the countries in Europe put together is a significant achievement. Paragraph 3(2) of the regulations therefore needs some clarification, because it changes the end date of the regulations to 31 March of this year, beyond the date when experts estimate that all those in the most vulnerable groups will have been vaccinated. I understand the need for caution, but will that caution give room for delay? I know that that is not the Secretary of State’s intent, so will he come to the House regularly to update us on the roll-out of the vaccine programme so that we can scrutinise, raise issues that we encounter with him and perhaps identify more unnecessary red tape that needs to be removed?

With regard to the sequencing of the vaccination programme, the Government need to look again at the priority given to vaccinating teachers in our communities. We know the damage done to our children’s education through this disruption and the pressure on family life when schools are closed so, in order to protect the ability of schools to reopen and continue to be open in the coming months, and to protect children’s futures from more disruption, we need to think about putting teachers into the priority group.

I wholeheartedly thank the whole of our North Hampshire NHS team, our local trust, Hampshire County Council and our amazing local borough council for the incredible work that they have done to help to keep my community safe in the recent months. It is with a heavy heart that I support these measures, but we can be in no doubt at all that they are essential today.

16:52

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Cases in the Wakefield district have gone up by over a third in a week. They are still lower at the moment than in November, when Pinderfields Hospital was pushed into crisis, but they are rising fast, and none of us wants to go through that crisis again. That is why measures are clearly needed, but this is a really difficult time for everyone. I want to thank the staff of Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, the NHS healthcare staff and the key workers working non-stop to get us through this difficult time, to whom we owe so much. The community hubs we set up in Normanton, Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, supported by Wakefield Council, are working hard again, with volunteers and neighbours helping each other, but we urgently need more support from Government for businesses and families, especially those excluded from economic support from the start.

We need rapid action to roll out the vaccine, and we need the programme to work. That is why I want to raise concerns about the potential threat to the vaccine programme from the new South African variant. Senior scientists have said that this may be less susceptible to the vaccines because of the additional mutations. I know the Government are worried about it, but I do not understand why they are not taking urgent action to prevent it from being brought into and spreading across the UK. Rightly, the Government have stopped direct flights from South Africa, but the first wave shows that that is not enough. Genomic evidence quoted in our Home Affairs Committee report in August showed that 34% of imported covid cases came into the UK from Spain and 29% came from France. Less than 1% came directly from China. So when the Prime Minister says that we have taken strong action by stopping direct flights, he is kidding himself. The South African variant has already been identified in France, Austria, Norway, Japan and Australia. Currently, our border checks are weak and not taken seriously. Travellers are not tested before or on arrival. Untested, they get public transport from the airport and pop into the shops to get milk before going home, and the checks on self-isolation arrangements are minimal.

The Financial Times says that the Government’s plans to introduce pre-travel testing have been delayed because the Department for Transport wants UK residents to be exempt. If true, that is ridiculous and dangerous, because covid does not discriminate, and we cannot afford delay. Other countries have strict rules including quarantine hotels, regular tests, airport testing, repeated testing and quarantine taxis with screens—look at New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Italy or South Korea. The UK has to get serious about this too. We failed to do that the first time round and, as a result, we face our third difficult lockdown. We cannot afford further waves of this virus. We have to make sure we do not make those mistakes again.

16:55

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

I again congratulate the Government on their amazing foresight and on getting so far ahead of the game with the vaccination programme. A few minutes ago, I spoke to a prominent Gravesend GP, Dr Rubin Minhas. For the last couple of weeks, he and his team have been busy contacting local over-80s to book them in for their inoculations at the surgery. In order to do that, he has had to get all his staff on the phones—all the receptionists, and husbands, wives and partners. That is having a real effect on the day-to-day work of the surgery. We should be giving GPs more help with bookings, especially since this will ramp up as more vaccine becomes available and it is given to different groups.

Throughout all this, many people have been really quite heroic, especially all the people who go to work day after day knowing that they have an underlying health condition that makes them particularly vulnerable to the virus. One headteacher in my constituency has shown what can only be described as extraordinary bravery, going into school every day and risking his life. We all know of people in our constituencies—there are perhaps tens of thousands of them around the country—who knowingly put their lives at risk every single day in the public sector and the private sector, in schools, supermarkets, hospitals and food packaging plants. I am glad that such people will soon be inoculated, but I do not think it is right that there should be any acceleration for those working in particular settings such as schools who are not in vulnerable groups. That would delay what the Prime Minister describes as the firebreak, whereby we deal with the people who are most likely to die and stop deaths going off the cliff.

We need a can-do attitude. In rolling out this massive programme of vaccination, it is critical that everyone in the public service shows the can-do attitude that we have witnessed from all the staff at Darent Valley Hospital who have been looking after my constituents over all these months. All of us in public service should be following their example to do everything we can do to get these first four groups vaccinated. This is not the time for bureaucracy or for finding reasons why something cannot be done or why it is too difficult. I was horrified to hear that one hospital received 3,000 doses of vaccine on the Wednesday before Christmas but did not start using it until nearly five days later. Everyone in this country —especially those of us paid from the public purse—must treat this vaccination programme with the greatest urgency. This is a national emergency, and there should be no room for anyone who is not on a war footing to get these early groups vaccinated.

16:59

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]]

I am going to vote for this legislation; it is sadly necessary, as today’s awful covid figures demonstrate. I want to speak briefly about how we help people get through the difficult period ahead as we vote today to lock down the country. If we are going to affect so many lives and livelihoods, and if we are going to ask our citizens to help the nation by doing the right thing and making sacrifices, then we as a nation have to do the right thing by them. We need to provide the support that people need to enable us all to work together to get through this.

In the short time available, I will mention three specific areas where we need to do more. The first is businesses, especially small businesses and the hospitality sector. Business rates relief and additional grants are welcome, but for many businesses, their premises costs are the biggest burden. They still have to pay rent, and for many it is unrealistic to think that they can keep building up debt without some additional support. I urge the Government to consider a scheme of shared rental burden, where the renter and the landlord, as well as the Government and the bank or mortgage lender, all take part of the responsibility. The country bailed out the banks during the financial crisis; they should step up and be part of the solution now. There are models elsewhere, such as Australia, that we can look at as a basis for that.

Secondly, as I said to the Prime Minister today, so many people still are not being helped by the self-employment income support scheme. We have now had nine months to come up with a plan to support those workers—people who have worked hard, paid their taxes and now are not getting a fair deal. There are potential solutions out there, and I urge Ministers once again to look at the proposals from the Federation of Small Businesses, among others, to find creative ways to help people who are really struggling.

Many of my constituents are self-employed, and many Mancunians work in our world-leading creative industries. Our festival industry alone is worth £1.7 billion to the UK economy and supports 85,000 jobs. Festival organisers are struggling to get insurance, and they are asking for a Government-backed insurance scheme to enable festivals to be planned with confidence. If we do not help out, many will be cancelled in the ongoing uncertainty, and we will miss out not just on an important cultural part of our summer but on the economic benefit that helps communities and supply chains across the nation, so please; I hope the Government will look positively on that.

Finally, our councils have been at the forefront of this crisis, supporting people and co-ordinating services. The Government said that they would give our councils everything they needed to do that, but the overall impact of covid-19 in Greater Manchester is £802 million this year alone and Government funding for the pressures is £404 million, leaving a gap of £398 million. As a result, Manchester City Council faces cuts in the region of £50 million this year. That is not sustainable, so I ask the Government to fulfil their promises and give our local authorities the support they need to help us all get through this.

17:02

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I have not always been able to follow the Government line in the Division Lobby when it has come to further restrictions, because I have felt that, in parts, they have not been proportionate when looking at the wider public health concerns, the operational state of hospitals, or concerns about our loss of liberties and making things worse.

That changed when it came to the vote on introducing tier 4 measures in my county and other parts of the country, because I could see two things. First, the vaccine is in sight, so we do not have this perpetual lockdown situation; the end is in sight. Secondly, hospital operational capacity is incredibly tight; it is on the edge. I have just heard from my chief executive, who tells me that 50% of her beds are occupied by covid patients and all the intensive care units are full. Things have changed, but I believe that we are in the final chapter if we can deliver the vaccine programme. That is why I will vote with the Government this evening.

I never thought that I would see the day when I voted in the Division Lobby to deny pupils their right to attend school, but I feel that is vital. I just want to make one point about the cohort of those being vaccinated. It makes no sense at all to give a vaccination to a 40-year-old teacher rather than that teacher’s 80-year-old mother. If we do so, we may be in a situation where that 40-year-old teacher, although they have been vaccinated, can still transmit the virus to their 80-year-old mother. With the vaccine in short supply, it is the 80-year-old mother who is in danger of losing her life, and that is what keeps us in lockdown. We will never reopen schools if we end up vaccinating teachers rather than that cohort. I really wish hon. Members on both sides of the House would see that that is the best way to get the schools open again.

The other message that I want to send is to young people. Members have rightly talked about their concern about the challenges for young people and their mental health. I feel that too, but I want to make sure that young people are not seen as victims—that we do not make them become victims. This could be their defining moment, when they give something back to the generations that went before them. It will be the sacrifices that they make that save lives.

We must make sure that we put something back. To the older generation for whom sacrifices are being made by the younger generation, I say: ask yourself what can you do to counsel and pass on wisdom to help young people to catch up in school? What can you do to offer an apprenticeship to a school leaver? What can you do to make sure that young people have the confidence to feel that they have achieved great things by making that sacrifice, like those who did during the blitz years? To all those young people, I say: you will come through this stronger. We will make sure that you are rewarded. Just as we will not let older people be killed by this pandemic, please, do not be defeated by it.

17:05

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) [V]]

This new lockdown is a position that none of us wanted to be in, and I begin by paying tribute to all our key workers.

Although there is a light at the end of the tunnel, in the form of the vaccine, this Government’s inability to react quickly and with clear leadership has meant that people have lost their lives and their livelihoods. The Conservative former Chancellor, George Osborne, was right when he wrote yesterday, “In hoping for the best, we have failed to prepare for the worst.” The Government must not waste the time given to them in this third lockdown. The vaccine programme must be delivered with the speed and efficiency that people have been promised, alongside an effective Test and Trace system.

The economic impact of the crisis has been catastrophic. In Barnsley East, over 3,500 people are now recorded as being on universal credit, unemployment has risen, and the local food bank has seen demand increase by 300%. This is unacceptable and avoidable. Statutory sick pay in this country is completely inadequate. The UK falls behind the standards set by some of our European neighbours. A higher earner whose wage is cut due to sickness is more likely to be able to absorb the financial blow. Statutory sick pay is currently set at a flat rate of £95.85 a week. How is someone on the minimum wage or a lower income supposed to cope with such a reduction? They cannot choose to pay less of their rent, mortgage or bills.

The UK is one of the very few European countries that still pays sick pay in this way. I acknowledge that the Government introduced a one-off payment for people on low incomes who are isolating, but there is a lot of evidence to show that it is not working and that too many people are falling through the gaps. Take for example the man in Barnsley who, when asked if he would isolate if he was contacted by Test and Trace, said, “No, probably not.” When asked why, he explained, “If I don’t work, my family don’t eat.” People want to do the right thing, but simply cannot afford to. Proper statutory sick pay would make it much easier for people to take a test and isolate, which is crucial to stopping the spread of this deadly virus.

17:07

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I cannot support this legislation. I cannot support criminalising a parent for seeing their child in the park over the coming months. It is not within my DNA to do that.

Of course I will follow the law and respect the law. We have the argument in the House of Commons; the House divides and one is on the winning side or the losing side. I will be on the losing side, no doubt, but I do not wear the fact that I will support the law with great virtue, because it is easy for me to comply with the law. It is easy for most people in this House to comply with the law. We are comfortably off, we live in nice houses, we have gardens and outdoor spaces, and we have access to family. The same is true of the journalists who fill our TV screens every night with their wisdom and wit about how people should comply with these regulations, and they sneer at those who cannot. But the next three months are going to be really hard for a lot of people—people who do not have my advantages of a monthly salary and a monthly pension payment. They will be worrying about their job, their future, their mental health and their family relationships, because they will miss people terribly. They will be living in small environs that apparently they can leave only to exercise once a day. Sadly, some of those people will break. It will be too much for them. That is when we in this place—and the journalists up there in the Gallery with all their privileges—instead of sneering and dismissing them and calling them “covidiots” should show some compassion and understanding. We should wear our advantages and privileges with great humility.

I do not want to hear from another constituent who is having a good lockdown. I am really pleased that they are, but my voice is for those who are not: for those of my friends, neighbours and constituents who are struggling day in, day out, whose mental health is not in a healthy state, but has deteriorated, and who are wondering how, in the next few months, in the middle of winter, they will cope.

I ask colleagues and people out there who are so fortunate to show some compassion and understanding for those who are not so fortunate.

17:10

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]]

It has been nearly a year since we began to be aware and to deal with the pandemic. We accept that no one could have predicted it, but the Government, after a whole year, keep getting it wrong. In the sixth largest economy in the world, we have no excuse for one of the worst per capita death tolls and one of the worst economic outcomes.

We need a national lockdown, but we have to lock down yet again only because every other lockdown has started too late and been lifted too early. So of course we have not been able to get control of the virus and of course the lockdowns have had the minimum effect. We have not gone far enough.

We know what needs to be done and before we can get back to normal, we need to focus on getting the infection rate down. Unfortunately, so far, the Government do not seem to have committed to doing that. We need a strong elimination strategy that drives cases down. One in 50 people in this country and one in 30 people in London, where the House of Commons is, are infected with the coronavirus. That makes me ask how many people on the estate at the moment could have the virus.

We have spent far too long looking at how successful people in other countries have been without thinking that we should also adopt a zero covid strategy. That strategy needs to be complete if the R rate is to go down. Yes, we need the lockdown, but the Government cannot keep asking people to give up their freedoms and livelihoods and not stand by them.

The support measures have never fully met this country’s needs. Yet again, they do not do so. Again, after a whole year, the Government have failed to provide for the 3 million excluded from all Government schemes. We need an effective track and trace system, but we simply do not have it. We need more funding for charities and local authorities, which have been dealing with the brunt of the virus. We need rent relief for tenants and a ban on evictions. We need an increase in statutory sick pay, and laptops and broadband for every child who needs them.

Although the vaccine is welcome news, the success of the lockdown cannot be measured by the vaccination programme alone, especially given how long it will take to reach the entire population. We need to focus on bringing the R rate down and look at the measures properly before we begin to lift restrictions. We cannot, after an entire year, keep making these mistakes. It is costing lives and livelihoods and is a complete and utter shambles, for which the Government have no reasonable excuse.

17:13

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]]

I strongly support the Government’s policies and the new public health regulations, which have been brought in to help defeat this dreadful coronavirus. They are regrettable, but absolutely necessary and require compliance by us all.

I commend the Secretary of State for all his hard work and determination during the past 10 months and for his briefings on the issues. I know that the Prime Minister regrets the need for the lockdown measures, but he had no choice because of the seriousness of the situation.

I pay tribute to Bexley Council for all its tremendous work, to all NHS staff across south-east London, who have worked for so long and so hard during the national crisis, and to the community workers who have done such great service across my borough in helping the most vulnerable.

I am extremely concerned about the rising infection rates in London, and particularly in my borough of Bexley. The new strain of the virus has had real and detrimental consequences for my Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency. I am thinking of not just the spread of the virus, but the curbing of liberties, the closure of clubs, businesses and shops, and, of course, those who have tragically lost their lives to the virus. To prevent the spread of the virus and further deaths, these measures are essential. I also highlight the growing concern over mental health issues in my area, particularly for those living in overcrowded homes and in small houses, and for those living alone, the elderly and the disabled. The closing of schools is regrettable, and there will be educational consequences. However, this crisis needs strong action and restrictions are necessary to safeguard the vulnerable, and, with the vaccination, to help beat the coronavirus.

My third point is about vaccinations and the opportunity for retired GPs, nurses and pharmacists to assist in the delivery of this massive project of mass vaccination. I have been given examples of people who have offered their services but have either been given a plethora of forms to fill in or have not received any response to their offer of help. This has been disappointing, but today, I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s actions to cut the bureaucracy and increase the vaccine roll-out. I also welcome his comments about Sunday vaccinations. Those comments need to be widely publicised to increase public confidence. These facts need to be known, and my constituents are looking for regular updates on the progress of vaccination and, hopefully, when the lockdown will end—an exit strategy.

In conclusion, I share my right hon. Friend’s determination to have a vaccination roll-out, and I support these new public health measures. My constituents will also support them, and they are necessary to save lives and defeat covid-19. We need to get the vaccination done.

17:17

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

I am grateful to be able to speak in today’s debate. I start by extending my deepest sympathy to my staff member, Ruzina, who today lost her mother to coronavirus. Words cannot describe the devastation that this virus has caused to so many.

There are so many concerns that I have about the impact of the Government’s handling of this pandemic, and there are too many pressing issues in Lewisham East to mention, but today, I would like to raise the crisis facing our ambulance services. I have been speaking with a constituent of mine, Mr Clive Tombs, who is a technician in the London ambulance service. Mr Tombs told me of the sheer stress levels that he and his colleagues are experiencing. As the secretary of his branch of the GMB union, Mr Tombs speaks not just for himself, but for thousands of members serving the capital.

Staff sickness in the ambulance service is at an all-time high. Mr Tombs estimates that around 6,000 staff across the service are off sick, the majority with covid-19. He has lost colleagues to the virus and other colleagues are hospitalised. Many others are understandably suffering from declining mental health after seeing the very worst of the impact of this virus and the impact which it is having on our people. Post-traumatic stress disorder is also becoming commonplace.

Phone operators are having to play God in choosing who among the hundreds of callers will get an ambulance. Mr Tombs also speaks of the relentless shifts that those in the ambulance profession are working. Those on the frontline are working 12, 13 and sometimes 14-hour-long shifts, and all too often, they do not get a rest or a break before starting their next demanding shift. We cannot expect our ambulance service to work all hours of the day and night, providing high-quality care, thinking quickly, making smart decisions and putting themselves in danger, without having enough time to rest. I would be grateful to hear from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on this issue.

Many of us have been distressed by images over the Christmas period of ambulances piling up outside hospitals, particularly in London. Every one of those ambulances has someone who is in urgent need of medical care and, for some of them, their lives depend on it. A&E departments are not able to keep up with the level of demand, so ambulances, with patients in them, have to wait for hours upon hours—up to 11 hours, Mr Tombs says. They wait on trolleys that provide them with little comfort and are meant only for short use. Staff sit with them in vehicles but struggle to provide safe ventilation in the cold weather. There is no access to a toilet or a washbasin in an ambulance. None of us would like to imagine our parents, partners, elderly neighbours or loved ones suffering on an ambulance trolley waiting to be admitted. What is more—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry, Janet, your time is up. I apologise.

17:20

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

There are a hundred things about Stroud that I could rise to stand up for today, but given the shortness of time, I will focus on education, exercise and entrepreneurs. First, I want to say that I will be supporting the Government tonight. From speaking to the Gloucestershire NHS and health teams, I am clear that our hospitals and key workers are under extraordinary pressure. Life would not be normal, and local businesses would not flourish, if ambulances were queuing around the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital or if, worse still, images of body bags were filling the news, as we have seen in other countries. I accept that drastic action is needed right now, and it is for all of us to work together to get out of this lockdown with the can-do attitude and compassion shown by my hon. Friends on either side of me, the hon. Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) and for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker).

However, I thought that we had reached an under-standing that education needed to continue. In the first lockdown, 55% of teachers in the most deprived areas suggested that students were learning for less than one hour a day. Eating disorders are now on the rise, and mental health issues are rife. We have to be honest: there is simply no replacement for face-to-face teaching. No amount of money, whizzy technology or free devices will bridge the education gap that the covid pandemic has created. Children need time in school, and they need their families to not be fraught from juggling home working, home schooling and worse. Stroud teachers are also phenomenal, and have already jumped through extensive logistical hoops to get our schools covid safe. I ask that the Government help to reopen schools without delay, and do not let children get caught in political games.

On exercise, I want to see gyms, parkruns, fishing, and clubs such as golf, tennis, archery and swimming open as soon as possible. Living with excess weight puts people at greater risk of serious illness or death from covid-19. Government guidance says:

“Look after your physical wellbeing: Your physical health has a big impact on how you are feeling emotionally and mentally”,

so why cut off businesses that effectively help us fight covid and protect our mental health? Do not get me wrong: the rise of walking, running, cycling and online classes is positive. However, please do not underestimate the benefits of gyms and sports clubs. The professionals who work in these places know their health and mental health onions, and we need them to survive in order to produce the healthy society we know is necessary to cope with covid now and prosper in the future.

On entrepreneurs, please will the Government look urgently at the Campaign for Real Ale’s campaign regarding the sale of takeaway alcohol? As the Prince Albert pub in my patch brilliantly pointed out, it is not fair to stop this activity when supermarkets and off-licences can sell regardless. I have been relentless on the plight of the wedding and events industry, and we need a road map and pilot studies in Stroud. It was wrong to not give support to our fantastic limited companies that reside in Stroud when the virus was going to be gone in a few months, and it is wrong now.

17:23

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]]

Infection levels in Liverpool are now higher than during the second peak in October. This was why local leaders called for an urgent national lockdown to try to control the spread of the virus and prevent pressure on our hospitals, which I fully support, along with a rapid increase in vaccinations. I have just been on a call with headteachers from special educational needs and disability schools in my constituency, and I say to the Secretary of State at the outset—I cannot stress this enough—that teachers and teaching staff should be offered vaccinations as a matter of urgency. They are still out working on the frontline, and they need these vaccinations now.

The Government must address inequality at the same time as implementing the third lockdown, and I will now turn to some of the many other issues that my constituents in Liverpool, West Derby have written to me about, which must be urgently tackled. The first is access to food: there are 10 million people in the UK living in food insecurity, many of whom are queuing up at food banks—we have seen pictures of that on Christmas Day in Newcastle. The Government must step in to provide support. They must cancel their planned £20 a week cut to universal credit, and bring in the right to food.

The next issue is that of financial support. One of my constituents, Martina, who was self-employed, has now gone 13 months without any pay. Where is the Chancellor today, and where is his financial plan to support people in Liverpool? On top of this, there have been many punishing job losses from rogue employers. Howling examples include the pernicious use of fire and rehire by British Airways and British Gas, and the treatment of a loyal workforce by Rolls-Royce at Barnoldswick. The Government must step in to fight for them and outlaw this pernicious practice, which drives people into destitution.

I must also mention support for renters and the homeless. Many renters are faced with huge arrears and have been forgotten by the Government. They must now support renters and, at the very least, extend the eviction ban beyond 11 January. Unbelievably, today we heard that the Everybody In scheme, which rightly has won praise, will not now be continued in the depths of winter and with the virus out of control.

Even before the pandemic, our communities were facing a crisis of low pay, insecure work, food and fuel insecurity, unaffordable rents, and cuts to welfare and services. So many people are already at a tipping point, and the pandemic has pushed more into unimaginable levels of hardship. Inequality and poverty are not inevitable. They are a result of political choices made by this Government, and can be solved by a Government with the will and the moral fortitude.

17:26

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

This is a difficult crisis for the Government, and no doubt the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health must each have the constitution of an ox to deal with the very difficult decisions they have to deal with every day, but I am afraid that I cannot support this legislation today. The principal reason is that, at the end of last year, I thought we had got to the point where Parliament would be consulted on a regular basis. We have regulations today set out to 31 March, which is a full three months. Although we have had warm words—“Of course, we’re going to review and we’ll come back to discuss with Parliament”—as of right we do not have any ability to influence this once it is passed. It is essentially a blank cheque for three months to Public Health England to do what it wishes, and that is why I worry about the legislation today.

If the legislation said there would be a month and then a review or two months and then a review, I might even be tempted to vote for it, but the three-month nature of the regulations seems to me too long, and I do not think it is proportionate to where we are. Parliament is sitting—the reality is that we are here—so we need to be involved in these decisions. I notice that regulations have been passed saying that if someone sits by a river with a fishing rod, they are breaking the law under the current lockdown regulations. People will follow sensible regulations if they feel it saves lives, but the bureaucratic nature of this essential lockdown is such that I think people will get frustrated and they may well actually break the regulations because they cannot understand why they are there. So we need this reviewed, we need Parliament involved and we need the Government to listen.

I was somewhat concerned earlier when the Secretary of State was talking about when this would be lifted. We need a programme, and we need the criteria for lifting it. Is it hospitals, is it infection rates or is it deaths? Is it all the vulnerable people actually being inoculated, because we heard earlier that, once they are inoculated, the Government will think about it?

I have businesses in my constituency, I have people who work and I have people trying to pay a mortgage. People have worked for generations sometimes, and certainly for decades, building up businesses, and they are being closed down and they may not survive. Taking away the freedom of people to trade is a very substantial thing to do, and there are some people who will not survive the regulations and the way in which we are locking them down. That is one reason why I will call a vote tonight. If we are going to take away people’s liberties and freedom, let us do it with our eyes open and a vote of this Chamber, because I feel very queasy about destroying people’s livings in my constituency when people work so hard. The people who make these decisions are superannuated, pensioned and public sector: they are safe and they can retire. In my constituency, there are people who do not have these advantages.

17:29

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]]

Sadly, the new restrictions are as inevitable as they are necessary. The Government say that it is the new variant that is to blame for the problems, but frankly it has been obvious for months that the NHS was going to come under huge stress during the winter. It is time for less flowery language from the Prime Minister. Too much bluster, too much over-optimism—frankly, we are all tired of it, just as we are tired of the lockdown itself.

The chaotic way in which the latest measures have been introduced has caused particular and understandable fury, because it was all so unnecessary. Leaders in educational establishments in Cambridge have been left in an impossible position, on Monday trying desperately to set up testing measures demanded by Government, and trying to reassure pupils and parents that they would be open the following day, only to get texts and emails late in the evening completely contradicting the previous advice. Now they are suddenly expected to switch to delivering teaching remotely. BTEC exams in further education colleges have had to be cancelled at the last minute.

On schools, the front page of today’s Cambridge Independent tells the story: “a disgrace”, say teachers. The headteacher at St Matthew’s in Cambridge, Tony Davies, describes a day of chaos and observes:

“So much heartache could have been saved if they had made this decision in a timely manner.”

Niamh Sweeney of the National Education Union rightly observes that, because of the chaos,

“the Government has jeopardised public health.”

The problems in education go further still. While local education authorities such as Cambridgeshire have stepped up, they are hampered by the patchwork of competing Government arrangements now in place. They can advise, but for multi-academy trusts the decisions in some cases are made far from Cambridgeshire—out of sight, beyond local scrutiny or influence.

The diminished powers of local authorities, particularly second-tier districts, are brought into stark focus when councils such as Cambridge City Council find that they do not have the powers necessary to deal with public health hazards. The temporary closure of Cambridge market is a case in point, where the lack of the precise powers needed has led to an overall closure that no one wanted.

I will support the legislation today, but I also want to highlight another Government failure. We have heard a lot about testing and vaccination, but precious little about isolating. Behavioural scientists advise that people do what they are asked when they are motivated and have the opportunity and capability to do so. Sadly, the Government have failed to motivate. They have not celebrated those who isolate, and they have not provided accommodation or the right financial support to ensure that people have the opportunity to do so. That is why it has not worked.

I drew the Secretary of State’s attention to that weeks ago, when I learned that just 14 people in Cambridge had taken up the offer of financial help to isolate. The Secretary of State kind of shrugged. It is that kind of failure from Government that means that the situation we are in today was not inevitable. It could have been different, but this is a Government unwilling to acknowledge mistakes or learn from experience, and we are all at risk because of it.

17:32

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]]

Well, covid has outwitted us again. It has come back with a vengeance and it is hitting many people. It is affecting the hospitals to such a degree that the tired nurses and the tired doctors, who have been working relentlessly, are struggling. We have to do something about it, but is lockdown the answer? We have locked down before and the figures have gone up.

The answer is vaccinations, as we have been told by many people. Vaccinations are the cavalry, but this cavalry needs to come fast and with great ambition. We need people to be out there vaccinating. I am delighted to say that one of the volunteers who could not get through the form has now been accepted because she is a recently retired nurse. She, like many other people, wants to help the vaccination programme. We can ramp up those vaccinations once we have the vaccine in place. I accept that it will take a while with a new vaccine, but it needs to be ramped up. We need big ambition. We need not 2 million a week, but at least 4 million a week.

I am worried, however, that the Secretary of State and his opposite number on the Labour Front Bench both seem to think that, even though we will be vaccinated, we might not be able to go out. I asked a question yesterday about an 82-year-old couple who have not seen a brother for at least nine months and want to go to see him. They are going to be vaccinated on Saturday. They want to wait the requisite three weeks and then visit the brother, who is also in his 80s and will also have had the vaccine and will have waited the requisite time. I am told, however, that they cannot do that.

If we are told that we have to lockdown and the cavalry is coming in the form of the vaccine, we have to have some hope that we will able to go out and resume some sort of normality, that schools can go back and that businesses can operate normally; otherwise, we are just going to be in lockdown for months and months. That might be what some people want, but it is not what I want and it is not what my constituents want. They want some freedoms, and we have to have those.

Let us get vaccinations out, let us use every community pharmacy we have, every single St John Ambulance person there is and everyone qualified and able to give that vaccine, and let us get those vaccines out fast. Let us get people moving so that we can make the most vulnerable safe, so that they will not block up the hospitals and we can relieve the health service for what it needs to do, which is routine work.

17:35

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]]

I will support the proposals, because of the pressure on our NHS and the briefings that I have had from the hospital trust in Sheffield that not only should we protect health service workers, but patients who need cancer and other treatments will not get that treatment unless we deal with this matter urgently.

The clinical commissioning group and GP practices in Sheffield are enthusiastic, ready and willing to get the vaccine delivered. They tell me that within a couple of weeks they can be delivering up to 30,000 to 40,000 vaccinations a week in Sheffield, so that by Easter a majority of the population will have been vaccinated. There are two caveats. First, they need the vaccine to be delivered. Already, we have had problems. This week, some of the primary care networks were told that the vaccine would be delivered on Friday; it arrived yesterday, so the practices had to scramble around to get people to come in at very short notice in order to deal with the vaccinations within the three days. Other practices were told that they would have the vaccine this week and then that it would not arrive until next week, having made the appointments for people to come in this week. That is not acceptable and it needs to be sorted out.

Secondly, there is the bureaucracy. I was pleased that the Secretary of State said earlier that he was going to strip out the training requirements for people giving the vaccine—absolutely right, and those should not have been there in the first place. I am told that it will take about eight minutes to do one of the covid vaccinations, compared with two minutes for a flu vaccine. Why the difference? There should not be one.

The guidelines sent out with the rules even explain how GP practices should cut up the waste packaging once the vaccine has been delivered. That is the sort of bureaucracy and nonsense that we need to sort out. This week, when I asked for information about which GP practices would be giving the vaccine for the first time, I was told that I could not have that information unless someone higher up in the NHS approved it. Sorry, but I am entitled to that information; more importantly, the public of Sheffield are entitled to that information. We need to stop that bureaucracy as well.

Also, can we stop passing regulations that cannot be enforced? Wearing a face mask is very important, but I saw a group of young people walking along in Meadowhall shopping centre the other day, and they simply said, “Oh, we just tell them we have asthma, if anyone asks us.” We need the police to have powers to make people wear face masks and be required to produce evidence of an exemption, if they have one.

Finally, recently Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire were in tier 4, and Sheffield was in tier 3. People were driving over the border to Meadowhall and Drakehouse to do their shopping. The police had no powers under the rules to enforce the requirement that people should not travel over the border for such a purpose. We need to sort out that type of situation as well.

17:38

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

We should vote to pass legislation that severely restricts the freedom of our fellow citizens and the legitimate activities of lawful business only if there is the most compelling necessity, the measures are proportionate and there is proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. On balance, and having seen in my constituency data on the exponential growth in infections caused by the new variant of the virus, I am persuaded that there is a compelling necessity for the regulations. As for proportionality, again, on balance there is evidence to support the bulk of the measures—even, regrettably, the closure of schools.

Inevitably, however, because the measures were produced in haste, some elements frankly fly against evidence and reason. They need to be reviewed, and swiftly. The obvious example is the prohibition on two people in the open air playing golf or tennis. There is no rational basis or evidence for that, and it is a mistake to include those things. It is very clear that it is not necessary in Scotland—they have not done that in Scotland—and I do not think that those activities are safe north of the border and unsafe south of it. The decision also creates a problem for many local authority leisure centres that are struggling for income, and it ought to be revisited. Similarly, the disproportionate effect of the ban on alcohol off-sales on micropubs and small, independent public houses, as opposed to the off-licence chains, ought to be revisited.

That brings me to the point about parliamentary scrutiny. I will live with those flaws in the regulations for the broader good if there is timely scrutiny and review. Leaving it until 31 March without any review would be unconscionable. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister said earlier today that there would be the intention to bring matters back to the House as the vaccination programme proceeds. He also said that there was a legal obligation to remove redundant restrictions in the regulations as the vaccination programme proceeds. I hope the Minister will indicate what the mechanism is for that, because an obligation has to have a means of being enforced. In this instance, that means coming back to this House. If we can have that, on balance, I could give these regulations my support, which has not been the case in previous instances.

We cannot use the gravity of the situation as a reason to overrule the normal requirements of proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is necessary in the interests of democracy and the rule of law. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me those assurances as she winds up the debate.

00:02

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

Let me start by saying that I will support these measures today, but I simply regret that the Government are acting too late again. Clearly, the measures are necessary, and so is support for those whose lives are being affected by them. Ministers will know that too many have fallen through the gaps in the support schemes provided by the Chancellor, particularly in small businesses and among the self-employed. In my constituency, that is especially true in the hospitality and creative sectors.

We have not got time today to discuss all the ill-considered rules and deadlines, but I would ask Ministers to agree to meet representatives of the excluded, along with those hon. Members who have taken up their cause. As so often in a crisis, those who have the least have been hardest hit by covid. The Government could begin to address the unfairness by making a commitment today that the temporary £20 a week increase to universal credit and working tax credit will be made permanent from April. They could also commit to extending that to the legacy benefits: employment and support allowance, income support and jobseeker’s allowance.

This is a moment to pay tribute to the workers who have kept the country going, and who will do so in the weeks and months ahead. Let us remember them as we move forward by tackling the low pay and fragile employment faced by too many in the private sector, and let us give those in the public sector the pay increase that they deserve, not the pay freeze that they do not.

So much now depends on the vaccine. Let us remember that the first vaccine to enter British arms, and which we should celebrate, was developed by scientists of Turkish origin in Germany with an American company and manufactured in Belgium—an international response to an international crisis. I hope that that will be reflected in our country’s wider response, and I hope Ministers will confirm that, as we roll out the vaccine in the UK, they will work with our partners around the world to ensure it also reaches those who desperately need it in low-income countries. In agreeing to these measures today, let us also resolve to tackle the injustices that have been highlighted by this crisis.

00:05

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute. We have heard a great deal of consensus across the House. We know that there is a terrible toll on people—on our constituents—and every Member who votes in favour of these regulations does so with a heavy heart, balancing the impacts carefully and with the recognition that the measures must be for a minimum period of time, reviewed frequently and carefully monitored.

We have heard from many speakers about the impact on children. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) highlighted the terrible impact that the loss of social interaction during lockdown is having on young people and their mental health. I was pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today that getting schools back is an absolute priority. It must be. Teachers, parents and schoolchildren themselves have reached out to me, asking that I highlight their worries, as have those in the early years sector, who feel that they have not been taken with the Government and have been neglected in the announcements over the past few days.

Back on 12 November, I called for teachers to be prioritised for vaccination. I recognise that there are competing calls from all key workers, but I make a particular case for those working in special schools, where there is a very great need and where it is hardest for children to understand the importance of social distancing.

Equally, there must be vaccination for domiciliary care workers who are employed by charities or are working independently. This afternoon, Age Concern Hampshire has highlighted to me its worry that those workers will go unvaccinated.

The death toll among those with learning difficulties has been horrific. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) highlighted the work that the Women and Equalities Committee did on that issue in our report on the impact of covid on those with disabilities. The commitment to rolling out information in a manner that can be easily understood, whether it is Easy Read, large print, Braille or British Sign Language, has been inadequate. As a result, the people who need the most help have had an information gap. That is not good enough. Gov.uk still does not have a BSL translation, when there are apps that could do it quickly, easily and relatively cheaply.

It is not just those with learning difficulties who have not been given enough information. Members of Parliament have this afternoon asked for additional details about the agreed schedule of vaccine delivery and the approach to the equation between numbers vaccinated and the consequential lifting of restrictions. People have shown a willingness to comply with massive restrictions, but they want to understand the exit strategy. Early years providers want to know that they are as valued as primary schools. Golfers want a clear explanation of why a walk with their partner with no clubs is fine, but one with their clubs is not.

People are not fools. The science is difficult and graphs can be bewildering, but Ministers need to give us transparency and honesty—that is the key.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Karin Smyth by video link. [Interruption.] You are on mute, Karin.

17:47

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Retail, hospitality, care, building and trades are the biggest employers in Bristol South. There have been many job losses, but many people are working in those industries and they are keeping our city going. They have done everything the Government have asked of them and we now need to make sure that they are safe, that we get this vaccine delivered and that we open our economy.

I have worked for many years with local GPs and the NHS in the city, and I know them well. I have worked very closely with the team at Ashton Gate stadium, who are on standby to deliver the vaccine. We have a good standard of general practice in south Bristol and good collaboration. They have already started and the Ashton Gate team have been ready for weeks. However, they are all being kept rather in the dark about the expectations upon them and what is happening nationally with the roll-out.

We therefore have some basic questions that we would like the Minister to answer. They are basic project planning “why” questions. We know why we are doing this, but providers locally need to know what vaccine is coming. They need to know who is going to the GP. They need to know how far down the JCVI list we want GPs to go. They need to know how we want them to be called. I think that it is sensible to do the over-75s, care homes and perhaps the clinically vulnerable, but if GPs are going beyond that list, they need to know because, basically, they need to get back to their day job.

We need to know where people are going to be vaccinated. Are the rest of us going to our GP or to Ashton Gate? We need to know when we are going. I understand the reluctance of Ministers to commit to dates—this is a complex manufacturing, distribution and delivery process—but I agree with the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) about transparency. Crucially, those who are delivering the service need to know and we, as MPs on behalf of our constituencies, need to know when it is happening.

I have done a back-of-a-fag-packet estimation. South Bristol has about 16,000 over-65s, and GP practices can do roughly 500 to 600 vaccinations a day, so in roughly 30 days we could vaccinate all those over-65s in south Bristol. However, that depends on knowing when we are going to get the vaccine delivered and what the expectations are on the deliverers.

I will support these draconian measures tonight, but I do not want the Government to again impose on us here in Bristol the disaster of the national one-size-fits-all, crony-backed, whack-a-mole nonsense that we have had from them. Our local CCG is doing a good job. We have good collaboration on the ground in south Bristol with GPs and with the people at Ashton Gate stadium. They know what to do; they need support and clarity to get on with it and to make our city safe so that we can resume our normal working lives.

17:50

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

This is a situation of state capture. The Government are completely in thrall to a lobby driving a policy that has manifestly failed—it has failed, or we would not be here yet again. It is a complete failure, yet we go through increasing iterations of it, with ever-tighter controls and restrictions, in the hope that it might finally work. And, then, when there is a possibility of change, as a consequence of the arrival of the vaccines, the crazed lobby has already begun to signal that the social control will not be over and that some restrictions will remain; indeed, the chiefs have pointed out that they might have to be reimposed all over again next winter.

To those colleagues who are contemplating voting for these measures this evening, buoyed up by opinion pollsters telling them that, actually, the voters are in favour of them and, indeed, that they crave even tighter restraints on their liberty, I would point out that when the devastating economic consequences of this policy come home to roost, and we see double-dip recession and years of slow growth as firms cannot take up new opportunities because they are saddled with debt, those same voters, who were so enthusiastic, will abandon them, and those colleagues will be back to point a finger of blame—and, on that occasion at least, they will be right.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Definitely not on mute, Sir Desmond.

17:52

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

I have consistently voted against these restrictions because I will not be dragged behind the banner wavers into this cul-de-sac we are being marched into. At the beginning of tonight’s debate, the Health Secretary said that he has “certain knowledge that we have a way out”. Oh, if that were so, I would follow him gladly, but I do not actually believe that he does have certainty that can be relied on in terms of this virus. Will this virus mutate into something worse? Who knows? Will the current vaccines work on mutated strains? Who knows? Can the virus be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers? Who knows? How effective will the current vaccines be? Who knows? What are we left with? Well, we are certainly not left with certainty about the way out of the lockdown.

I have now lost count of the number of lockdowns I have been asked to support by this Government. The problem for the Government is this: when this lockdown drags on through February and into March and it still has not worked, what are they going to do for their encore? What is next?

I fear that this is a massive mixed message. On the one hand, we have the wonderful news being declared that we have a vaccine—indeed, we have two vaccines. And then, instead of committing to rolling that vaccine out in a very strict and fast way, we have a declaration that we need to go into lockdown. It is hardly a vote of confidence in the vaccine if, on the one hand, we are saying we have a vaccine, and, on the other hand, we are saying we need to have a lockdown. We need to offer the vaccine urgently and quickly to key workers, whether in the health service or the education sector. We need to give it to the vulnerable and the elderly, who are the target of this disease. We should also be using the Army to roll out this vaccine in a consistent way.

Finally, I am appalled at the way in which our health service has been managed throughout all of this. It receives vast resources, yet my heart goes out tonight to the 1,300 or so people in Northern Ireland who will not be diagnosed this year with cancer because they are too frightened to go to the hospital. There are also all the misdiagnoses of coronary heart disease and stroke disease because of the total absorption of the management in the health service with covid.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): we should have a national day of prayer, and I welcome the fact that the Labour Front Bench supported that. Let us put this rather embarrassing episode of unending lockdowns behind us, and get on with ensuring that the health of the nation comes first.

17:55

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]]

I am very worried about the loss of liberty. I am very worried about the economic damage. I am very concerned about all those small businesses that have been shut down, and their livelihoods undermined. I want the Government to introduce a more urgent, convincing exit strategy from these measures, and I think that we are owed more debates and more votes long before the end of March. We need to keep this under constant review, and keep up the pressure to take away those measures that are not strictly necessary or which can be superseded by something better.

I hope that the roll-out of the vaccine will go well and will be speeded up. I would like more information from the Government about why they are not currently using pharmacies, why it has taken so long to welcome back to the health service recently retired people who would like to help out, and whether there is going to be a plan to train suitable volunteers so that we can greatly extend the numbers of people administering the vaccine. It would also be helpful to know more about supplies.

We need to get smarter at dealing with the virus because, unfortunately, we will have to live with it for some months to come, however successful vaccination is. Will Ministers provide more information on medical progress with treatments? We had a great breakthrough in Britain with a steroid helping to reduce the death rate. There are many more things in trial—can we know more about that? Are there supplements that people can take to buttress their immune system and make it less likely that they get the virus, or is that a fiction?

Can we get better at isolating patients and protecting staff in isolation units or hospitals? Why do we not use the Nightingales as covid-19 secure specialist units to take away some of the cross-infection dangers from district general hospitals, and so they do not have the intensity of covid-19 treatment? Can we know more about the capacity of the health service, because there are differing views on how many beds could be made available should the covid-19 wave continue to deteriorate? Can we hear more on improving infection control? What use are we making of intensive UV under suitably controlled conditions? What have we done to try to improve the cleaning of air recycling or air extraction promptly so that we reduce exposure of people in hospitals and other locations that we might wish to use to dirty air that could spread the disease? Above all, we need much more knowledge and information about the energy that is undoubtedly going into alternative treatments and better infection control. I would like to thank all those in Wokingham and the area who have done so much to help us during this difficult period.

17:58

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I must respectfully disagree with a number of previous speakers. These lockdown measures are necessary—they were necessary when they were introduced in Wales by the Welsh Government on 20 December—because of the sheer crisis that the health service faces. If we needed any more information to underline that, we only have to look at the statistics this afternoon: over 1,000 deaths—over 1,000 tragedies for families up and down the country, and individuals who are no longer with us. That is on top of an average 700 deaths every day—people who have lost their lives to this terrible virus.

Nobody wants lockdowns or restrictions, but they are absolutely necessary. If we need any more evidence, we know that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), is in hospital at the moment. This weekend, I had some heartbreaking conversations with people working in the health service, including in Cardiff. I spoke to someone who worked in the intensive care unit at the Heath Hospital, and the stories they told me were utterly, utterly heartbreaking. My thoughts, solidarity and support are very much with all those in NHS in Cardiff and Vale University Health Board and across the country who are on the front line, and are dealing with the reality of this, rather than the fantasies that we have heard from some corners of the House.

I want to discuss two issues briefly. We have to offer people hope on a way out of this situation, and that is why the vaccines are so crucial. I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care earlier on to give us some guarantees on scaling up production and distribution of the vaccines. In 1915, we faced what was called the shell crisis in world war one. I know about it because my great-grandmother was one of 12,000 women recruited from the cotton mills of the north-west to work in emergency factories, mixing nitroglycerine for munitions for the western front. It was a dangerous, complex and difficult manufacturing task, but one that this country turned itself to 105 years ago. We need to engage in that kind of effort and investment in expanding and adapting facilities for the production, bottling and distribution of the vaccine. We need greater assurances from the Government on that in the weeks ahead, not least so that we know they are doing everything they can at the UK level to get that vaccine produced and give hope to our people suffering under these lockdowns and suffering with the effects of this virus.

Secondly, we must not make the mistakes we made in previous lockdowns, one of which is about our borders, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and others have rightly raised. In January, February, March, April and May last year, we let in people who spread different strains of covid-19 around the country. We now need measures in place at our borders, because there will be more variants and more cases coming from around the world. We need to have the best systems in place. We were told we were taking back control of our borders. We have to have health protections at our borders, and we need those measures now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

On behalf of everyone here in Westminster, we send our best wishes to Jo for a full recovery.

18:01

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]]

Supporting businesses as they endeavour to cope with covid and its multiple challenges has rightly been among the Government’s primary priorities. A comprehensive package of support, including the job retention scheme, loans, rate holidays, cash grants and a temporary cut in VAT for the hospitality and tourism sectors, has provided a means of survival, but no more than that. This lifeline for livelihoods must not be cut now. Firms that depend on advertising revenue are particularly vulnerable.

Some 99% of firms in our nation are SMEs. They have a central role, whether it is pubs, family-run hotels, cafés or restaurants, manufacturers or independent local shops. They are at the heart of our economy, and they provide the lifeblood that flows through our communities. We must ensure that covid does not further widen existing disparities, advantaging the big at the expense of the small, advancing the national at the expense of the local and the urban to the detriment of the rural. In that respect, I repeat what I said earlier to the Prime Minister. We need the vaccine in rural communities. It needs to be delivered locally and accessibly for those who live a long way from large towns and cities.

SMEs, particularly those in remote areas, face a daily struggle and need continuing support. Contrast for a moment independent, family-run shops, passed down through generations and struggling to cope, with a Tesco executive rejoicing as profits continue to soar. Contrast an Amazon director celebrating a 37% increase in their earnings with the owner of a much loved bookshop dutifully distilling and distributing the wisdom of ages and struggling with the strain of debt.

Schumacher argued that small is beautiful, and small is indeed beautiful, because people are the things that matter most. The Government must try out a new orientation, in which the needs of small, independent family businesses come above the interests of faceless corporations. A new challenge brings new chances for cathartic change. At present, the Government are preoccupied with responding to covid and are defined by that to some degree, but we can chart a new normal that is fairer, freer and fraternal—a different kind of social order where social capital matters as much as economic prosperity and where the wellbeing of communities is at the heart of all that Government do. As our Prime Minister rightly reiterated, only through determination, perseverance and togetherness will the clouds of this storm clear. We must build a new nation—one nation—based on fraternity at Westminster.

00:05

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). This morning, I and other local MPs met our local NHS leaders, and it is very clear from the pressures on the NHS in my community and up and down the country that these measures are needed for one reason and one reason alone: to prevent NHS services from being overwhelmed, with catastrophic consequences for people’s lives, people’s families and people’s communities. No one takes the imposition of these kinds of measure lightly. We do so in the national interest, and that is why we are voting with the Government this evening.

There are three lessons that the Government needed to learn from the last nine months. The first is the importance of acting quickly and decisively. Being too slow to act, as the Government were in the first lockdown, the second lockdown and now the third lockdown, has had serious consequences for people’s lives, people’s livelihoods and people’s learning. Had the Government acted more quickly, we would not have seen the excess death rate in this country, the rising levels of infection and the disproportionate amount of lost learning among children and young people, not to mention the enormous economic consequences that have followed. Quick and decisive action means a more manageable set of restrictions that allow businesses to carry on trading. We are all paying a heavy price in lives, livelihoods and learning.

The second lesson that the Government needed to learn from this period is that public health and the economic health of our country go hand in hand. It is simply unacceptable that we have not seen the Chancellor in this House since well before Christmas. There is a new set of national restrictions in place that are wreaking havoc with people’s livelihoods. Before Christmas, businesses literally closed overnight at a time when they were looking forward to big Christmas trading. Where is the Chancellor? Where is the support for businesses and for the millions of people who have been excluded since March?

Thirdly, the impact on children and young people has been devastating. Schools should absolutely be the last to close and the first to reopen, but where is the national plan for laptops and internet connections, to support children and young people to get online? The Government have had months to prepare. We urged them to act, and they failed to do so. Where is the plan for exams? We heard warm words from the Education Secretary today but precious little for teachers, children and young people to prepare for.

As we look to a brighter future and a post-vaccination future for our country, let us make sure that we have a position where families can get together, businesses can bounce back and we provide opportunities for young people, rather than allow an entire generation to be consigned to a lost generation of widening educational inequality.

18:07

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

In 2017, the World Health Organisation’s pandemic influenza risk management guidance emphasised that any emergency measures should be necessary, reasonable and proportional. I fear that the measures we are being asked to vote for today are none of those. I was elected to represent my constituents in Romford, and I pay tribute to them for their resilience throughout this pandemic, but I cannot justify such a fundamental assault on their liberties and livelihoods. Removing people’s most fundamental rights and freedoms and confining them to their homes is a political decision. Those of us who are elected must judge not just the impact of the virus but the impact on our constituents’ livelihoods, businesses, jobs, education, homes and physical and mental health.

We are constantly told by the governing, scientific and media class that we must shut down our country and that people must surrender their most basic rights and freedoms in order to save lives, yet those countries that have followed strict lockdown strategies have not all been successful in achieving that aim. There is no Member of this House who does not want to save lives. From the bottom of my heart, I thank the NHS personnel at Queen’s Hospital in Romford, who have done a magnificent job in saving lives and caring for the sick. But there has to be a balance and proportionality to these decisions, considering the long-term consequences for the lives of the people we represent. I fear the impact of these shutdowns on those who run small businesses; on the 50,000 Britons with undiagnosed cancer, as estimated by Macmillan Cancer Support; on the elderly who have been cut off from their loved ones in the last years of their lives; on children from the poorest backgrounds who will fall behind as a result of schools closing; and on the victims of increased domestic violence and suicide.

The scientific advisers will never need to account for the effects of lockdown on our constituents, but we will. The shutdown that we are voting on today and the effects of these measures, while well intended, may, I fear, do more damage to the lives of the British people in the long term than the pandemic itself. I believe a complete rethink of this policy must now take place. Our country cannot go on like this.

18:10

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]]

I want us to learn from what has happened since March, rather than saying no, because if this lockdown is to be effective, we have to look at the gaps that have not been plugged so far. I want to talk particularly about the up to 3 million self-employed people: freelancers, people who run their own businesses and people who changed jobs at the wrong time who have had little or no financial support. It has been a burning injustice since March that they have gone without, and it continues to be. The Chancellor should be coming to the House of Commons to describe how he is going to support these people who have been left behind. It is not fair to them and it is an injustice, but it is damaging economically too. They all have a contribution to make as the economy eventually recovers, and the stronger and healthier their finances are now, the better placed they and many other businesses will be to play their part when the time comes.

There are also health consequences. One characteristic of this crisis has been that people have not been able to afford to self-isolate—individual low-paid workers and the 3 million excluded people—because they have not had the support, whether that is sick pay for people who are employed, or a lack of access to furlough, to the self-employed scheme or often even to universal credit. People have not been able to afford to self-isolate when they have been contacted, and that is a big part of the reason that less than 20% of people who were supposed to self-isolate have so far done so. That must be fixed; to get the health benefits of the lockdown right, the financial side must be fixed at the same time.

It is therefore right that the expectations of the large retailers in returning £2 billion in unneeded business rates relief are that that money is used to support those who have so far gone without. The Chancellor should come here, and tell the House and those excluded people that that money will be used to support them through the coming weeks—and, if necessary, months. He should be providing greater business support for those areas where business has had to go without for longer because lockdown came earlier and deeper, and he must put these things right soon. If we do not do so, the ongoing crisis will be worse in the long run, the cost will be greater and those people who have gone without will continue to suffer.

18:13

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) [V]]

I want to start by praising the Prime Minister for the way in which he has taken the decisions. I would rather have a Prime Minister who leaves no stone unturned before restricting our liberties and who makes closing schools the very last thing that he wants to do. Ultimately, these measures have a real effect on people’s lives, and the decisions that we make today are a heavy burden. I also thank the BBC for what it is going to do to help with education; that is a real public service broadcaster.

I welcome the £4.6 billion that is being made available. This week I spoke to the landlord of a pub who told me that this is a vital injection of resources for him to use. I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider a slight extension to the rates holiday, because the hospitality sector will be one of the vital tools in our recovery. People are desperate to go out and every time they go out, the Government will get revenue because every drink sold has a duty on it. It is a golden goose of the economy, so please do not cut its head off. Let us see whether we can do more to help that industry.

I have concerns about teacher assessment for examinations. A top grade can be given to a child for what they have been taught, but there will be a lot of stuff that they have not been taught and I fear that they will suffer the consequences of that later on by having that lack in their knowledge. Personally, I would like to see exams moved to Christmas this year. That is a radical solution, but this is an unprecedented situation. Curriculum delivery is absolutely vital, as is examination. Exams are not just an academic test, but a pressure experience and part of our human development that prepares us for later life.

I am concerned about nurseries and feel that they will need more financial support. Many parents will not send their child to nursery if they are at home. Why would they spend the money on that? That means that nurseries could well go bankrupt, so I urge my hon. Friends in the Treasury to look at that matter very quickly.

I want to finish on the issue of reporting. Many people have asked to be shown the number of injections that have been carried out each day. I am not sure whether that in itself is helpful. What would be helpful is a tracking graph of what happens three weeks later when people are immune. A series of levels would show the restrictions that could be undone when so many people have been immunised in the demographic that they represent. In that way, the public will be able to see how we are progressing towards the target of being able to come out of these restrictions. That will give a clearer roadmap and a clearer way of getting the proper buy-in that we need to get out of this situation as quickly as we can. It gives people hope and shows a real timeline in what it means to people.

Finally, on businesses that have put money aside for tax returns that they cannot access, I urge the Government to establish a furlough scheme so that they can access that money and not have to pay tax on it.

00:04

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

In my experience, the Tories have never won elections because the public thought they cared but rather because they believed them to be competent. Black Wednesday did for John Major and I suspect that the covid crisis will deal with the Johnson regime.

No one believes that Governments get it right first time or indeed all of the time, but that does not excuse the criminal negligence of not dealing with pandemic planning, which seems to have gone by the board. It is the speed of reaction and the lessons learned that are important. The question is why do this Government keep making the same mistakes time and again. Who is in charge? Who is minding the shop? Who is dealing with the detail?

Ministers are surprised by predictable events. The Prime Minister seemed to be astonished to find out that viruses mutate. There is a timescale to when they mutate, but they very certainly do mutate. Every year, for example we have a different variant of influenza. We had already experienced a lack of capacity with personal protective equipment. At the time the crisis started, 1% of PPE used in the British health service came from this country. Stock handling was also appalling. When the crisis hit, British firms tried to make contact with the Department of Health and Social Care, but they just ran into a brick wall. They got no response and no help and yet the Government then poured money into grossly overpaid management consultants, middle men and pals at a huge cost to the public purse, causing a real crisis in the health service.

The vaccine programme has seen a magnificent effort from the scientists and their international partners, but, once again, we seem to be short of capacity. The Prime Minister’s response is to act almost like a Soviet planning Minister, setting a target of 13.5 million people to be vaccinated by Valentine’s day, but with no clear indication of how that will be achieved. The Secretary of State very helpfully told us today that filling the glass vials was not the problem, so is it manufacturing capacity? If it is, why have we not dealt with that in the past 12 months? We may ask whether it is MHRA testing, but the MHRA has a great record in validating the vaccines and of moving things along. Where is the problem in the system? What happens when we get a flow, as we will with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine because that will be much easier to handle as it does not require the same degree of refrigeration? Why are we not talking to pharmacists and to retired doctors and nurses and getting them lined up now? Why force folk, especially older folk, to travel so far? What the public are asking is whether this lot really know what they are doing.

18:19

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]]

There have been more than 2 million confirmed covid cases in the UK, 71,000 people have tragically died, and a staggering one in 50 are now diagnosed with covid—another record high for this country. Liverpool has been significantly impacted by the pandemic. The total number of confirmed cases in Liverpool for the last seven days is over 3,500, an increase of over 2,300 on the previous week.

The new variant poses more of a threat going forward, and we clearly need to take action to halt the increase, save lives and protect the NHS, but this was not inevitable. Time and again, we have seen this Government refuse to take the necessary steps to save lives and protect livelihoods. We have the second highest death rate in Europe, surpassed only by Italy. On top of that, we are currently suffering the deepest recession of any G7 country. The Government have failed to rise to the challenge of the pandemic since last year, and future generations will look back on them as having done too little, too late.

I repeat that this was not inevitable. This is what happens when those in charge disregard calls by frontline workers, teachers, scientists, unions and experts for schools to be closed and for a national lockdown to slow the spread of the pandemic. Doctors at the Royal Liverpool Hospital in my constituency describe the situation as hanging by a thread, with major staff shortages and staff suffering exhaustion, the additional winter pressures and delayed medical demand still overdue from the first covid wave all adding to that pressure.

With hospitals at risk of being overwhelmed by the new variant and already facing this huge spike in infections with fewer staff than in the first wave, can the Minister outline what funding will be made available to bring extra support and staff into the NHS over the coming weeks? With the vaccines being rolled out as we speak, and the welcome news that the AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved to begin distribution next week, when will the Government produce a national plan for vaccinations? What steps will be taken to ensure that agency and outsourced workers in frontline jobs, such as hospital porters, cleaners and teaching support staff, will be given equal access to vaccines alongside everyone else in their workplaces, especially given that those staff are more likely to be at greater risk of contracting the virus?

Let me conclude by paying tribute to our valiant NHS, all the workers who have continued to work to keep my city safe: the council, public health, the community and voluntary sector, and the army of amazing volunteers.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will begin at 6.44 pm.

18:23

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]]

Before Christmas, I visited Gotham Primary School in Rushcliffe to see what the children had been doing in Parliament Week. Like us today, they had discussed rules and presented their ideas. I heard passionate arguments against school uniforms. I learned about the rules in Beech class designed, like the regulations we are debating today, to stop the spread of coronavirus. There were excellent campaigns for a nature reserve and a bug hotel, and a multimedia campaign for more litter bins involving leaflets, posters, speeches and a video. I am thinking of trying to make some new recruits there for my next election campaign.

I left with a strong sense of how happy and engaged the children were at school with their friends and teachers. The headteacher, Janette Allen, and her teaching team had done an amazing job to give children back the normality that lockdown last spring had taken from them. I know that they and schools across Rushcliffe will be working hard to provide remote learning and support to children and their families. I also know that it cannot possibly be the same, so it is with a heavy heart that I support these regulations today. I do not believe we have any other choice given the sky-rocketing rates of infection we are seeing from the new covid variant and the pressure our hospitals are under.

I congratulate the Vaccine Taskforce on the amazing work it has done to develop one of the largest and most diverse vaccination portfolios in the world. Thanks to it, and the incredible Oxford-AstraZeneca team, the vaccine is already being rolled out at pace. I urge the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to continue to explore every option available, enlisting both civilian and military help, for getting the vaccine out quickly, and to continue to get rid of any bureaucracy like the ridiculous training modules on anti-terrorism for volunteer vaccinators.

I am very proud of the communities in Rushcliffe who have given their all to battling this virus, but it is taking its toll. People are tired and weary. They need clarity on the conditions that must be met for the restrictions to be eased and on how they will be eased as we emerge from lockdown. They also need to see a clear plan of how schools will be opened up again. I urge my right hon. Friends across Government to make this available sooner rather than later, to give people the morale boost they need to get through this final lockdown.

18:26

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]]

As we have just heard from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), lockdown does indeed take its toll on us all, but it affects some people more than others. It shifts huge risk to key workers in social care, the food and retail sector and, of course, the NHS, and to those living in deprived areas, overcrowded housing or poverty. If we do not provide additional support to key workers and disadvantaged communities, transmission will continue and we will not make the most effective use of this lockdown.

We must make it easier for people to do the right thing and stay at home, so we need to raise statutory sick pay to a level that covers the cost of living and makes it possible for people to stay at home and keep themselves, their families and others safe. Many thousands of staff working for private contractors in the NHS, such as cleaners, porters and caterers, are currently only entitled to receive SSP in case of illness. The Government must commit to supporting these vital NHS workers to stay at home, protect the NHS, and continue to save lives. Those working in social care take care of some of the most vulnerable in our society. They too must be able to isolate when they are ill in order to prevent spread of the virus, and must be properly funded to do so. Too many people are excluded from the current self-isolation payment. Too many low-paid people are not eligible because they are not low-paid enough, but the loss of one income in a family, even for 10 days of self-isolation, can really undermine a family’s economic stability and may even lead some to just keep quiet about being unwell.

Vaccines are the way out of this terrible situation, but we have to make sure that, unlike the virus, which has had a disproportionate effect on the poorest and our most vulnerable, our vaccine strategy is fair and equitable. Vaccine programmes, when delivered through a call system, do not have an equal uptake across socioeconomic groups, often leaving behind the most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, so it is crucial that the strategy takes this into account by monitoring uptake and engaging with those groups.

We know that covid-19 does not hit us all in the same way, and we know the devastating impact of poverty on children. The recent covid-19 Marmot review found that the pandemic has already widened, and continues to widen, existing quality. The Government must therefore continue the universal credit and working tax credit uplift of £20 per week, commit to ending the benefit cap, and extend the free school meals entitlement to those whose families receive universal credit or have no recourse to public funds. This lockdown is necessary but it is hard.

18:29

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The proposed restrictions are right. There is no greater freedom than the right to life and we are willing to suspend many freedoms to protect especially those who are vulnerable, and those who work night and day in the NHS and our care settings to protect us. They deserve and require us to abide by the regulations and rules—we owe it to them—not least because we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Given that the vaccination programme is beginning, it is all the more urgent that the Government recognise the importance of supporting the economy and everybody within it throughout the coming months. We know that it is not an ill-defined and possibly indefinite period, but that this will be over at some point in the coming months. That is a source of great joy and should focus the Chancellor’s mind on the support that he needs to give those who are missing out. There are many of them: people who have been self-employed for less than two years; directors of very small limited companies, such as taxi drivers; people who have been on maternity leave. They have been excluded from support. It is an outrage that those people have been left to get into deeper and deeper debt because the Government have yet to devise a mechanism for supporting them. They must do so now. We need those people to build our economy back once we are out of this situation. To let them flounder in poverty now is outrageous and unacceptable.

I would also like the Government to pay attention to the needs and the plight of our outdoor education centres, which are in serious danger of closure. Many have already lost more than a third of their workforce in the past few months. There needs to be a Scotland-style direct grant support payment for those centres so that we can keep them going and they can contribute for years to come.

I also want the Government to come up with a specific and properly funded strategy for dealing with the backlog in cancer treatment. We estimate that 60,000 years of life will be lost to cancer due to the coronavirus pandemic, and it could get worse.

The vaccine is the light at the end of the tunnel. It is wonderful and I pay tribute to everyone involved in making that come to be and in administering the vaccines as we speak. However, the Government are making that tunnel a little bit longer than they need to. It is clear that supply of vaccine to places in South Cumbria is not as good as it might be. Places such as Sedbergh and Windermere have not yet got vaccination centres. Those sites need to be approved.

Finally, given that our teachers are teaching the children of key workers, they should also be vaccinated as a priority.

18:32

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for saving me up till last. It is difficult to say something new at No. 67 on the list.

Let me say at the outset that I recognise the seriousness of the situation, particularly given the new strain of the virus. I recognise the huge pressures on hospitals and I pay tribute to them. However, I am not convinced that another hurriedly announced national lockdown is the right solution. That is why I am loth to vote for the regulations, especially when we have had just three hours to debate the biggest infringement of our constituents’ civil liberties that I have ever had to vote on as an MP, and given that Parliament could have sat all this week, and we would then have considered the regulations before they came into force.

The sunset expiry date of the regulations has been surreptitiously moved to the end of March rather than the end of January as we were earlier led to believe. The regulations have no impact assessment, and there are measures in them that were brought into law in the first lockdown, but later removed or relaxed.

I have said all along that the Government have a difficult job to balance advice about risk from the medical experts with the economic impact and the public’s confidence in abiding by the regulations. After 10 months, that confidence has been sorely tested and there is a high level of lockdown fatigue. It is therefore even more important that what we ask our constituents is logical, consistent and fair. Banning golf, tennis, angling and other outside pursuits was not considered logical previously and was relaxed in earlier regulations. Banning people from buying beer from outside closed pubs rather than crowding into supermarkets and off-licences was also inconsistent and relaxed in earlier regulations. It is therefore frustrating and regressive to see those and many other unnecessary and illogical restrictions creeping back in again. I ask the Secretary of State to be sensible and sensitive to the lobbying to remove them before they undermine confidence further.

My main point concerns the vaccine. It must be the Government’s single biggest imperative. We need a national effort—a “little ships” effort—to deliver, buoyed up by the sea of vaccine the Government wisely bought up early. So when Ministers and clinicians proudly claim that we will be vaccinating 12 hours a day, seven days a week, my reaction is to ask: what about the other 12 hours—the other 50% of the day? We should be vaccinating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, until everyone who qualifies is jabbed. Many volunteers have come forward to work shifts in the middle of the night—many little old ladies in Worthing who would readily bring tea and biscuits round at 4 o’clock in the morning, with others to run the technology. If they are offered a jab at 4 am rather than four weeks hence, people will turn up.

We should be getting more juice, as the Secretary of State put it earlier, including by approving the Moderna vaccine already given the go-ahead in the US, for example. Create drive-through jab centres, develop online booking of slots, allow walk-in services for spare appointments, allow diabetics to self-jab when they get their insulin. Only when we are vaccinating full-time can the Government claim to be doing absolutely everything they can, at pace, to get us out of this revolving pandemic lockdown door.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry Tim.

18:35

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

First, I thank our dedicated and brilliant scientists who have given us the hope of a way out of this extremely difficult period.

At the start of the first lockdown, the Prime Minister stated that the virus would be under control within 12 weeks, yet 10 months on, we are rerunning the devastation caused at the inception of the crisis. The virus is spreading exponentially, many people are in hospital and thousands of lives are at risk. This lockdown is necessary to restrict the spread of the virus and to protect our NHS, and yet again the public—my constituents in Luton South—at very short notice are doing their bit to tackle the spread of covid-19. But lockdown is a blunt tool. Being able to move out of it is contingent on the success of the vaccination programme across the country, so the Government must ensure that they carry out their side of the deal effectively, by acting quickly to make sure the programme is a success.

Meeting the target of vaccinating those in the top four priority groups by mid-February will require the vaccination of 2 million people a week and a total of 14 million vaccinations. Although we all want the vaccine to be rolled out as quickly as possible, I am concerned about the capacity of the UK’s vaccine manufacturers to meet that target, given that the sustained lack of investment in vaccine manufacturing has left the UK acutely underprepared. The chief medical officer has stated that the vaccine shortage is a reality that cannot be wished away, and the Government recognise that, having already dropped the 30 million dose vaccine target set in May.

At the beginning of 2020, the UK did not have the capacity to produce vaccines to meet the demand created by a pandemic, so, shockingly, we are seeing the UK relying on repurposed infrastructure to make the Oxford vaccine. Sir John Bell has stated:

“The government has been completely disinterested in building onshore manufacturing capacity for any of the life-sciences products”.

In addition, one of the companies manufacturing the AstraZeneca vaccine in bulk is transporting vaccine doses to Germany to be put in vials. A decade of Government austerity has hampered our ability to tackle this pandemic, and after the Government’s failures in PPE procurement and the outsourced test and trace system, and their failure to provide sufficient economic support, particularly to those who have been excluded, they must now not fail in the roll-out of the vaccine programme. I hope the Minister will explain to the House how the Government intend to address the frailty of the vaccine manufacturing supply chain and to rapidly increase the number of doses available.

I am also concerned that the Government have not published a detailed strategy for the vaccination of all key workers. As we go into another lockdown, we will once again see the real value of key workers, who keep our country going. There have not been sufficient assurances that teachers, posties, firefighters, police officers—all frontline key workers—will be prioritised in the vaccination process. Will the Minister outline—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry Rachel, but we are going to try to squeeze someone else in.

18:38

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]]

Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can think of few things I would prefer more not to do than again restrict the lives of my constituents in Gloucester, but until we have immunised those who are most likely to need hospital help, the responsible action today is to support the Government. In this third lockdown, it is incredibly important that we help as much as we can all those involved in distributing the vaccine, to get us to the exit as soon as possible.

I know that the process of sharing information locally has been a real problem for some colleagues, but that has not been the case in Gloucestershire, where for nine months now all six county MPs have met regularly with our NHS primary care, public health and county council heads. I pay tribute to them all, not just for the leadership they have given to their organisations, but for the hard work of so many of their staff in healthcare, social care and care homes. However, we are often told that the basic facts that we are being given are confidential. Therefore, I ask the Health Secretary to agree today that the number of those in the top four categories in every area, the number vaccinated, the daily rate required to meet the 15 February goals, and the situation updated daily are basic facts that should be shared with every resident in our country. We can then have confidence in what is happening and what the situation is, and that we are going to arrive at the destination that we need to. That will also give people confidence that there is a real exit strategy from the lockdown as early as possible in the spring, so that people can go back to work as usual.

Secondly, I would highlight that although we all agree how important it is to get children back to school, confidence in when pupils will be able to go back is fairly low at the moment. One way of being able to get around this problem, even though I know it contradicts the principles of how the JCVI organises its categories, would be to vaccinate the teachers, so that heads would know that all their staff would be there and would not be at risk from pupils spreading the virus inadvertently. I ask the Health Secretary to consider that, as he considers all the other important issues about supply and distribution of vaccines as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Fleur, ignore the timer. We will stop you at 6.44 pm, but we are pleased to squeeze you in.

18:41

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad to be speaking in such an important debate. First, I thank all the staff at St George’s Hospital and Queen Mary’s Hospital in Roehampton, who are working so hard at the moment to deliver much of the life-saving care that we are talking about in today’s debate. I also offer my condolences to the families of the over 1,000 people who have died in the last 24 hours, which really brings home why we need these measures, hard though they are. As such, I will be voting for them and supporting them. Our hospitals are under stress; we need to have these measures to save lives and protect the NHS.

I am highly disappointed about the failure of the track and trace system up to now, which I think is part of the reason why we are having to see these continuing lockdowns. We are not overcoming this disease, as they have done in other countries, so we have to get to grips with real tracking and real tracing, getting back to 100 contacts each. I welcome the roll-out of vaccines, and look forward to a “community first” way of rolling these out, in which local GPs—those who are trusted to provide and administer the vaccine—will be leading the way. I especially hope to see a vaccination centre in Roehampton in my constituency. I am disappointed that many people are still left out of economic support: a business rate holiday would make all the difference to my constituents and businesses.

Finally, there is still a failure to contract for scrubs. There are still volunteers making scrubs for our NHS providers, and this needs to be sorted out. I would really welcome hearing from the Minister whether I can meet with those who are involved with contracting on scrubs, along with experts in my community, who are still doing this on a voluntary basis when it should be done nationally. Thank you very much.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for being concise as well, Fleur. I call Alex Norris to start the wind-ups.

18:43

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I put on record my thanks to you and your staff for what is now the second recall of Parliament for important business. I know that a lot of work goes into making that possible, and we really appreciate that, but it is important that we are here today. The daily figures that colleagues will have read while sat in this debate are sobering: 1,041 more of our countrymen and women have lost their lives to this horrible virus. It is a sobering moment, and with that in mind, we will support these regulations today. We do not think it is inevitable that we are in this situation, but it is clear that we are in a very challenging moment indeed, and in these dangerous times, with our NHS working at such high capacity, it is in the national interest to protect it and make these difficult decisions.

I say to people watching: if you are one of the very many people who have been excluded from Government support so far, or if you have missed out on self-isolation support, or if you are concerned about business support or reductions in welfare support going forward, I hope that you will have seen the support from our Benches, from my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), all giving you voice. Similarly, I hope that those very many clinically extremely vulnerable, who have so often felt ignored, saw in the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) that they are not. The same goes for contributions on frontline staff made by my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson).

Many points were made earlier today about schools, which I will not emphasise any further, other than to mention the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Clive Efford), for Sheffield Central, for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). Important points were made about the border by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), which I will reflect on shortly.

Many Opposition colleagues—including my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth—referred to the vaccine, as did many Government Members, including the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) and the hon. Members for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke). In particular, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) made contributions about the Government committing to publish a schedule of precisely what vaccine is going to be received and when, and how that will be rolled out, and I think the Government ought to do that.

Important contributions were made by Government Members about the exit plans and support for business, as well as children and early years. Contributions were made by the right hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) about oversight, and we as an Opposition would support a further review, in shorter order, of these regulations and further debate to make sure that they are as effective as possible.

The right hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) all made points about the scientists. I would perhaps fall on Margaret Thatcher’s maxim, “Advisers advise, Ministers decide”. Ultimately, if those colleagues are dissatisfied with the actions of the Government, it is for Ministers alone to account for them rather than the scientists, who are giving their best endeavours, even if we do not agree with them.

I thought it was interesting that not a single colleague mentioned that we are exactly where we were one week ago. I was in this place, the Minister was in her place and you were in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, as we were discussing regulations. That failed. That seems funny, but actually, it is not funny at all when we think about it. I asked the Minister three times to say that the Government thought that their final attempt to salvage the tier system would work. I had no such commitment made, so perhaps it is not a surprise that it fell over, even if it is a surprise that it fell over as quickly as it did. That is a characterisation of a failure to grip this virus, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said. The Government have been just so slow and always short, trying to do the bare minimum and never, frankly, doing enough.

In a similar vein, it was quite disappointing that the Secretary of State’s contribution—his 23 minutes—could have been an intro to a general debate on vaccines, because that was all he spoke about. Of course, the vaccine is important and is our way through this, but actually, it is a failure to grasp at ministerial level that there are many things other than the vaccine, that they have control and say over and that they simply have not done well enough on.

This lockdown, which we will no doubt support tonight, will not make our problems go away. Lockdowns do not solve anything. They buy us time to solve things, so in the limited time remaining, I will highlight some of those that I think that the Secretary of State ought to have referred to, and I hope that the Minister will in her winding-up speech.

On economic support, again, there was not a word for those many millions excluded from support so far. They have gone a long time now without support. They deserve more than the glib comment that they had from the Prime Minister this morning. I hope the Minister might do a little bit better. The Chancellor should be here giving us a chance to scrutinise those plans. He was very keen to at the beginning, but we have not seen him now for a very long time.

Test, trace and isolate remains a significant gap in our fence. What fools we all look now given that, when the virus was at its lowest ebb in the summer, that system was not sorted out. Instead, while the testing number at the beginning of the system remains a very good one, turnaround time does not hit its targets, tracing never hits its targets and we know that not enough people isolate because the support for them is not good enough. The fact that we have failed to fix those problems reflects very poorly on the Government.

On the border, I am always loth to make international comparisons, certainly beyond Europe, but our daily death total today is more than the entire death total during the pandemic in Australia. There are ways in which we are similar and ways in which we are different from them, but I think we should reflect on the fact that on 20 March, they closed their border. Anyone returning home during that time had a two-week quarantine, but that was it. Now, we are still talking about test to release and other such measures at the border. It is an extraordinary failure.

To finish, I will make a couple of points on vaccination. The development and procurement of vaccine has been a success of this Government—I have said that multiple times in this place, and will continue to do so—but whether they have a successful vaccination programme remains to be seen. There is frustration on both sides of the House that we do not yet have the sense that this will be a 24/7 service, or that we are unleashing all those people who have volunteered to contribute. It is surprising to see pharmacies on the front page of national newspapers—that is the length that pharmacies feel that they have to go to get the attention of the Government. If the Government are sure they do not need that extra support and will still deliver on time, they should be clear about that.

May I have some particular clarity from the Minister? We have been hearing the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister now saying—they have changed their form of words in the past three or four days—that everyone in categories 1 to 4 will be “offered” the vaccine by the middle of February. What does that mean? What does it mean for the modelling? Before, we thought that by the middle of February we wanted everyone in those categories to be vaccinated—within, of course, the limits of people choosing not to take it up. What this cannot be is a paper exercise; it has to be the fullest—

[The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Norris]

The Minister seems to dispute that, so I hope that she will take the time in her contribution to do so.

The vaccination programme represents a deal with the British people. We are asking the British people to ensure significant hardship for a significant period—that is the British people’s side of the bargain. The Government’s side of the bargain is an effective, safe and timely vaccination programme. They have to deliver on that.

I will finish in that spirit, with a simple message to my constituents and constituents across the country: stay at home, protect the NHS and vaccinate Britain.

18:51

[The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)]

The regulations before us set out measures that none of us wants to take, yet we must take them if we are to control this new and aggressively infectious variant of coronavirus, which is spreading rapidly across the country. As we heard from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, we are up against it, in a race of vaccine versus virus. We are vaccinating faster than any comparable country but, even as we do so, each day we have a relentless rise in the number of new infections, hospital admissions and, sadly, deaths. We now have more than 30,000 people in our hospitals with covid.

Earlier this week, the UK’s chief medical officer’s advice was that we should move to alert level 5, meaning that if action is not taken, NHS capacity might be overwhelmed within 21 days. The consequences of that and the decisions that it could lead to are not decisions that we want our doctors to have to take. Therefore, I say to hon. Members, that is why we must adopt the measures before us. Just as we do not want to impose the restrictions on people, we must of course be ready to lift them too, as soon as we are in a position to do so. Lockdowns come at huge cost, economic and social, and in particular to the many thousands of children who are no longer going to school.

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

The regulations can continue until 31 March, but will my hon. Friend confirm that, in fact, they will be reviewed fortnightly and that any regulations that are considered unnecessary will be lifted as soon as possible?

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Many other hon. Members have also asked about the duration of the restrictions and ongoing parliamentary scrutiny. I can say that the regulations provide for the restrictions until 31 March 2021 not because we expect the full national lockdown to continue until then, but to allow a steady, controlled and evidence-led move down through the tiers on a local basis. The restrictions will, of course, be kept under continuous review. We have a statutory requirement to review them every two weeks and a legal obligation to remove them when they are no longer necessary to control the virus.

I also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and others that we absolutely do not want to continue the restrictions longer than necessary. Most particularly, we do not want to keep children at home and being home-schooled. I say that as a parent with three children who have spent the day, I hope, being home schooled—my husband has been in charge of that today. We do not want that to be the situation any longer than it has to be. Schools were the last to close, and the Prime Minister has said that we want them to be the first to open. Of course, they are still open for the children of critical workers, and that should include—to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger)—those involved in the construction of critical national infrastructure, such as the Hinkley Point power station.

While with great reluctance we have had to keep most children out of school, we have also had to require outdoor sports facilities, such as golf courses, to close. Several hon. Members have challenged that, and I want to tackle it head on. I say to hon. Members who have raised this issue that if we made an exemption for golf, we would also have to make an exemption for other outdoor activities, such as tennis, outdoor bowling, climbing walls, riding centres, dry ski slopes and go-karting—I could go on. People would then say, “I’m being told to stay at home but I can go and do all those things, so you don’t really mean that I should stay at home.” Quite apart from the fact that people congregate in those outdoor settings, we need to be really clear that the message now is, “Stay at home.”

[Sir Charles Walker]

I am pretty thick when it comes to logic. A person can go on their bicycle and that counts as exercise, but they cannot sit on their own, in a solitary way, on a riverbank. What is the problem with that?

[Helen Whately]

I do not believe that my hon. Friend is as he describes himself, but what I do think is quite clear. We are saying that people should stay at home, unless their reason for leaving home is on the very clear list of essential reasons for doing so. That covers the eligibility of the children of critical workers to be in school, healthcare appointments and, indeed, exercise. We really need to make sure that it is absolutely clear that, other than for those specific reasons, people should stay at home. That is what we need to do in order to control this raging virus. That is the message that all of us need to convey to our constituents.

[Sir Graham Brady]

Will the Minister give way?

[Helen Whately]

I have very little time and want to cover more of the points that have been raised, including by my hon. Friend.

As hon. Members have said, this national lockdown is different from previous lockdowns because we have the vaccine and the end is in sight. We have already vaccinated more than 1.3 million people. That includes the nearly one in four of those over 80 who have had their first jab. By the middle of February, we expect to have offered the first vaccine dose to everyone in the top four priority group identified by JCVI—namely, care home residents and staff; people over 70; all frontline NHS and care staff; and the clinically extremely vulnerable. That answers the question posed by the shadow Health Secretary as to when NHS frontline staff will have the opportunity to be vaccinated, as they, together with social care staff, are in the group to be offered the vaccination by mid-February.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), asked how the vaccine will be offered. He will know that vaccination is not mandatory. We are educating, encouraging and informing people of the important reasons why they should step forward and have the vaccine. That is the way in which we are going about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) rightly said that we should stop at nothing to get people vaccinated, and I could not agree more. That is why my hon. Friend the vaccination deployment Minister is working with the NHS on getting millions of people vaccinated in just a matter of weeks, involving hospitals, GPs, community pharmacies and a workforce that includes thousands of volunteers, including health professionals returning to the frontline to play their part. As the Health Secretary confirmed earlier, we have already acted to reduce some of the bureaucracy and, in particular, some of the training models required for those NHS returners, so that we are ready to vaccinate as fast as the vaccine can be supplied.

I have heard several hon. Members call for more data on the vaccination roll-out. I assure them that weekly data will be published tomorrow, and the publication of daily data will start next week. That data will show our accelerating vaccination programme protecting more people day by day, so that in time we will be able to lift many of the restrictions before the House today.

In conclusion, there are difficult weeks ahead for all of us—especially for those working on the frontline in health and social care, whom we cannot thank enough—but we are on the final stretch with the end in sight, so we must keep our resolve and get behind these restrictions, which are needed to control the virus until the vaccine has reached those that it needs to. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put.

19:00

Division 193

Ayes: 524

---

Conservative: 322
Labour: 193
Liberal Democrat: 7
Independent: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 16

---

Conservative: 12
Democratic Unionist Party: 4

Resolved,

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 3) and (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 8), dated 5 January 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 January, be approved.

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Adjournment

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

19:10

House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

Member eligible for proxy vote	Nominated proxy
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)	Chris Loder
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)	Mark Harper
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)	Sarah Olney
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)	Sarah Olney
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)	Sarah Olney
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)	Sarah Olney
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)	Patrick Grady
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Alan Campbell (Ogmore) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)	Sarah Olney
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)	Sarah Olney
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)	Jonathan Edwards
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)	Ben Lake
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)	Sarah Olney
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
John Howell (Henley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)	Sarah Olney
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)	Mr William Wragg
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)	Patrick Grady
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)	Sarah Olney
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)	Chris Loder
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)	Stuart Andrew
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)	Ben Lake
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)	Sarah Olney
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)	Sir Alan Campbell
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)	Ben Lake
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)	Sarah Olney
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)	Rachel Hopkins
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)	Sir Alan Campbell

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 6 January 2021

Education

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Ministerial Corrections

Exams and Accountability 2021

The following is an extract from the statement on exams and accountability 2021 on 3 December 2020.

[Gavin Williamson]

The fundamental problem with this year’s exams is that we tried to award grades without actually holding exams. We will not be repeating that same mistake again. With the measures that I have outlined, we are confident that every student who is preparing to sit exams this summer will be awarded a qualification.

[Official Report, 3 December 2020, Vol. 685, c. 436.]

Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson).

An error has been identified in my statement.

The correct statement should have been:

[Gavin Williamson]

The fundamental problem with this year’s exams is that we tried to award grades without actually holding exams. We will not be repeating that same mistake again. With the measures that I have outlined, we are confident that every student who is preparing to sit exams this summer will have the opportunity to be awarded a qualification.

Petitions

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Petitions

Wednesday 6 January 2021

Welfare of horses in Wellingborough

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Petitions

The Humble Petition of the residents of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth,

That the Petitioners believe that laws regarding the welfare of horses should be reformed and enforced to protect vulnerable horses who are mistreated by their owners on the grounds that the current laws leave the ‘codes of practice’ open to debate and opinion, resulting in horses being neglected by their owners as the law is open to interpretation. In particular, the horses who reside by the Embankment in Wellingborough are neglected food, water and shelter, resulting in these animals having a poor-quality life.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs to introduce reforms to laws regarding the welfare of horses and to work with The Borough Council of Wellingborough and the RSPCA to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to protect the welfare of the horses on the embankment in Wellingborough.

And your Petitioners, as duty bound, will every pray, &c.—[Presented by Mr Philip Hollobone on behalf of Mr Peter Bone, Official Report, 11 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 1024.]

[P002623]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice):

Thank you for sharing your petition with me as Secretary of State at DEFRA. I was sorry to learn about this case of neglected horses in Wellingborough. We take the protection of animal welfare, including the welfare of horses, very seriously and we are determined to enhance the UK’s already high reputation in this respect.

The horses in question, who had been left on flooded land in Wellingborough, were removed by animal welfare charities for rehoming in June 2020. I would like to thank all those involved in moving 40 to 50 horses to safety, some of whom were in a poor state.

It may be helpful if I set out the laws already in place that relate to horses left either illegally on another person’s land or where the horses are kept in poor welfare conditions.

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence to cause any animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for its welfare. Anyone who is cruel to an animal, or does not provide for its welfare, may be banned from owning animals. They may also face an unlimited fine, be sent to prison, or both. The Government are supporting the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, currently before Parliament, which will increase the maximum custodial penalty for the worst animal cruelty offences (including causing unnecessary suffering) from six months to five years’ imprisonment.

The 2006 Act is backed up by the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Horses, Ponies, Donkeys and Their Hybrids which provides owners with information on how to meet the welfare needs of their equines, as required by the 2006 Act.

Breach of a provision of the Horse Code is not an offence itself, but if proceedings are brought against someone for an offence under the 2006 Act, the Court will look at whether or not they have complied with the Code in deciding whether they have committed an offence. This includes whether adequate food, water and shelter have been provided for the horses. Local authorities have powers under the 2006 Act to act where a horse is suspected to be suffering on any land, public or private. In such circumstances, the local authority may enter the land and take control of the animal in order to alleviate its suffering. Acting in this way is at the discretion of the local authority. Local authorities will often work in partnership with welfare charities such as the RSPCA, World Horse Welfare or Redwings.

The Control of Horses Act 2015 provides powers for landowners, land occupiers and local authorities to deal with horses placed unlawfully on land (including equine abandonments). The 2015 Act allows for action to be taken quickly where horses are placed on land without the landowner’s permission.

Specifically, the 2015 Act allows landowners and occupiers to seize and, if necessary, remove horses unlawfully left on their land and take them immediately to a place of safety. Local authorities have similar powers under the 2015 Act where horses are placed unlawfully on public land. In all cases, the person seizing the horse must notify the local police force within 24 hours of doing so, and if the horses’ owners can be identified, the person must also notify them. If no owner can be identified within four working days, landowners, occupiers and local authorities may then decide what to do with the horses, including rehoming, either privately or via charities, or offering them for sale. As a last resort, horses may be humanely euthanised.

In summary, therefore, it is the landowner’s or land occupier’s responsibility to use the 2015 Act powers when horses are placed unlawfully on private land. The local authority will only use the 2015 Act powers when they are either the landowner or occupier or where the horse is unlawfully placed on public land.

In addition, the Equine Identification (England) Regulations 2018 require all equines identified for the first time to be microchipped regardless of age when they register with a Passport Issuing Organisation (PIO) in England. Similar requirements are in place for the rest of the UK. This means it will be easier to trace the owners of horses that have been left on other people’s land without their permission or in cases where the horses are in a poor state of welfare.

From 1 October 2020, the Regulations extended the requirement for microchipping to older equines born before 1 July 2009, with the exception of semi-wild equine populations in the designated areas of Dartmoor, Exmoor, New Forest and Wicken Fen. A similar requirement will apply in Wales from 12 February 2021 and in Scotland from 28 March 2021.

The Regulations require equine owners to notify new microchips to a PIO for addition to the passport and the UK Central Equine Database (CED) of passport records. Owners may also use the CED’s Digital Stable to add a new microchip to an existing record. Therefore, once older equines are also chipped, the CED will hold the microchip details for all equines in Great Britain, which will improve traceability for welfare purposes and disease outbreak management.

Local authorities are able to search the CED to trace the owners of microchipped horses found to be straying, abandoned or stolen. The 2018 Regulations also give local authorities powers to use sanctions for offences, alongside the previous criminal sanctions which should help strengthen enforcement. This includes being able to issue fixed penalty notices and to keep the proceeds of fines.

The Government consider that the relevant legislation and guidance in place provides the right safeguards and powers in respect of protecting equine welfare. We remain committed to working with enforcement agencies and other interested parties to ensure issues of horse abandonments or neglect are effectively addressed.

Railway between Stoke and Leek

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Petitions

The petition of the residents of North Staffordshire;

Declares that improving rail infrastructure and providing better rail services in our city and wider North Staffordshire is vital for the growth of our local economy; notes that over 1,000 constituents have signed a corresponding petition asking to reopen the railway between Stoke and Leek; further declares that it would create jobs and unlock the potential of unused brownfield sites in our area; and further that it would greatly benefit commuters and passengers.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take such action as is necessary to reopen the railway between Stoke and Leek.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Jonathan Gullis, Official Report, 16 December 2020; Vol. 686, c. 353.]

[P002639]

Observations from the Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris):

We announced the £500 million Restoring Your Railway Fund in January 2020 to enable opportunities to reinstate railway services such as the Stoke to Leek Line, and add new stations, to the railway network. The Restoring Your Railway fund is about connecting people and communities. It includes an Ideas Fund for those schemes that are in an early stage of development and need to explore the options for solving a transport problem.

I thank the residents of North Staffordshire for expressing their support for this proposal, as local support is an important factor in getting rail schemes off the ground. I look forward to receiving a revised bid for the Stoke to Leek Line to the third round of the Ideas Fund which will be announced in the New Year.

Written Statements

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Written Statements

Wednesday 6 January 2021

Covid-19: Support for Businesses

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

Following my announcement yesterday that the Government are providing £4.6 billion of UK-wide funding to support hardest hit businesses, I am pleased to share further details regarding these grants.

Throughout this crisis, our economic priority remains the same: to protect jobs. We have already set out our economic package of support for businesses over the winter, including: monthly grants for closed businesses worth up to £3,000 per month; 100% business rates relief for all eligible retail, hospitality and leisure premises in 2020-21; extending the furlough scheme to April; extending the 100% Government-backed covid-19 lending schemes to March; and providing further self-employment income support scheme grants to support the self-employed to April.

But given further national restrictions announced by the Prime Minister on Monday that will prevent further spread of the virus, the Government will provide additional support to the most affected businesses, worth £4.6 billion across the United Kingdom.

All business premises in England which are legally required to close, including retail, hospitality and leisure, can claim a new one-off grant of up to £9,000. The one-off additional grant each business premises will receive depends on their rateable value.

Businesses with a rateable value of £51,000 or over will receive grants of £9,000.

Businesses with a rateable value between £15,000 and £51,000 will receive grants of £6,000.

Businesses with a rateable value of £15,000 or under will receive grants of £4,000.



This one-off grant is in addition to the existing monthly closed grants of up to £3,000 per month that businesses continue to be eligible for. These grants are worth over £1 billion in total per month.

We expect over 600,000 business premises in England to benefit from these grants. Businesses can receive multiple grants, as they are eligible on a per premises basis. Local authorities will receive the funding for the one-off grants next week, and we encourage them to make payments to businesses as soon as possible.

In addition to these one-off grants, we are making available discretionary funds of £500 million to local authorities in England to enable them to support their local businesses. This builds on the £1.1 billion discretionary funding (worth £20 per head of population) which local authorities in England have already received to support their local economies and help businesses impacted.

This announcement also includes £729 million of funding for the devolved Administrations as part of the unprecedented up-front funding guarantee. The total of the guarantee is reviewed regularly to ensure it reflects all additional funding and was most recently increased by £800 million to £16.8 billion on 24 December. The Government are likely to increase this shortly to take into account any further expected increases in support in England.

This support will help businesses get through this difficult period through to the spring. We will take further decisions about our economic response to coronavirus and how best to support the economy, businesses and jobs at the Budget on 3 March.

[HCWS690]

Covid-19 Vaccine Update

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

I am tabling this statement for the benefit of honourable and right honourable Members to bring to their attention the contingent liabilities relating to the contract signed between Her Majesty’s Government (hereafter HMG) and Oxford-AstraZeneca for their covid-19 vaccine.

On 29 December, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) gave its authorisation for use of the covid-19 vaccine being manufactured by Oxford-AstraZeneca. With deployment of this vaccine beginning next week I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG has taken on in relation to this vaccine via this statement and attached departmental minute.

The agreement to provide an indemnity as part of the contract between HMG and Oxford-AstraZeneca creates a contingent liability on the covid-19 vaccination programme, and I will be laying a departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.

It has been and is the Government’s strategy to manage covid-19 until an effective vaccine/s can be deployed at scale. Willingness to accept appropriate indemnities has helped to secure access to vaccines with the expected benefits to public health and the economy alike much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.

Given the exceptional circumstances we are in, and the terms on which developers are willing to supply a covid-19 vaccine, we have had to take a broader approach to indemnification than we usually would. Global approaches differ, but we are aware that many other nation states are offering indemnities as part of their contractual arrangements, or other means e.g. the US PREP Act, which provides immunity from liability to vaccine developers.

Even though the covid-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. The independent MHRA’s approval for use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine clearly demonstrates that this vaccine has satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness, and quality. We are providing indemnities in the very unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.

Developing a vaccination against covid-19 has been an extraordinary feat which has been delivered at great pace. Given the pace of vaccine development and our ambition to deploy the vaccine as soon as it has been authorised, it has not been possible to provide you with normal 14 sitting days to consider this issue of contingent liabilities.

I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines are deployed.

The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-01-06/HCWS689/.

[HCWS689]

Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy Programme

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

The Prime Minister has made a new appointment to his trade envoy programme.

This new appointment will extend the total number of trade envoys to 30 parliamentarians covering 69 markets. The Prime Minister’s trade envoy programme is an unpaid and voluntary cross-party network, which supports the UK’s ambitious trade and investment agenda in global markets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Angola and Zambia.

[HCWS688]

Grand Committee

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Grand Committee

Wednesday 6 January 2021

The Grand Committee met in a hybrid proceeding.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Grand Committee

Announcement

14:31

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.

The time limit for the following debate is one hour.

Antique Firearms Regulations 2020

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

14:31

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Antique Firearms Regulations 2020.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the regulations were laid before this House on 9 November. This country has some of the toughest gun controls in the world and we keep them under review to safeguard against abuse by criminals and terrorists. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 banned certain rapid-firing rifles and devices known as bump stocks and, in December, we began a three-month surrender and compensation scheme to take these and a range of offensive weapons out of civilian possession. In November, we launched a public consultation on a range of firearms safety issues, including security requirements for high-powered rifles.

The regulations will prevent criminals exploiting a lack of clarity in the current law to gain possession of antique firearms for use in crime. Under the Firearms Act 1968, antique firearms that are possessed, purchased, sold or acquired as “a curiosity or ornament” are exempt from most of our firearms laws, including licensing control. Unfortunately, the Act does not define “antique firearm”. The Home Office has published guidance on which firearms can safely be regarded as antique, but criminals have been taking advantage of the lack of a legal definition to obtain old but functioning firearms for use in crime.

The number of antique firearms recovered per year in criminal circumstances increased from four in 2007 to 96 in 2016. The number of recoveries has since decreased but remains at an unacceptably high level. In more than half these recoveries, ammunition capable of being used with a firearm was also present. Sadly, there have been six fatalities since 2007 linked to the use of antique firearms. The problem was highlighted by the Law Commission in 2015. It recommended that there be a statutory definition of “antique firearm”. The Government accepted this recommendation and included a power in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to define “antique firearm” in regulations. The Home Office held a public consultation to seek views on the detail of the definition. After careful consideration of the feedback, and following discussions with expert stakeholders on the technical aspects, I am pleased that we are now able to bring forward these important regulations.

The regulations will define in law which firearms can safely be regarded as antique and therefore exempt from control, and which should be subject to licensing. They are based closely on the existing Home Office guidance, so will be familiar to law enforcement, collectors and dealers alike. They specify a cut-off date of manufacture, after which a firearm cannot qualify as an antique. They also specify a range of propulsion systems and obsolete cartridges which are safe to be regarded as antique.

When read with the relevant provisions in the Firearms Act 1968, the regulations will mean that, to be regarded as an antique, a firearm must be held as a curiosity or ornament, have been manufactured before 1 September 1939, and either have a propulsion system specified in the regulations or be chambered for one of the obsolete cartridges specified in the regulations. Following concerns raised by law enforcement, the list of obsolete cartridges does not include seven types that, together with their associated firearms, feature most often in crimes involving antique firearms. This means that those firearms will no longer be regarded as antique.

I realise that omitting these seven cartridges will be disappointing for collectors, who will see a drop in the value of their associated firearms. However, public safety is paramount, and it is the Government’s duty to protect communities from gun crime. We are being balanced in our response to this problem. Existing owners of firearms will be able to retain them on a firearms certificate and we will make commencement regulations to allow a transition period of three months for them to do so.

We have also added 23 obsolete cartridges to the list following advice from law enforcement that they will not present a threat to public safety. This brings additional firearms into the definition of “antique”.

The Government want to ensure that these regulations remain relevant and effective. There will be annual reviews to consider the latest developments in criminal use of antique firearms. We will also carry out a full review of the regulations every three years. Law enforcement and representatives of collectors and dealers will be involved in these reviews.

Public safety is the Government’s top priority and these draft regulations will help to prevent criminal use of antique firearms. I commend them to the Committee.

14:37

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I appear to be stalking the Minister, as I turn up on all occasions when she presents, as she did yesterday on the important domestic abuse legislation. On every occasion I find myself reflecting on the past and wishing that I had done more in the areas she addresses. That is true today.

We are iterating as we go, because the changes the Minister described this afternoon build on what has been done over many years since 1968. I remember the terrible events at Dunblane and the actions we had to take under the then Conservative Government, and the changes we made when I was Home Secretary. On each occasion there appeared to be a loophole and something else that needed to be done. As I said yesterday in the Chamber, I appreciate that this is inevitable because we are learning as we go along, and so are criminals and perpetrators. They learn how to adapt and to adopt new methodologies as we close a loophole.

I am strongly in favour of the regulations. It may appear to be a very small measure but I am clear, as the Minister said, that we are attempting to close loopholes on risk. If anything puts people at risk—and use of these historical weapons has grown—we should try to close the loophole.

My only comment is that there is absolutely no real inconvenience to collectors, whether in the public sphere such as museums, or individuals who have developed a collection over the years. There is no real harm in asking them to register what they have because criminals will redeploy their skills on those historical weapons and in some cases make them operable, although it is more difficult with the ammunition. We sometimes create a bureaucratic barrier that does not really exist and would not be a problem for people registering. I put that on the table.

14:39

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I really do not have much objection to these regulations in principle. My gut reaction, however, is about the cut-off date of 1939, and the stability of the technology—creating a bullet and firing it down a metal tube, which is spun to give it accuracy. It is very established and goes back a long way, certainly to the mid-part of the 19th century. I wonder if we should not have pushed it back a bit further; I would have thought that the end of the First World War had a nice ring about it, as opposed to the start of the second. At just over 100 years, it would also make it antique even in the most pedantic of senses.

The main question here is: what criteria and threshold are we going to have for introducing the calibres of weapons that will be regarded as antique, which are not to be used but banned in future? It may be established that it is comparatively easy to repurpose, if you get the right technology and list of chemicals together. If you have the propellant and the chamber for it, you can fire it. What criteria will be used to make sure things are added to this list, or indeed taken off it? I do not think that will happen often but it could be there. If we could get an idea about this, I would be slightly happier about these provisions because of some small steps.

For instance, I live near Hungerford and catch a train there. There was a handgun used in part of the Hungerford attack; we waited until Dunblane to ban it. When are we going to get something slightly more proactive to deal with this? Handguns, in particular, are small and very short-range weapons designed for killing people. Historically, to put it in context, they replaced a sword. They are for killing people up close. They are not weapons for accuracy or sporting weapons. Can we have a better idea about how we will judge when something is deemed to be dangerous?

14:42

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my entry on the register. I broadly welcome these regulations, which bring changes to the law on antique firearms. Section 58(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 provides that an antique firearm possessed, acquired, et cetera

“as a curiosity or ornament”

is no longer subject to the provisions of the Act. However, Parliament has consistently refused to give a definition of an antique firearm. I well recall during my term as chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee—I was appointed two weeks before Dunblane—that we regularly struggled to define antique firearms and continually deferred discussion on the issue to the next meeting. I am not sure whether that next meeting ever arrived.

This statutory instrument is therefore to be welcomed, but with a word of caution. It provides that an antique firearm can only be one which conforms to the criteria that it was manufactured before 1 September 1939 and is of a defined propulsion system. Any other firearm, irrespective of age, type and more, cannot be considered antique in law if it does not meet these criteria. The chief officer of police no longer has any discretion, as was formerly the case. I welcome the clarity being imported into what has for many years been a very uncertain area.

What is less welcome is the modification of the so-called obsolete calibres list. Some revolver cartridges will be removed from the list, including the .44 Smith & Wesson, the 11 mm French and the 10.6 mm German. I would go further, but my time is restricted. Many people have acquired antique firearms chambered for these calibres since the guidance changed in 2002. Values range from the low hundreds to many thousands of pounds; they were bought as investments in many cases. It will be possible to apply for a firearms certificate to continue to possess such firearms, and the good reason test will not be applied, as I understand it. However, not all applicants will match the suitability criteria currently required for FACs. Those people affected will have to dispose of their lawfully acquired property for whatever value the market will give them, so the value of those firearms is likely to plummet and there will be no compensation.

The amendment of the obsolete cartridge list has been based on imperfect data supplied by NABIS, which alleges that there has been a steady rise in the number of antique revolvers used in armed crime. In truth, there have been seven fatalities, six of which were encounters between violent criminals who would have used any type of firearm available to them to settle their scores. The small proportion of antiques used in crime therefore surely makes the measure wholly disproportionate. Some 23 cartridges will be added to the obsolete cartridge list. Can my noble friend give me an assurance that the regulations, and the list, will be reviewed every three years and that the review group will include both collector and trade representatives?

14:45

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, my interest in this matter is sparked by the fact that, before the first lockdown in March, I was in discussions with the British Shooting Sports Council to become an officer of that organisation. It is not declared in the register because I think I have been proposed but not yet nominated; I am not quite clear what has happened in the past nine months but I will find out.

Having read the documents, this does not seem a huge issue. The Government’s response is fairly balanced. What always concerns me is using a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut; I hope that that is not the case here. I note the Law Commission recommendation. I heard the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. As a former Home Secretary, he knows a lot about this and his comments seemed sensible.

I note the cut-off date of 1939. When I was at school, I was in the CCF. In the school armoury, I think we had pre-1939 Lee-Enfield mark 4s. Times have changed but, as far as I am aware, none of the Merchant Taylors’ schools—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, I must adjourn the Committee for the next five minutes, as a Division has been called. Oh, my apologies; it is in the Commons. Let us begin again.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I was just going to say that all the rifles—about 100 of them—in the school armoury were pre 1939, were not used in crime as far as I am aware and were extremely accurate. They have now all been dispersed, of course. There was an occasion when the IRA tried to steal rifles from, I think, Felsted School around 1968; they were dangerous and it is obviously much better that we do not have dangerous weapons hanging around.

I support my noble friend the Minister.

14:48

[The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s introduction. I was anxious to find out what policy the Government were pursuing. I have been through the 1968 Act, which is probably one of the most amended Acts we could see.

From what my noble friend the Minister has told us, it appears that we are following the Law Commission’s recommendation in defining more closely what constitutes an antique rifle. There certainly has been a problem with uncertainty over what exactly was covered in the previous legislation.

Section 58 seems to lay down weapons that are not subject to the firearms legislation and to which licensing does not apply. Does that suggest that any gun manufactured before 1939 could be argued to qualify for not requiring a firearms certificate? I am sure that there are guns in estate gun-rooms from well before that time. I declare my interest, in that I have used quite a few guns from before 1939—some of which the police have persuaded me to hand in and a couple of which I retain.

I understand that any breach-loading gun desired to be kept as an antique in Scotland has to be disabled and the breach sliced open before it can be kept as unlisted. Have the unscrupulous people that my noble friend the Minister mentioned been able to restore such guns so that they can sell them illegally to individuals?

What will be the situation once the measures are in place? I have some ammunition that features in the schedule. My noble friend the Minister gave some information on the criteria used to draw up the list of ammunition, but it would be useful to know whether it is merely a question of what is no longer commercially manufactured.

14:51

[Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, the use of antique firearms in criminal activity has risen in recent years. Antique firearms kept as ornaments are currently exempt from several provisions in firearms legislation. At present, there is no statutory definition of an antique firearm. For that reason, this instrument will better regulate the sale of such firearms and responds to concerns raised with the Government by law enforcement agencies about the increase in their use in criminal activities in recent years.

Section 58(2) of the 1968 Act exempts from most controls under that Act antique firearms

“sold, transferred, purchased … as a curiosity or ornament”.

This includes being able to possess them as a “curiosity or ornament” without needing a firearms certificate and trade in them without being registered with the police as a firearms dealer.

Recently, an increasing number of antique firearms have been recovered in criminal circumstances. There is obviously a need to regulate the sale and purchase of antique firearms; I welcome this initiative. There are also antique knives, swords, et cetera. Do the Government intend to regulate their sale and purchase?

14:54

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the evidence base and proportionate response to the problems addressed in these regulations. I note that it implies a confidence in the police’s ability to cope with a technically complex list of obsolete calibres and models of pre-1939 air guns, as well as being able to tell the difference between, for example, an antique Brown Bess musket and a modern one for use by re-enactors that will require licensing. That is most welcome. The police will not be able to do that, of course; they will turn to experts, who are readily available, but between them they will get these distinctions right.

If these regulations are passed today, a number of obsolete calibres can be freely gifted, loaned or sold because the Government have agreed with experts that these items pose an extremely low risk to society. I am delighted that the Home Office is considering things at this level of detail and very much hope that this will lead to a reconsideration of the concerns expressed during the passage of what is now the Offensive Weapons Act, in particular the assertion that the police could not tell the difference between a pre-1945 item and a modern one—a task that is much easier than the one that this regulation places on them. This had led to wording that threatens the destruction of some fascinating parts of our heritage and profitable parts of our film industry. I hope that, in future, we will see the spirit in which this regulation has been brought forward applied to our Second World War heritage.

14:56

[Lord Garnier (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I recommend the article by Rupert Jones, “Firearms and Fury: The Rise of Gun Crime in the UK”, published in Counsel magazine for June 2018 and helpfully drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Library in advance of this debate. Together with the clear explanation by my noble friend the Minister, it makes the case for these regulations unanswerable. Were it permissible to do so, it should be annexed to the Official Report for this debate.

The penalties for gun crime are almost invariably severe. Mr Jones wrote about a registered firearms dealer who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for transferring illegal firearms and ammunition. He had Home Office authority not only to possess prohibited handguns but also to sell them. His criminal sideline involved making ammunition to fit antique guns. Despite being in prison since 2015, this man’s ammunition was being discharged by criminals on our streets and recovered by the police long afterwards. It very probably still is. It seems that one can lawfully buy a working handgun without any record of the transaction.

Despite the post-Dunblane restrictions, for some reason it was not thought that antique firearms, for which ammunition was no longer commercially manufactured, would be seen other than as items to be admired in collections. The non-commercial manufacture of ammunition is as old as gun-making itself. I have known people like me, who are legitimate and licensed owners of pre-1939 shotguns used only for game shooting, who used to make their own shotgun cartridges either to save money or as a hobby. That skill is well beyond me. However, my great-great uncle, the sixth Lord Walsingham—a trustee of the Natural History Museum until his death in 1919, perhaps one of the greatest game shots of his generation and a world-renowned ornithologist and lepidopterist—used to make paper cartridges filled with dust for a gun with a barrel no bigger than a pencil. He used them carefully to stun hummingbirds in the tropics so that he could study them close up.

Unfortunately, the private manufacture of modern ammunition specifically designed to be fired from otherwise lawful antique weapons in the course of crime is all too common. When I was Solicitor-General a decade ago, I learned that remarkably few handguns were used in a great many criminal shootings. A small number of illegally held handguns are available for hire to criminals and passed around from gang to gang. What I had not realised until I prepared for this debate is that the market is not limited to modern handguns and longer-barrelled weapons. Antique weapons are also used to commit crimes. If they are—I am sure that they are—we must do all that we can to prevent it. If these regulations help with that, so much the better.

Before concluding, I will say one more thing. At the time of the Dunblane reforms, ill-considered damage was done to the legitimate, competitive, Olympic sport of target shooting and its innocent participants. I join my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Lucas in hoping that these otherwise commendable regulations cause nothing similar to law-abiding collectors of antique guns.

14:59

[Lord German (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the policy intent of these regulations and the Minister’s introduction to them. They seek to remove a category of firearms from harmful and malevolent use.

However, the Minister must explain the delay in bringing forward this new law. It is now over three years since the consultation on these regulations ended. The Government’s response to this consultation was published only last November, and that took just under three years. If the obligation to protect the public from harm is the prime objective, keeping the country waiting for this length of time is certainly not the way to go about it. I am bound to draw a parallel with the Surrender of Offensive Weapons (Compensation) Regulations 2020, which had a very similar consultation period, from October to December 2017. It took two and a half years to bring forward that legislation as well. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that there is no endemic failure in her department that prevents public safety measures of this sort being dealt with at pace?

One piece of information that was not clear from the documentation supporting the regulations is the source of the antique firearms recovered during criminal circumstances. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the current situation

“is being exploited by criminals to obtain old but still functioning firearms.”

Can the Minister explain how criminals are obtaining these weapons? Are they being purchased on the open market or are they being stolen from collectors, dealers or museums? If they are being purchased on the open market, that obviously adds considerable strength to the case the Minister made for these regulations.

However, on their own, these regulations will be insufficient because licensing alone does not completely stop malevolent use, particularly from theft of weapons of this sort. Supplementary to that issue, is it safe to assume that collectors and museums would not wish to render these weapons useless as firearms by altering or damaging them in any way because they would then lose market value or, in the case of museums, their importance as genuine artefacts?

As a result of the delay in implementation, these regulations are being introduced in the midst of a lockdown. This is particularly important for the impact on museums. At present, all museums are closed, certainly for the next few months and possibly for longer. That is right across the UK, not just in England. Many museum staff are furloughed, particularly for museums run by charities and private sector bodies. Zero income is being achieved through visitor entries and other footfall and their financial future is challenging to say the least.

The impact assessment demonstrates that these regulations will have cost implications for museums. For those affected by the regulations—some 200 museums in all—the costs fall unevenly on smaller institutions. The figures given in the impact assessment are £200 for a licence and £3,000 for appropriate storage facilities. These set-up costs can be crippling when museums are struggling with the effect of the pandemic and when there is zero visitor income. So much of their revenue comes from entry charges, where there is no free entry support from Governments across the UK, and from sales in catering and shopping outlets—as any visitor to the Imperial War Museum will see, these are very important—as well as any income they get from corporate and sponsored function hire. All of these options are closed. Will the Government, having delayed the introduction of these regulations since the consultation period ended more than three years ago, provide an appropriate period of grace, not just a fixed three-month period, for museums—at least to coincide with museums’ ability to bring staff out of furlough and recommence income generation so that they are not hit with a financial burden when their income is zero?

Finally, I welcome the regular review indicated in the regulations and the review body proposal. The challenge for the Government is to achieve an appropriate balance on the review body between the interests of collectors and dealers, law enforcement and museums. Can the Minister tell us the arrangements the Government are making for that balance to be achieved? With satisfactory answers to these points, it will be appropriate to welcome these regulations.

15:04

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

We are certainly not opposed to these regulations, but there appears to be some doubt on the Government’s part as to whether they will have any impact on the serious issue they are intended to address.

As the Minister said, the regulations seek to resolve concerns about the increased use of antique firearms in crime by providing a statutory definition of antique firearms. In so doing, the regulations set out to provide certainty on which firearms can be possessed or traded as an antique and thus be exempt from the need for a firearm certificate and the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2017. The Minister gave the figures. The number of antique firearms recovered in criminal circumstances was four in 2007, reached a peak of 96 in 2016 but was still at a figure of 68 in 2019. Since 2007, six fatalities have been linked to antique firearms.

The lack of a statutory definition of an antique firearm, as opposed to Home Office non-statutory guidance, has enabled criminals to obtain old but still functioning firearms without the control provisions and licensing requirements under the 1968 Act being applicable. As has already been commented on, in 2015 the Law Commission recommended defining “antique firearm” in legislation to remove ambiguity over what was meant and provide greater clarity for the police and other criminal justice agencies in enforcing the law and prosecuting offenders. That recommendation was accepted by the Government and the Policing and Crime Act 2017 provided for a statutory definition, which led to a public consultation that year on the detailed aspects of the statutory definition.

Like the noble Lord, Lord German, I ask the Government to say in their response why it has taken more than five years to implement a Law Commission recommendation on a matter impacting on serious violent criminal offending at a time when violent crime has risen, and why it has taken three years from the conclusion of the public consultation on the detail of the statutory definition to bring these regulations forward. This might suggest a somewhat laid-back attitude to the incidence of violent crime, unless the Government say that the reason for the delay is that they still do not think that the regulations will actually have any impact on violent crime involving antique firearms.

If that is the case, such a stance would appear to be in line with the statement in the impact assessment—if I have understood it—that

“there is no robust evidence to indicate that re-classifying antique firearms in this way will reduce criminality involving antique firearms, serious violence, wounding or homicides.”

Does that statement represent the Government’s view of the effect, or rather non-effect, on public safety of these regulations, which have taken more than five years to appear following the Law Commission recommendation and have a net cost to business of £500,000 a year on top of set-up costs of £6 million? In their response, a clear statement is needed from the Government on not only the reason for the time it has taken to bring these regulations forward, but, in the light of the statement in the impact assessment, which I accept I may have misinterpreted, whether and why the Government think that these regulations will address two specific government issues.

The first issue is the concern mentioned in paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“Law enforcement has raised concerns with the Government about the increased use of antique firearms in crime.”


In the light of the statement in the impact assessment, do the Government think that the regulations will address that concern?

The second specific issue arises, once again, in the light of the statement in the impact assessment that

“there is no robust evidence to indicate that re-classifying antique firearms in this way will reduce criminality involving antique firearms”.

The issue is whether, and why, the Government believe that these regulations will deliver on their stated primary objective, as set out in the impact assessment:

“The primary objective is to preserve public safety by strengthening firearms legislation to prevent the criminal misuse of antique firearms.”


Again, in the light of the statement in the impact assessment, do the Government believe that these regulations will deliver on that primary objective?

15:09

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

Turning first to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, he nobly assists me in so much these days. Yesterday, he and the noble Lord, Lord Young, gave an absolutely fantastic lesson in how, by not doing things, we will come to regret them years later. Far from feeling as if I have been stalked, I have been greatly assisted by him, particularly when we can improve on what went before. The noble Lord stated his support for the regulations and I agree with his words: there is no real inconvenience in registering what people have and, if it helps to improve safety, all the better.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about the cut-off date of 1939 and thought that 1914—or maybe 1918—would be a rather lovely date. Law enforcement and some other respondents to the Home Office’s consultation preferred a 1900 cut-off date. Although moving the date from 1939 to 1900 would reduce the risk from firearms of that period by requiring them all to be licensed, the majority of firearms manufactured during that period do not in fact feature in crime. They are held safely and responsibly by museums and collectors, with no danger to the public. Licensing them all would therefore add extra burdens on the museums referred to by the noble Lord, Lord German—along with collectors, dealers and the police—without significantly increasing public safety.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me about the criteria, as did my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. I will go through those criteria again: to be antique, a firearm must be held as a curiosity or ornament, have been manufactured before 1 September 1939 and either have a propulsion system specified in the regulations or be chambered for one of the obsolete cartridges specified in them. He also asked a sensible question: how do we define “deemed to be dangerous”? There is no actual legal definition but the judgment on what is deemed dangerous is, I guess, the evidence of criminal use.

My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury questioned the reliability of NABIS data. I will take his points back. I concur that there were some inconsistencies in the NABIS data in its 2017 and 2018 annual reports in respect of recoveries of antique firearms. The head of NABIS subsequently had the data examined and found administrative errors in the figures used in the 2017 report. She has removed that inaccurate data from the NABIS website and put in place measures to ensure that there is no recurrence. The review of the list will be done every three years.

Moving on to my noble friend Lord Robathan, I just love listening to the stories from him and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. Honestly, what went on in their schooldays? We did not have such fun at all, but I thank my noble friend for his support for these regulations.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about disabling guns in Scotland before they can be antiques. That is not part of the current arrangement or the new regulations, so it will not be required.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, is pleased with the regulations but he asked about knives and swords. They are subject to different controls.

My noble friend Lord Lucas asked—no, he was delighted with the regulations. He was pleased about the clarity of it being pre-1939 firearms, as opposed to post-1939 ones.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked how firearms were obtained. The answer is: through a variety of methods. There is evidence that criminals are taking advantage of the lack of legal clarity to obtain old but still-functioning firearms for use in crime. In recent years, there have been several notable convictions involving antique firearms, with substantial sentences handed down by the courts. For example, in 2017, a former firearms dealer was convicted and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for firearms offences including supplying antique firearms to criminal gangs. In 2018, a firearms certificate holder was convicted and sentenced to 23 years’ imprisonment for firearms offences including making ammunition for antique firearms and supplying it to organised crime groups.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how the regulations would help. Basically, as I said, the problems of the current law on antique firearms were highlighted by the Law Commission in its 2015 report Firearms Law: Reforms to Address Pressing Problems. It recommended defining “antique firearm” in law, essentially following the model used in Home Office guidance.

The noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Rosser, lamented the delay in laying the regulations. As I understand it, it was necessary to take some time to consult widely on the detail of the regulations, some aspects of which are quite technical, and consider them carefully with expert stakeholders. However, I am pleased that we can now bring the regulations forward, which will strengthen the controls on antique firearms to prevent them falling into criminal hands.

Finally, I understand and empathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, about museums. I will take it back and see whether I can get a response for him.

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.45 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

15:17

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.

The following Members have withdrawn from the next item of business: the noble Lords, Lord Liddle, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Bhatia, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Wheatcroft. The time limit for it is one hour.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2020

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:46

Moved by

[Baroness Penn]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2020.

Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, this order, which we are here to discuss, brings prepaid funeral plan providers within the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory perimeter, subjecting them to compulsory, proportionate and robust regulation. This will ensure that consumers—often elderly and vulnerable—are adequately protected by proportionate but sufficiently robust regulation.

A funeral plan is a contract under which a policyholder makes one or more payments to a funeral plan provider, which subsequently provides or pays for a funeral on the policyholder’s death. Funeral plans allow consumers to “lock in” the price of their future funeral when they purchase a plan. Around 1.5 million plans are held by individuals across the country. Funeral costs have risen at almost twice the rate of inflation for the past decade, with the average funeral now costing between £4,000 and £6,000.

In recent years there have been reports from Fairer Finance and Citizens Advice Scotland of consumer detriment. In 2018 the Government launched a call for evidence, which confirmed that consumer harm exists in the funeral plan market. In particular, there is a lack of clarity for customers over what is covered by their plan; high-pressure and misleading sales tactics; and a lack of access to redress schemes if things go wrong. Some 84% of respondents to the call for evidence expressed support for a compulsory regulatory regime. Following further consultation, the Government decided to bring the prepaid funeral plan market within the remit of the FCA.

The funeral plan market has outgrown its 20 year-old legislative framework. Although a funeral plan contract is a regulated activity under the regulated activities order, the existing exclusions for plans covered by a trust arrangement or insurance contract mean that no prepaid funeral plan provider has ever been authorised and regulated by the FCA. The order removes those exclusions, requiring providers to be authorised by the FCA in relation to “entering into” funeral plans. The order also introduces a new regulated activity requiring providers to be FCA-authorised in relation to the administration of funeral plans, including existing plans. These changes will enable the FCA to introduce new rules to protect consumers at the point of sale; ensure that providers administer funeral plans properly; and ensure that providers have sufficient reserves to pay for funerals as they fall due.

Many funeral plans are sold by smaller intermediaries and third parties. Regulating this large part of the market is essential to protect individuals from the risk of unfair selling practices by companies that would take advantage of vulnerable customers. The order therefore amends the regulated activities order to make dealing in funeral plan contracts as an agent a regulated activity. This means that intermediaries or third-party distributors that promote or sell funeral plans will also be brought within the scope of the regulatory regime.

However, the Government are alive to the fact that many plans are sold by funeral directors, which are generally small to medium-sized family businesses and would not otherwise engage in financial services activity. To ensure a proportionate approach to these firms, the order amends the relevant regulations to allow them to become appointed representatives of principal firms. This means that funeral plan providers, acting as the principal firm, must ensure that the representatives they appoint to sell or promote their funeral plans comply with the relevant regulatory requirements, without these firms necessarily needing to pursue full FCA authorisation.

The order makes consequential amendments to the financial promotion order. It also brings the funeral plan market within the scope of the Financial Ombudsman Service and extends the ombudsman’s jurisdiction to complaints relating to matters that occurred when the relevant funeral plan provider was registered with the existing voluntary regulator, the Funeral Planning Authority.

I would like to acknowledge the work done by the Funeral Planning Authority. I hope that the FPA will continue its activities until the new FCA regime comes into force. The Government urge providers to remain registered with the FPA and continue abiding by its code of conduct during the transitional period. Having consulted widely with industry, the Treasury has concluded that most reports of poor activities can be attributed to those providers that have chosen not to register with the FPA. This demonstrates that a voluntary system of regulation cannot be fully effective because providers can choose not to comply.

It is a regrettable fact that bringing a previously unregulated sector into regulation—whatever form that may take—creates a possibility that some providers are unable to meet the threshold for authorisation. I therefore cannot rule out that, in authorising these firms under the new regime, it is revealed that some providers are unable to deliver on the promises they have made to their customers. I can assure the Committee that the Treasury and the FCA will monitor the situation closely and, subject to the facts at the time, stand ready—

15:52

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:57

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will repeat my last sentence in case it could not be heard due to the Division Bell. I can assure the Committee that the Treasury and the FCA will monitor the situation very closely and, subject to the facts at the time, stand ready to take any appropriate action.

Once this order has been made, there will be an 18-month implementation period before the new regulatory framework comes into force. This will allow time for the FCA to consult on and implement the new regulatory framework, and for firms to familiarise themselves with those new requirements. The Government understand that the FCA will also consult on whether to extend coverage of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to the sector. The Government are committed to working closely with the FCA on any legislative requirements to ensure that such an arrangement would work efficiently for consumers.

Compulsory regulation in this area is long overdue. Consumers should be able to make arrangements for this difficult time in life without fear of exploitation by disreputable firms. I beg to move.

15:58

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this order. It is perfectly fair to say that, in recent times, consumers have been bombarded by advertisements for these plans on television and radio and through other channels. As my noble friend said, people can be in a very vulnerable position in their lives when they are subjected to this pressure.

I would like to ask several things, in case I did not pick up some of the Minister’s comments. She made the point that some of the current operators may not be able to manage the new regulatory environment. What is the position for their policyholders, as it will be another 18 months before things are fully in place? What triggered the decision to push for this particular order? Was it the evidence of wrongdoing? Did the Government just decide to do so or did they receive a recommendation from the FCA in this regard?

While the Minister said that there were in the region of 1.5 million policyholders, can she give the Committee some sense of the amounts of money involved in this sector? It has grown exponentially in recent years. Also, what will the position be during the 18-month implementation period when people are still selling these policies, including perhaps a number of companies that will not be able to meet the requirements in the long term?

Clearly, markets change and evolve over time. We know this, but I am interested to know who is actually looking at it. When markets open up, perfectly good companies put forward policies. That is a great thing but, as the Minister has admitted, there are a certain number of people who are prepared to exploit. What is the position for companies that may not be in the United Kingdom but sell policies to it? In which regulatory environment will they operate, and what sanctions and security can be provided to consumers if they are not registered in the United Kingdom?

However, in broad terms, I welcome this order. It is overdue, as the Minister said. I hope that it will provide reassurance to a lot of people who perhaps currently find themselves holding policies that could still be vulnerable. It would be helpful if we could alleviate any further worry among those policyholders, particularly at a critical time in their lives.

16:02

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this is a no-brainer. Funeral plans are clearly a form of life insurance and, just like mainstream life insurance, they should be subject to full regulation. Promises are made to policyholders and we, as legislators, have an obligation to ensure that those promises are met.

We also have a duty of care. Funeral plans are mainly used by people on low incomes and with limited savings. Gold-standard independent financial advice will never be available to these prospective policyholders. They are inevitably on their own in an area that is potentially costly to them and where they have little knowledge, so regulations are required. I support what is proposed here today.

Provisions are required to provide protection for those who worry about being given a pauper’s funeral or concerned about it being a burden on their family after their death. However, the Committee needs assurance on some issues. I assume that there will be a time limit—maybe not now—but, given the time, I will limit myself to just two points.

First, we need assurance that the involvement of the FCA will not result in an inappropriate regime of supervision that would work against policyholders’ interests by unnecessarily increasing costs and limiting choice. The Minister was right to mention the work of the Funeral Planning Authority. It is a shame, therefore, that the Treasury does not appear to have made full use of its experience and expertise in this area. No doubt the Minister is aware of the detailed criticisms it has made of these proposals. I understand that a meeting with the authority is proposed but will the Minister assure us that the Treasury, and in due course the FCA itself, will take appropriate advantage of its undoubted expertise?

Secondly, it is important to mention the special needs of those religious communities—Jewish, Muslim and evangelical Christian—that provide funeral support for members of their own congregations. Such arrangements generally include a type of funeral plan that could fall under the order. I do not suggest that these plans should be disregarded for the purposes of the order. However, these arrangements are culturally significant, so will the Minister assure these communities that appropriate consideration will be given during the consultation to their special nature, both by the Treasury and by the FCA?

16:05

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister most sincerely for a very helpful introduction. I must declare a couple of relevant interests as a former Labour and Co-op MP and as a former chair of Age Scotland. Both are, and indeed were, non-pecuniary interests. I know that that is an unusual thing in our House these days.

The Co-op Group and Age UK are major providers of funeral plans and are both members of the Funeral Planning Authority, but they do not support the FPA’s objections to the order. Indeed, the Co-op welcomed the announcement made in I think the Budget last spring that the Financial Conduct Authority would be given responsibility for the regulation of funeral plans, which the Minister outlined in her introduction.

I and the Co-op appreciate the FPA’s concern for the future of smaller providers. I think that the Minister dealt with that in her introduction. The Co-op also said, and I agree, that the primary concern is the protection of consumers. As has been said, FCA regulation is the only way to achieve that successfully. Similarly, my former colleague at Age Scotland, Mike Douglas, pointed out when I spoke to him that the FCA is particularly well versed in the important principle of treating customers fairly, which should be applied to these products.

I also pay tribute to the work of Citizens Advice Scotland. Someone asked who had raised the issue; it was Citizens Advice Scotland in the first instance in a report way back in February 2016. It has taken us more than four years to get to this stage.

I also understand that the Treasury consulted widely on these plans and that the Financial Conduct Authority will also do so in its implementation, as the Minister said.

I was going to ask the Minister only one question on when she expects the order’s provisions to be put into practice, but she dealt with that in her introduction and said that it would take 18 months. My question now is: why will it take that length of time? Can that not be sped up? The sooner we get this protection to people purchasing funeral plans the better. Otherwise I am very pleased to say that, for once, I support the Government’s order without reservation.

16:08

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the Minister on the eloquence of her introduction and the Government on bringing forward this timely statutory instrument. I suppose I should declare an interest of sorts in that I am almost certainly the only qualified gravestone topple tester in Parliament. I have taken quite a significant interest in all matters relating to funerals, particularly burials. The need to regulate on this was raised under previous Governments with less success.

The kinds of people who plan for funerals in this way are very identifiable. Over the years, I have met and discussed the issue with many of them. They are easily recognisable: they are the kind of people who live in tidy houses, with tidy gardens. They volunteer; they will be volunteering to assist with Covid and matters relating to vaccinations. They are the bedrock of everything decent about the country. These people care about everything around them and, therefore, care about leaving everything in order when their time has gone. That motivation means that people tend to utilise such a service. The danger is that they perhaps place too high a value on it, and the mis-selling of the wrong or wrongly priced product has long been a concern. The beauty of the order is that any complaint about that, whenever it comes—by definition it could sometimes be made by someone from another generation rather than from the person who contracted the service—will shift the market towards good provision.

I have seen too many cases of trauma, usually when a husband dies leaving a wife or vice versa, when a funeral plan does not meet expectation. They had no idea that was going to happen. A lifetime of careful budgeting, of caution and living in a proper, very British way, as they would see it, blows up in their face. That is the importance of this, well beyond the appropriate, standard regulation of a financial product in a market. This is important in terms of the ethics of the country. The change it makes in cases where things go wrong, and the ability to do something about it, is disproportionately significant for the people impacted. I therefore thank the Government and the Minister for bringing this forward.

16:13

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have mentioned, around 2016 and 2017 there began to be reports about the mis-selling of funeral plans. The concern mainly focused on the plans not covering the cost of a funeral, the magnitude of fees taken by introducers and plan providers, and the inflexibility of plans and cancellation costs. The concerns have also come to light during a period when funeral costs have escalated, with elderly individuals being sold plans based on spiralling costs. Those costs are not inevitable—indeed new, cheaper funeral arrangements are now coming to market.

At times, the hard sell takes place door to door, but the pressure to make funeral provision is all around in advertisements. Even when this is from good providers, it adds to pressure for people to “do something” and spare their hard-pressed family from financial concern at a time of distress, making them easy targets.

Like other noble Lords, I have received the brief from the Funeral Planning Authority, and I thank it for the work it has done. I recognise that the new authorisation arrangements are an existential threat to it. That seems to be acknowledged in paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says that the regulatory cost will be partially offset by the fees that the majority of providers currently pay to the existing voluntary regulator.

The current terms for the FPA are to give 180 days’ notice, which means that the FPA may well cease before the FCA becomes responsible; it might not hang out for the 18 months if it has people resigning. What effect does the Minister think that will have? Will it make for some kind of lacuna?

The FCA will establish an authorisation procedure to commence in summer 2022 and will consult in spring this year. There’s the rub: we really do not know what it will do. It will all depend on that consultation. The only information at present on the FCA’s website is that it will look at outcomes, ensuring that consumers get the product paid for, and that

“funds are looked after and used responsibly.”

I await with interest how that will roll out. For example if funeral costs become more competitive, would funds being used responsibly prevent paying over the going rate at the time and even result in a cash payment, or is that merely a statement about the prudential soundness of the provider? Does it extend to blocking excessive fees? The problem is that we do not yet know any significant detail.

At present, all providers have to use a trust or an insurance policy, otherwise they would already come under FCA regulation, so what other kind of prudential supervision does the Minister envisage and where has it gone wrong such that it is not sufficient? Or do all the problems lie with the selling side, such as the pressures, commissions and descriptions? If that is the case, it is a little disappointing that the FCA site does not say something about sales conduct, other than getting the product paid for.

The SI removes the regulatory exemption for having funds in trust or an insurance policy so that everyone becomes regulated. At the same time, that seems to open up other forms of prudential security. I wonder what the effect of that will be. In the light of the FCA website comments, does it mean an expectation that funds will be invested and secured differently?

Of course we will let the SI proceed and I broadly welcome it, but I share some of the reported concerns. Like so much of the delegated powers we give to our regulators, the fact is that we really do not know what will happen, where the improvements will be or what we can do if they are insufficient. We of course have confidence in the FCA, but it is built entirely on that. We have no assurance in the SI or in any direction to the FCA that aggressive door-to-door sales must cease. The Treasury has made some provision, with the financial ombudsman taking over the role of dispute resolution, which would have been done by the FPA, but it is not really a satisfactory vision of the future. I would be far happier if there had been more specific guidance to the FCA about those things that have to stop, such as unreasonable fees, profiteering and door-to-door selling.

I heard what the Minister said in introducing the SI about regulation at the point of sale. That is good, but will it really stamp out bad practice? As the Minister said, it is only the 5% who have not taken up the voluntary authorisation. How easy will it be to find that and reduce it to zero?

16:19

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order. As she outlined, it amends the regulatory framework for providers of prepaid funeral plan contracts, generally requiring them to be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority. Intermediaries need not be directly authorised but will be expected to become appointed representatives, who are essentially overseen by an FCA-registered provider.

The provisions appear to offer a sensible conclusion to the consultation exercise launched back in 2018. We will certainly not oppose the order, though I would like clarity on a number of points.

The majority of providers act responsibly and sympathetically, and, for many, a prepaid funeral plan offers peace of mind. It is no surprise that the market has grown in recent years; it is perhaps more surprising that it has taken so long for the 2001 regulatory framework to be revisited. As the supporting documentation notes, the current voluntary regulatory system has not delivered the desired level of consumer confidence. We hope that the order sends a message to any unscrupulous actors that their behaviour must change. The ability to refer cases to the Financial Ombudsman Service is a particularly important inclusion. I hope the Minister can assure noble Lords that the department will follow early cases to ensure that the new regulatory regime has the desired effect.

Can the Minister offer any insight into how problem cases may be resolved under the new regime? If a provider or intermediary is judged to have fallen short of the FCA’s requirements, for example, will the funeral package remain valid with another player assuming responsibility for delivery? Those who have taken the time to spell out their wishes will want them honoured. If their plan were to be cancelled and a refund issued, it would be not only inconvenient but a potentially traumatic experience.

The Explanatory Memorandum and the information paragraphs in the 37th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee note that the new regime will not be fully in force until 18 months after the order is made. It clearly makes sense to give both the FCA and providers time to flesh out the detail and adjust to the new reality. However, can the Minister confirm what steps, other than those outlined in paragraph 2.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, will be taken to prevent vulnerable customers being targeted or pressured into signing agreements in the interim period? Can she also confirm whether the Government plan to formally make this order shortly after the Commons has considered the draft on 13 January, or is there likely to be a delay to allow the FCA more time to begin its consultation?

Finally, could the Minister please outline the rationale for explicitly excluding local authorities from the regulated activities? I am not aware of local authorities clamouring to offer such services, but what if a specific need were to arise in a particular locality?

Once again, I thank the Minister and her department for introducing the order. I look forward to her response and, all being well, the FCA launching its consultation in due course.

16:23

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate and for their support for this measure. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked what triggered the Government’s decision to act in this area. As other noble Lords noted, there had been reports on issues with this sector by Citizens Advice Scotland and Fairer Finance. The Government conducted their own call for evidence, which also found evidence of consumer detriment and triggered government action.

The noble Lord also asked about the amount of money involved in the sector. There are 1.5 million undrawn plans, equating to approximately £4.3 billion in assets under management.

The noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about implementation. I fully expect the Government to make this order shortly after the Commons has considered the draft. The 18 months for implementation include time for the FCA to consult on the requirements that it will put in place. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that, once a new regime is in place, the Treasury and the FCA will work closely to ensure that it is having the desired effect.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about firms outside the UK selling to UK consumers. I assure him that the relevant regulated activity refers to plans for the provision of a funeral in the UK. The fact that a provider is based outside the UK does not necessarily mean that the regulated activity will not be deemed to be carried out in the UK, and therefore subject to UK regulation.

The noble Lord also asked for reassurance about the impact of these regulations on specific religious requirements for burials and their provision by religious groups. The regulated activities order clearly defines what is meant by a funeral plan contract. This definition may not capture the arrangements of religious bodies. Further, the regulation applies only to persons carrying out regulated activities by way of a business.

As regards the potential for disreputable conduct by firms before the FCA’s compulsory regime comes into force, I again strongly encourage all funeral plan providers to remain registered with the FPA during the transition period and to continue following its code of conduct. I also urge consumers purchasing funeral plans to choose providers that have registered with the FPA. This will provide some level of protection and, in future, the benefit of access to the Financial Ombudsman if something were to go wrong.

The noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether I could provide any insight into how problem cases may be resolved under the new regime—for example, where the provider of an existing plan does not get authorisation under the new regime. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is absolutely right that the preferred solution in this situation, where a funeral plan provider is unable to meet the threshold for authorisation or chooses not to continue in the market, will be for the transfer of its business to another provider that has successfully obtained FCA authorisation. Legislation does not prescribe the terms of any such transfers that may be undertaken in a way that preserves the consumers’ underlying benefits, such as their choice of funeral director or services provided.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also asked for clarity on the exclusion for local authorities. During its consultation exercise, the Treasury found no evidence of harm from prepaid funerals sold by local authorities. The Government therefore consider that it is not necessary to bring them within the scope of the FCA regulation. However, they can continue to provide this service should they wish to. The order simply excludes them from the regulatory remit of the FCA.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked for reassurance on the role of the FCA, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. The FCA has a reputation for being an effective regulator and its experience of conduct and prudential regulation, alongside its extensive rule-making powers, will provide a solid basis for strengthening the regulatory framework for funeral plans. The Financial Ombudsman Service has experience of dealing with a wide range of types of complaints and was supported by a majority of respondents to the Government’s consultation. Taken together, the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service will provide consumers with an effective and enforceable regulatory regime, and an effective dispute resolution mechanism. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his support of the FCA’s role in regulating this sector and provide reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the Treasury and the FCA have consulted, and will continue to consult, on the details of these regulations and the rules made under them. They will, of course, draw on the important advice of the FPA.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about the ongoing role of the FPA. As I said, it is my hope that the FPA will continue until the new regulatory regime comes into force and that providers will remain registered with the FPA, enabling it to continue functioning. I believe that these regulations are a welcome move to regulate a sector that is overdue for them.

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. The Committee is adjourned.

Committee adjourned at 4.29 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 6 January 2021

The House met in a hybrid proceeding.

12:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

12:06

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I obviously ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to ask the first Oral Question.

Divorce

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:06

Asked by

[Baroness Deech]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the research on the impact of divorce published by Resolution on 30 November, what steps they are taking (1) to improve the capacity of family courts, and (2) to support divorce litigants.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible]—enormous pressure. Despite this unprecedented challenge, I can reassure the House that the whole system has worked together to prioritise support for the most vulnerable. Of course, we acknowledge that there is always more to do, which is why the department continues to work with the advice sector to provide vital support services for litigants.

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

The Resolution report showed that we are heading for disaster in the family courts, and that 41% of those recently divorced suffered mental health episodes or even had suicidal thoughts. The Nuffield report on remote hearings showed that while the professionals are happy with remote court working, litigants are not. There are technical issues and a lack of privacy. What will the Government do to help those in divorce proceedings? Disputes over financial provision are a major irritant. If mediation is a solution, the law in that area has to be simplified. Will the Minister update the House on progress with a promised review of financial provision law aimed at making it less contentious?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I do not accept the noble Baroness’s characterisation of the situation as one in which we are heading for disaster. The situation is no doubt complex, and we are aware of the data to which she refers.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, Resolution urges early support for separating couples to mitigate the pain of divorce and consequential mental ill health they and their children very frequently experience. The Lord Chancellor committed to join up government family support to mitigate the pain of no-fault divorce. Family hubs, as recommended by Justice Cobb’s Family Solutions Group, are firmly on the Department for Education’s agenda, but how will the Ministry of Justice ensure support for separating families?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to identify the family hubs as a principal part of the Government’s intention to join up government family support as part of the backdrop to implementing no-fault divorce. Ministers and officials from the Ministry of Justice are working closely with their counterparts in the Department for Education and a number of other government departments to share a cross-government agenda for strengthening families. Family hubs are a vital element of this agenda, and work is continuing to further develop the family hub model to ensure that they improve outcomes for children and families with children. This will include those at risk of separating or who have separated, equipping them with the skills to manage issues and decisions independently and effectively so that they do not need to rely on family courts. In addition, and as previously stated in this House, the Government will use the opportunity of revising the online divorce application process to improve the signposting of relevant support services.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the Government give sufficient support, especially to children suffering from the separation of their parents, including better funding for CAMHS?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

I am very sorry; may I ask the noble and learned Baroness to repeat the question? I am trying to communicate by telephone, and it is not particularly easy.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I think we should move on to the next question. If my noble friend the Minister could write to the noble and learned Baroness with his answer, we can move on to the next supplementary.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Courtown.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

Moving on to the next supplementary, I call the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we are all aware that this post-Christmas period is a particularly difficult time for relationships, and the feelings of depression and anxiety among divorcees, which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to, are made worse when they are worried about whether they can afford professional or legal advice. So many decide to represent themselves in the divorce court rather than to have professional advice, sometimes with disastrous results. How do the Government intend to ensure that poorer people have access to justice, and what are they doing to relieve the huge burden of overwork for court staff which leads to phones not being answered and cases postponed?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord’s first question, legal aid is available for private families where an applicant is a victim of, or at risk of being a victim of, domestic abuse or child abuse, and that is subject to the means and merits criteria. Legal aid is available for the purpose of obtaining urgent protection such as non-molestation orders without any up-front evidence requirements, and the Legal Aid Agency has the power to waive all financial eligibility limits so that a victim may qualify for legal aid even if their income or capital exceeds the eligibility limits. An overall contribution may be required later. Legal aid for matters out of scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is available via the exceptional case funding scheme. That is intended to ensure that legal aid is accessible in all cases where there is a risk of breach of human rights, subject to the statutory means and merits test.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

[Inaudible.] Can the Minister confirm that, as discussed in the recent GR judicial review case, where a wife subjected to domestic abuse has been assessed as having capital in a jointly owned matrimonial home but is otherwise penniless, and where she can demonstrate that she is unable to access that capital because the violent husband refuses to sell or mortgage the property, the director of legal aid casework has a discretion which he should exercise to treat the applicant as financially eligible for legal aid?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord’s question addresses aspects of detail as well as recent case law. I do not have the detail and the material with me to permit me to provide the noble Lord with a satisfactory answer. Again, I shall ensure that I correspond with him and put down in writing the answer to his question.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in November, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Cafcass, triggered its prioritisation protocol in South Yorkshire and the Humber region, which means it is allocating only the highest priority cases there due to severe understaffing. The trade union Napo has described this as a crisis. What steps is the Minister taking to prevent this prioritisation protocol being triggered in other areas, and what estimate has he made of the extra resources necessary to stabilise Cafcass in this region and to prevent a similar protocol being triggered elsewhere?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

The question covers some of the ground posed by an earlier question but I am happy to answer it. Approximately £3.5 million of additional funding has assisted Cafcass in increasing staffing levels. Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service has recruited approximately 900 additional support staff across jurisdictions and around 700 further appointments are currently sought. Your Lordships will be aware that Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service has established 17 Nightingale courts across England and Wales. These give 32 additional courtrooms to alleviate the pressure on courts and tribunals. These courts are hearing, as well as family cases, civil, tribunal and non-custodial criminal work. I can advise that judicial sitting days in the family court have been increased. Current projections are that a level of nearly 96,000 sitting days for 2020-21 may be accomplished—5,000 more than allocation—and the courts sat for record numbers of days in June and July 2020.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

The time for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.

Green Homes Grant Scheme

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:17

Asked by

[Lord Oates]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the Green Homes Grant scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

The green homes grant voucher scheme opened for applications in September 2020 and so far has received over 58,000 applications. There will be an independent evaluation of the processes and effectiveness of the voucher scheme, including a comprehensive analysis of scheme outcomes and evidence collected from scheme applicants and other stakeholders. This will begin this month and will run until 2023.

[Lord Oates (LD) [V]]

My Lords, given that the figures the Minister has given us show that the scheme has achieved less than 10% of its original target, does he recognise that no programme to upgrade the 28 million homes that require it will be successful if it is designed as a short-term stimulus measure, as this scheme was? Rather than downgrading quality requirements, will the Government therefore commit to a long-term sustained scheme over five or 10 years, which would incentivise the building industry to develop the skills base and create the jobs required to deliver such a major programme?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We are not downgrading the quality requirements, but the noble Lord makes a good point. We have had a number of these schemes over the years and we will look at what we can do in the future as well.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, made a very good point: this needs to be a long-term scheme that gives the supply chain confidence to invest in and expand the workforce and create new green jobs. Can the Minister assure me that, in collecting the data that he says will come from the applicants, he will look at the assessment needed not only of the scheme’s contribution to carbon reduction but of its contribution to reducing fuel poverty in less well-off households? Can he tell us when we will see what proportion of households whose applications have been approved are in receipt of benefits and what proportion are landlords whose applications will benefit their tenants?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We have already listened to feedback and announced the extension of the scheme until March 2022. We will always listen to feedback. I gave the figures earlier for the number of applications that have been received. In due course, we will a provide further breakdown of those figures.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

The number of contractors engaged with the scheme appears, not least in the north and the Midlands, to be remarkably low. What will the Government do to incentivise more contractors so that issues such as the replacement of oil heating systems can be delivered through this scheme? There appear to be no contractors doing it anywhere across the whole of the north and the Midlands.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

More than 1,300 companies are registered with TrustMark so far, of which 765 are registered with the scheme, including many businesses that operate nationally with substantial capacity to carry out work across the country, but the noble Lord makes a good point. We are well aware that we need to get more contractors and installers signed up to the scheme. We are actively working with TrustMark and the certification bodies to do that, but we need to ensure that the essential quality standards are met.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he has made an excellent start with the Green Homes Grant scheme? I spoke to former constituents. However, just one element causes a problem: the need for an urgent review of the smart meter installation programme, particularly for those who want to take up this green project and have an old smart meter, which means they cannot switch suppliers. Will my noble friend look at this small handicap to those taking part?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. The smart meter scheme is not part of the Green Homes Grant scheme. It is a separate scheme, for which I also have responsibility, but I would be happy to talk to him separately about the issues he raises.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

On Monday, the Minister announced that building contractors delivering the Green Homes Grant scheme no longer need to be registered with TrustMark, be certified with PAS or be MCS compliant, thus lowering the standard of entry for those undertaking work. This comes at a time when there is also an acute shortage of professional retrofit assessors, who are essential to check and sign off completed projects. That leaves owner-occupiers who are trying to do the right thing and make their homes energy efficient increasingly exposed to undetected bad workmanship or fraud. Exactly how does the Minister propose to increase the number of assessors, safeguard consumers and prevent this vital scheme getting a reputation for dodgy work and becoming a wild west waste of money?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We absolutely want to ensure that that is not the case. The noble Lord is incorrect. Main contractors still need to be registered with TrustMark. They also need PAS certification or be on a pathway to it. We are working with contractors to make sure that more are registered. We are also talking to the certification bodies. I have met a number of them to ensure that more contractors are signed up to the scheme. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the quality of the scheme and the standards of work carried out are of priority importance and we will make sure that that happens.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, a nationally-focused, directly-funded scheme for installing energy efficiency measures and efficient heating for fuel-poor homeowners and private renters exists in Wales and Scotland. The recently introduced Green Homes Grant scheme obviously provides funding—albeit less generous—in England through local authorities but not through a single, efficient, focused nationwide scheme with high quality standards and an easy customer journey. Will the Minister look to improve the delivery mechanisms of the Green Homes Grant scheme to match the clarity of a single, focused nationwide initiative as part of the review process that he has just announced?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I understand the noble Lord’s point, but we specifically designed the local authority delivery element of the scheme to directly target owner-occupiers in private and social rented sectors but also to allow local authorities themselves to be responsible for the design of those schemes so that they more closely matched the requirements of their area. If we had a national instruction on how to do it, I think that would cause other problems. On balance, it is probably best to allow local authorities to decide how it works best in their areas.

[Lord Best (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Sustainable Energy Association. Bearing in mind that there have been delays in issuing the vouchers for Green Homes Grant spending, which are leading to a likely underspend in this financial year, can the Minister confirm that the Government will carry over this phase 1 underspend beyond the end of March into phase 2 spending, so that valuable funding support is not lost?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We announced the extension of the scheme until March 2022, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. In the 2020 spending review, the Chancellor allocated over £1 billion to make public sector buildings and homes greener, including £320 million for this scheme in 2021-22.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

With the initial plan for the Green Homes Grant to last only nine months now extended a further 12 months until March 2022, there must be doubts about the ambition of this scheme against the long-term challenge of making homes more energy efficient. With only 5.6% of applicants having had their applications approved and with only a single household receiving a voucher, can the Minister tell the House what success looks like for this scheme? For example, what maintenance of a set maximum response time for applicants will be achieved and how many of the 19 million homes EPC-rated D or worse will be improved through the scheme?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord asks a lot of questions. I think his figures are incorrect. We had 58,000 applications and have issued almost 11,000 vouchers to those applicants. Another 11,000 are being processed and 35,000 have gone back to the applicants for further information or clarification of their quotes, et cetera. We keep all elements of the scheme under review. We announced the extension to March 2022 in response to the feedback we received from the noble Lord and others.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the sector that will deliver home energy efficiency measures wants statutory targets, such as those for climate change, to give it confidence to invest in equipment and training. The Minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, in the other place has talked specifically of the benefits of statutory targets in driving action. Will the Government enact into legislation the targets for home energy efficiency they have already promised?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I cannot give the noble Lords a specific assurance on that. We keep all these matters under review.

[Lord Krebs (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for a very helpful meeting in the autumn on this topic. Can he confirm that the original requirement for applicants to use vouchers for at least one primary measure, before becoming eligible for a secondary measure, has now been removed?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No. At present, we keep the primary and secondary elements of the scheme, because we think that is the best way of delivering the maximum carbon savings that I know the noble Lord is also keen on. We keep the scheme under constant review and listen to suggestions for improvements from him and others on how we can make it more effective. The noble Lord’s feedback is valuable, and I will bear it in mind.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Religious Groups: Financial Support

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:28

Asked by

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial support they have provided to religious groups in the United Kingdom during the Covid-19 pandemic.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

During the pandemic, faith-based organisations and places of worship have been able to apply for a range of government packages available to support charities and businesses. These include the Coronavirus Community Support Fund, Historic England’s Covid-19 emergency relief fund and the Local Authority Discretionary Grants Fund. We continue to consider how government can effectively support the sustainability of faith groups.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, as a retired minister, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. Over these long months of the pandemic, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided financial aid for people and businesses greatly impacted by Covid, but churches themselves, which provide vital assistance to the isolated, the elderly, the sick and the dying, have received nothing, although their finances have been greatly depleted by the non-attendance of most of their congregations because of government rules and restrictions. What consideration has been given to this matter, and will aid be forthcoming?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I do not recognise that no support has been given. In fact, during the pandemic, there have been 10 schemes available to places of worship, including churches, four of which are still available. I point to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme from DCMS, the gift aid small donations scheme, the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme through BEIS and the Job Support Scheme from HMT, all of which are still running and available.

[Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, in its recent inquiry, received evidence of the specific targeting and blaming of Muslims as a group causing the spread of the coronavirus. Will my noble friend join me in both rejecting this false and bigoted view and paying tribute to the many mosques and community organisations which, despite the Government’s decision to allow communal worship in the latest lockdown, have taken the decision to limit services where it is considered wise to do so, in the interests of public health and safety?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I join my noble friend in condemning those who point the finger at any community, including British Muslims. I absolutely commend the role taken by Muslim charities, such as the Muslim Charities Forum, in supporting people during the pandemic. It is part of the Voluntary and Community Sector Emergency Partnership. I commend the work of Muslim charities and mosques in helping the needy and vulnerable at this difficult time.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]]

My Lords, Sikhs from the gurdwara in Gravesend were prominent in organising free hot meals for stranded lorry drivers at Dover, and similar initiatives by Sikhs have been applauded in other parts of the world. Government assistance in making minority communities aware of the perils of Covid-19 on media that they read, watch or listen to would be helpful, but does the Minister agree that the faith communities, in the welfare and volunteering they do, are playing a key role in helping us get through the pandemic?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I completely agree on the role of British Sikhs. It is fundamental to their faith to help people in need, and, although I have only 15 followers, I specifically tweeted out my support for Langar Aid in Kent. It is alongside many charities, including the Salvation Army, which provided much needed sustenance at a very difficult time throughout the Christmas period.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, throughout the pandemic, faith groups have provided comfort, care, guidance and support for people and communities—as we saw in Gravesend with the Sikh community. We should pay tribute to them and thank them for that, but, as the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said, we should go further. Will the Minister agree to speak to his colleagues in the Treasury to see what could be done through the tax system to provide bespoke levels of support to faith communities? I also join the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, in condemning those who wrongly seek to blame the Muslim community for the pandemic.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I will always commit to talking to the Treasury. I am not sure it will always listen to me, but I promise to make every endeavour and possible representation to ensure it sees the light and takes up the noble Lord’s suggestion.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]]

At the end of this pandemic, whenever it is, many ordinary chapels and churches will be in difficulties, just like the major churches. In many places, those that have been closed for the pandemic will not open again. I ask the Government to give support in whatever way possible to those people, sometimes very few, who are battling to come to terms with legal or building requirements. I also thank those who have been standing so faithfully over the years in these smaller congregations. Things have changed now, and I know that in my church, the Methodist Church, the Whitechapel mission, for example, has in the past nine months served 277,000 meals. In other places, as already mentioned, drivers of the lorries held up going to Dover were very well supported by people of all faiths and of no faith. Can we also say thank you to them?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the grandson of a Methodist minister, and I commend what Methodists have done, but I am in fact a Roman Catholic. None the less, faith communities have stepped forward and helped considerably during this time, and the Government will continue to think about ways in which we can partner with faith communities.

[Lord Flight (Con) [V]]

My Lords, what criteria might the noble Lord propose should apply to qualify for financial support by religious groups?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

That sounded incredibly technical, to be honest. I need to reflect on it and write back to the noble Lord, giving a comprehensive answer and putting a copy in the Library.

[The Lord Bishop of Rochester]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, as his Question enables me to acknowledge with thanks to the support which has been received by religious groups and charities, not least through the furlough arrangements, which have been a considerable help for many of them. However, in looking to the future, I join others in urging Her Majesty’s Government to keep particularly in mind the needs of smaller charities, which are often religious, community and locally based in character, whose work with young people, the homeless, those in debt, the elderly and other groups has been growing in this time, while their voluntary income has often been diminishing. Perhaps I can tempt the Minister by suggesting that Her Majesty’s Government might consider using their new-found freedoms to exchange the current scheme, whereby VAT is reimbursed on works relating to listed places of worship, for one where it is not charged in the first place.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I know that that will be the start of a series of specific, bespoke requests, but it is right that the Government think about how we support small, grassroots charities. I want to commend the efforts of my colleague, my noble friend Lady Barran, for setting up the Voluntary and Community Sector Emergency Partnership during the pandemic, which is trying to do precisely that with a £5 million award, and we are looking to build on that for particular faith communities as well.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the second round of the Cultural Recovery Fund will be open for applications from 7 January and will close on 26 January; £36 million of this funding will be allocated to heritage organisations and businesses, administered by the National Lottery Heritage Fund in partnership with Historic England. Will this fund be open to faith organisations that are based in historic buildings, especially in rural areas?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My understanding is that DCMS funding is open to places of worship. In fact, a number of places of worship, including many cathedrals, have been in receipt of funding already.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

My Lords, many places of worship are open for people of all faiths and of none as places of refuge and renewal, as are organisations such as the Salvation Army, which has already been mentioned. They provide invaluable help to many people, particularly those who have been rescued from abuse of all kinds, such as human trafficking and domestic violence. As their income has been greatly reduced by the Covid pandemic, will the Government help so that their work can continue? Perhaps, as my friendly colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, suggested, they can have some form of tax relief.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, commend the work of the Salvation Army. I now consider Dean Pallant to be a close friend, and the work it does is phenomenal. It is fair to say that it has been able to apply to around 10 schemes, four of which remain open, it is a member of the Voluntary and Community Sector Emergency Partnership, and £5 million has been distributed to its members.

[Lord Dholakia (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am aware of the valuable work that faith organisations do in our community. Temples, gurdwaras and mosques provide food parcels, and religious leaders provide counselling and other services to local communities. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in other government departments to ensure that these services are not curtailed by a lack of financial resources? Any help for these organisations through local authorities would be most welcome.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is important that we provide joined-up government. I am working closely with my colleagues in DCMS, and we work across Whitehall to ensure that that happens.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.

Law Enforcement: Brexit Impacts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:40

Asked by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom of (1) not having access to European Union databases for the purposes of investigating crime, and (2) the replacement being put in place for the European arrest warrant.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interest in the register and beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the safety and security of our citizens is the Government’s top priority. That is why we have secured an agreement delivering a comprehensive package of capabilities that will ensure that we can work with counterparts across Europe to tackle serious crime and terrorism, protecting the public and bringing criminals to justice. Importantly, this agreement includes arrangements facilitating streamlined extradition and the fast and effective exchange of data.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, on Christmas Day, the Home Secretary issued a statement saying that the new agreement with the EU was “historic” and would

“make the UK safer and more secure”.

Will the Minister tell us precisely in what ways the deal makes us safer and more secure? How will the loss of direct, real-time data-sharing access, and the loss of access to the Schengen database of alerts about wanted or missing people, stolen firearms and vehicles, conceivably help our law enforcement agencies?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is absolutely right. This deal is historic and it will keep us safe. In terms of SIS II, to which the noble Lord refers, as he knows, the EU took the position that it was legally impossible for any non-Schengen country to be included. We obviously are using Interpol and bilateral channels to facilitate that. It is important that we get SIS II into perspective, because every time that a UK law enforcement officer checked policing or border systems, it counted as a check against SIS II. That is why there were 572 million checks in 2019. Less than 0.5 per cent of those SIS II records related to persons of law enforcement interest.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I first pay tribute to the Minister, who led a very fine debate last night on domestic abuse and domestic violence. I wish to pick up on that in relation to the questions of my noble friend. When protection orders are made on domestic abuse to protect someone who is being victimised and has survived domestic abuse, the order could, until now, be enforced in other parts of Europe. What will happen if, for example, a woman goes with her children to visit family members in Europe but is pursued by her abuser, who assumes that the order will no longer operate beyond our borders? Are we going to create new mutual recognition mechanisms to make sure that any order to protect her will be enforced in other parts of Europe?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will know, we will not be seeking membership of Europol but the arrangements that we have in place will allow for the UK’s continued effective co-operation with Europol, including rapid exchange of operational information and data for mutual benefit—in particular, in the type of case that the noble Baroness outlined.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the agreed surrender arrangements that replaced the European arrest warrant include a significant number of grounds for withholding surrender and an overall principle of proportionality. All issues raised by a requested person will have to be litigated in the executing state before a surrender decision can be made. Will the Government undertake an audit of the delays and costs involved in the new system arising from our withdrawing from the clear procedures for European arrest warrants?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord will be pleased to know that some safeguards regarding human rights would be right for the carrying out of justice. However, in terms of speed, we fully anticipate that the arrangements will be as fast and effective as those under the EAW.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. Without seamless access to shared intelligence or co-operation both domestically and within Europe, human trafficking here will, I fear, inevitably increase. I heard what my noble friend said earlier, so will she now confirm that the UK will still have access to Europol, Eurojust, the Schengen Information System and passenger name record data?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can confirm that the arrangements will allow for the UK’s continued co-operation with Europol. In terms of Eurojust, they ensure that UK and EU investigators can continue to share information and evidence, agree strategies and co-ordinate activity to tackle cross-border criminality.

[Lord Woolf (CB) [V]]

Could the Minister tell me how she will ensure that the new arrangements, which are obviously welcome, are working efficiently and not leading to delays that will hamper the workings of the criminal justice system in this country?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

There will be continued scrutiny of the effectiveness of the new arrangements. The noble and learned Lord is right that these things need to be swift and efficient but, as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, they also need safeguards built into them. I have every confidence that the new arrangements will work well.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

If there has been no weakening of our security arrangements as a result of the new agreement with the EU, why, in the negotiations with the EU, did the Government seek to retain access to all the existing direct real-time data-sharing arrangements, including the Schengen database, that we had as EU members—not all of which we have retained?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that we have not retained everything. We have not got everything we wanted, which was always going to happen in a negotiation. But we believe that we have a set of agreements that protect our citizens and keep people safe.

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the longest-serving Home Secretary of recent times, Theresa May, gave only qualified support for these arrangements, when she spoke in the House of Commons on 30 December? She expressed particular concern about the timeliness of access to databases of European criminal records, modern slavery and child abduction. Is it not time for the Government to come clean and say that we are weaker now with these protections and to come up with specific policies to plug the knowledge gaps identified by Mrs May?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My right honourable friend Theresa May was probably right to give it qualified support. We have not seen how it will work yet. I am confident it will work well and I am sure that this House will scrutinise any deficiencies in the new arrangements. We have a very good package for the safety and security of the citizens of this country.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, real-time access to intelligence is crucial in the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism. Can the Minister assure the House that any reduced capability to access such information in a timely manner will not increase the risk level in the United Kingdom, thereby endangering UK citizens from January 2021?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, timely access and cross-border co-operation benefits not only the UK but the EU. The noble Lord talks about serious and organised crime, which knows no borders and is global. It is incumbent on all of us to work together to stem its flow.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, the closest co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and An Garda Síochána is absolutely crucial in the fight against both terrorism and organised crime. In this context, the European arrest warrant has aided the smooth extradition of suspects between our two jurisdictions. Could my noble friend assure the House that arrangements are in place to ensure that this continues and that there is no going back to the extradition problems that beset us in the past, which so soured UK-Irish relations?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right to point that out, and I think it will have been foremost in the minds of negotiators, both here and in Ireland. We do not want to go back to those days, and it is very important that arrangements are in place that allow for criminals and terrorists to be dealt with swiftly and efficiently.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, which brings us to the end of Question Time.

12:51

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

13:00

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.

Schools: Exams

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

13:00

Asked by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure exams which were originally scheduled to take place in January can take place safely; and when they plan to publish alternative arrangements for exams which were scheduled to take place in the summer.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)]

My Lords, schools and colleges can continue with vocational and technical exams that are scheduled in January where they judge that it is right to do so. Students will not sit GCSE and A-level exams this summer. We are working closely with Ofqual to provide clarity on VTQ exams and assessments that are scheduled for later in the academic year. We and Ofqual will consult on how to award all pupils a grade to ensure that they can progress.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Government could not quite complete yet another 180-degree turn of the sort we have become all too familiar with in education policy, stopping short by leaving it to individual colleges to decide whether BTEC exams should go ahead this week. That inevitably means a patchwork system for BTEC students, who once again seem to be an afterthought for this Government, and is a further example of their lack of leadership. There should have been a plan B for the always-likely scenario now facing school and college exams. How will the Department for Education reassure students who were expecting to sit BTECs that they will not now lose out on university applications or other career opportunities, and how can a repeat of the uncertainty and stress caused to pupils and parents by the changes to last year’s GCSE and A-level exams be avoided?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, colleges have been given the discretion this month, because most of the content will have been learned. Seven awarding organisations had assessments planned for this month, and many of those assessments are required occupationally for people to progress, even into work, so it was important that colleges were given that discretion. We have encouraged this where career progression is dependent on the assessment. From February, the Ofqual consultation will consider all qualifications so that those who take qualifications other than A-levels and enter higher education will get a fair assessment of their grades. The noble Lord will be aware that UCAS has extended the window for applications this year by two weeks.

[Lord Storey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, so exams will not be sat and there will be teacher assessment, presumably with some external moderation. It is important that individual students’ situations are considered in that moderation and that guidance is given to schools. For example, children and young people in vulnerable circumstances, and young people without access to the internet, paid-for wi-fi or a laptop, must be taken into account. As one head teacher put it, there is a huge regional variation between space and peace and support. Can the Minister guarantee that all students will have a level playing field when it comes to their virtual learning? She might be interested to know that the guidance on the government website says that children who are vulnerable can still attend school in person. Hopefully that will be changed or altered.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, we have made clear that school places are available for children where one parent is a critical worker, and for vulnerable children, because they are best off in school. We have given head teachers the discretion to include in that vulnerable category any children who they identify as being at risk and better off in school. There will be a consultation. Ofqual will have to consult, as the Prime Minister outlined, working with the department on how the assessment exams will take place this summer so that all the factors outlined by the noble Lord can be taken into account. I will ensure that noble Lords who have an interest in this matter get the link to that consultation when it is announced.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, this latest lockdown and the change to exams is yet again likely to impact disproportionately on the outcomes of already disadvantaged students. The Minister reassured me on 2 September that better-resourced independent schools were keen to engage in supporting these students and that her next meeting with them would focus on how to structure their desire to help. Can she update us on these discussions and say how, at this critical juncture, their support might be accessed and made widely available?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. For disadvantaged students the lockdown and the closure of schools was a last resort. We are keenly aware of the implications for children and families. Regarding the independent schools’ offer, we have made clear to them that if they already have students who are vulnerable or the children of critical care workers, they should make education available to them. I am meeting with the sector at the end of the month and will be able to give the noble Baroness further information then.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, given that the history of pandemics has shown that there are often many twists and turns, and given that even with the vaccine there may be further disruption for the rest of this year and possibly even next year, can the Minister share some of the plan Bs in the event of future lockdowns pushing out the exams further? For example, are there plans to explore taking exams virtually, where technology allows you to check that the pupil is sitting the exam properly? Also, are measures in place to show employers and universities other evidence beyond the teacher’s perspective on the achievements of a pupil?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

The noble Lord is correct that twists and turns can obviously be very quick. Remote education is the most important thing for students at the moment. A direction was issued before Christmas of three hours for primary-school children and four hours for secondary, and the right honourable Member the Secretary of State for Education is currently outlining the strengthening of those requirements. In 2020, we delivered 560,000 laptops to disadvantaged children. We delivered 50,000 on Monday, and there will be another 50,000 by the end of the week. This is key to those students in accessing curriculum that is delivered remotely for them. Regarding the consultation, all perspectives on how exams can be conducted will be able to be put forward.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the summer exams were cancelled in Wales on 10 November, allowing time for schools and exam boards to develop robust alternative assessments. In Scotland, they followed suit on 8 December, yet Ministers in England dogmatically held out until Monday. They have catastrophically mishandled the impact of the pandemic on schools, on the digital divide, on free school meals, on last summer’s exams, on the abandoned mass-testing rollout and now in providing some certainty for schools this year. Has the Minister seen today’s statement by Parentkind that 84% of parents say that it is impacting their children’s mental health? Given that Ministers have lost the confidence and trust of teachers, school leaders and parents, is it not time for the Secretary of State and the Schools Minister to resign?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, obviously education is a devolved matter within the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland is still planning examinations, so there will have been different decisions at different times. In normal circumstances, exams are the best way to assess the education that children have been given, and we held out, as we believed was appropriate. It was a last resort to close our schools. We are keenly aware of the mental health and well-being implications for young people, hence why schools are open for vulnerable children at this time. We have not abandoned mass testing, because there are children in school. This will be a period in which schools can roll that out for students and staff who are there with a view to it being rolled out to primary schools and with a view to reopening as soon as the public health situation allows. That mass testing may be necessary at that point in time. We have closed the schools as a last resort and will reopen them as soon as public health allows.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests and declare another: I have an 18 year-old daughter who was actually set to be taking her exams this year, and I can confirm that, even for somebody like her who was expected to do well, there is stress.

Looking at other groups, students who sometimes overachieve in exams—generally the males of the species and particularly those with special educational needs, and who, for instance, might be able to dictate to somebody for the first time in an assessment—what plans have been made to make sure that these people are allowed to progress? Are we going to make sure that extra places are available in the next stage of their education in the foreseeable future?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, on the cancellation of exams for this summer, the consultation by Ofqual will include all the factors, including the ones that the noble Lord outlines. We know that although there was generally, percentage-wise, an inflation grade last year over the previous year, there are certain groups—sometimes disadvantaged students, sometimes BAME students—whose predicted grades are less than what they actually achieved. This consultation will enable those factors to be part of that assessment as to how we fairly assess the performance of our young people who will not be sitting exams.

[Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]]

My Lords, one of the groups that lost out last summer was the group of students studying for a GCSE or A-level in a heritage or community language at a supplementary school that was not partnered with a mainstream school, so they were unable to be awarded a centre-assessed grade. Will the Minister assure the House that, if similar or indeed whatever arrangements are made this year, the Government will work in advance with teachers and all types of school to ensure that no students from supplementary schools are so unfairly disadvantaged again?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, those students at supplementary schools are reviewed as private candidates. That is the same situation that home-educated students found themselves in last year, many of whom took advantage of the autumn series to sit examinations where centres could not, with integrity, give a grade to their work. Again I must point the noble Baroness to the consultation that will take place, but I anticipate that private candidates, including supplementary schools, will be part of what is looked at in the consultation to try to ensure that we can give them a grade through the assessment process in the summer.

[Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. I support the Government’s decision to put teachers at the forefront of grading A-levels and GCSEs this summer. Following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I stress that there must be an external moderating assessment of whatever process is put in place. Can my noble friend shed some detail on the timeframe for the consultation of what this process will be? What assessment has been made of the impact of this timetable on university applications?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, as I outlined, UCAS has extended the application window for two weeks. I am anticipating that external moderation will be part of what the consultation will include. That will be swift; it needs to be a valid consultation, but we know that we need to give certainty as soon as we can to schools, pupils and families. It may be that as I speak the Secretary of State is in the other place outlining further details. I am obviously not at liberty to give them today but I will be repeating that Statement tomorrow.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

We cannot hear the noble Lord. Can he repeat his question?

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl) [V]]

I apologise. I was saying that many children still do not have a computer, wi-fi or space in which to work. If schools are open for the children of key workers or for vulnerable children, why can space not be found in schools, community centres or libraries for those who cannot learn at home? Why not pay unemployed graduates or retired teachers to support pupils whose parents cannot afford tutors?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, in addition to the laptops that I outlined, 50,000 4G routers have been given to disadvantaged children. We have worked closely with the mobile phone companies to lift data limits so that children and families can access data on educational sites without limit. I advise noble Lords to look at the “Get help with tech” part of the website. However, in relation to space and the gathering together of people, contacts are what we need to limit at the moment, so those kinds of out-of-school settings are open only for vulnerable children and children of key workers. In relation to graduates, the academic mentors, who are part of the catch-up programme that Teach First has been using, are physical mentors in schools, so I anticipate that some graduates and potentially retired teachers have taken advantage of that.

[Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the last time I had occasion to ask about exams, it was to ask the Minister why the Government had not followed the lead of other UK jurisdictions in cancelling 16-plus exams, given that it was clear even at that stage that they could not be held fairly in 2021. Today I ask whether her department will take the opportunity to review the appropriateness of exams at 16-plus going forward, particularly given that, however good online teaching is, current year 10 students will have missed at least a term and a half—and probably more—of face-to-face teaching.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, as I have outlined, the Government closed schools as a last resort and cancelled exams as the best independent way of assessing students’ performance. The tectonic plate that shifted with the new variant over the Christmas and after-Christmas period has changed things dramatically from the last time that I stood at the Dispatch Box. However, it remains the case in England, as I have outlined—there are different approaches in different parts of the United Kingdom because of different education systems—that most students in England transition at 16, and that is why an examination at 16 is important.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

13:17

Moved by

[Baroness Penn]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 29, Schedule 1, Clauses 30 to 39, Schedule 2, Clauses 40 to 49, Title.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bethell, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

13:17

Moved by

[Baroness Penn]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 and 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 and 7, Title.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

On behalf of my noble friend Lady Williams, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on 17 December 2020.

“Today I have written to all local authorities in England thanking their councillors, officers and employees for their exceptional service this year. From carers to teachers to social workers to refuse collectors to council officers, as well as the elected members, they have worked tirelessly over the course of this pandemic to keep us safe, to provide support to the most vulnerable, to assist local businesses and to deliver public services under immense pressure. I think I speak for the whole House in saying a sincere thank you and in wishing them and their families a happy and peaceful Christmas.

From the start of the pandemic, we committed to ensuring that councils had the resources they needed to step up and support their communities. We have provided councils with more than £7.2 billion of additional funding for Covid-19 expenditure. We have ensured that councils receive support to manage associated losses in income, including from sales, fees, charges, leisure centres and local taxes, and that is expected to amount to further billions of pounds of support. That commitment remains undimmed, and the settlement we are announcing today ensures that councils have the resources they need to continue that work next year, to play their part in the recovery of their communities and to deliver first-class public services.

As we look ahead to 2021 and 2022, the annual settlement makes an extra £2.2 billion available to fund the provision of critical public services, including adult and children’s social care. Within that, we are giving authorities access to an additional £1 billion for adult and children’s social care, made up of £300 million of social care grant and the flexibility of a 3% adult social care precept. On average, English councils will see a 4.5% cash-terms increase in core spending power, which is also an increase in real terms. That is testament to the support that our local government deserves, and it comes off the back of three settlements in a row that have increased funding in real terms.

The £1 billion grant announced at last year’s spending review will continue, along with all other existing social care funding. Balancing the contributions of national and local taxpayers, we are giving councils increased flexibility through a 2% council tax referendum limit, with an extra 3% for social care authorities. Councils will, of course, want to take into account the financial circumstances of their residents and to protect households from excessive increases in bills. It is incumbent on councils to balance these competing pressures and reach the right decision for their local areas.

To help councils continue reducing council tax for those least able to pay, including households hit hard financially by the pandemic, I am making £670 million of new grant funding available outside the core settlement for local council tax support. Lower-tier councils, including districts, will benefit from a new one-off £111 million lower-tier services grant, and we are providing certainty and stability by confirming that the main funding allocations for the full range of council services will rise in line with inflation.

Our settlement also addresses the extra costs incurred by councils in rural areas, providing an extra £4 million to the rural services delivery grant—the highest contribution to date, at £85 million. We are also proposing a further £622 million of new homes bonus allocations. We will invite views on how we can reform the scheme next year to ensure that it is focused where homes are needed the most and where councils are ambitious to get on and deliver them.

Despite the arrival of vaccines, we will continue to live with Covid-19 for some months. That is why, alongside the core settlement, I am announcing comprehensive measures, including £1.55 billion of additional, un-ring-fenced grant funding for Covid expenditure. Our measures insure against funding shortfalls, and I am particularly pleased to confirm today the scope of and approach to our very well received scheme to reimburse councils for 75% of irrecoverable lost tax income from 2020-21.

As the cold weather sets in, the protection of those sleeping rough amid the pandemic continues to be one of my priorities. Our world-leading Everyone In initiative was and remains a powerful testament to what local and central government can achieve together. We are building on that work to ensure that as few of the 29,000 people who were helped off the streets under that scheme, and subsequently, return to life on the streets, spending over £750 million next year to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping—a 60% increase on the previous year spending review. In addition, we are providing £165 million of new funding to councils for the troubled families programme, underlining our continued commitment to the most vulnerable in society. Following the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, we will provide £125 million funding next year to enable councils to meet their duties in full to provide the support that victims of domestic abuse and their children undoubtedly deserve.

Serious challenges remain, but the start of the vaccine rollout last week offers us cause for optimism and allows us to at least begin to glimpse the world beyond the pandemic. We want to work with local councils to build a new country beyond Covid—a country that is more prosperous, greener, safer and more neighbourly. Local government will be integral to the achievement of that shared vision. We will establish a new £4 billion levelling-up fund, building on the success of our £3.6 billion towns and high streets funds. Any local area will be eligible to apply directly to this fund, which will finance the everyday infrastructure, town centre regeneration and culture that communities need and local people want. The UK shared prosperity fund will help to level up and create opportunity across the UK. A UK-wide investment framework for that will be published by my department early next year.

The Government are funding vital local infrastructure, with total capital spending at £100 billion. That will fund once-in-a-generation changes to local communities and deliver the highest sustained levels of public sector net investment since the 1970s, including the biggest hospital building programme in living memory, and £2.2 billion investment in our schools funding programme to rebuild 500 schools over the next decade. In addition, local councils will benefit from £1.7 billion for local roads maintenance and upgrades to tackle potholes, which will improve local connectivity and deliver better roads for our communities.

I want local government to emerge stronger, more sustainable and better able to meet the needs of those it serves. That means greater openness and accountability, and in a minority of cases it means better financial management and regard for taxpayers’ money. To that end, my department is publishing today its response to Sir Tony Redmond’s excellent review of the effectiveness of external audit and transparency. We will provide councils with an additional £15 million next year to implement Sir Tony’s recommendations. We are preserving the ability of local authorities to invest in programmes to power growth by lowering Public Works Loan Board interest rates, but we must also protect taxpayers from unwise risky investments of the kind we have seen, sadly, in some councils in recent years. Those practices must now end.

When there is a clearer path ahead, we will work with the sector and Members across the House to seek a new consensus for broader reforms to local government, including the fair funding review and the business rates reset, and we will ensure that councils are set on a long-term trajectory of sustainable growth and fair resources.

This will, I hope, be viewed as a significant settlement that paves the way for a bright future for our local communities as they seek to bounce back from an exceptionally difficult year. The settlement will deliver £2.2 billion of extra funding, a 4.5% cash and real-terms increase in core spending power, and it will further fund councils to ensure that they steer the course of the remaining months of the Covid-19 pandemic with certainty and confidence. Building on last year’s settlement, which exceptionally received cross-party support, it puts councils, which were at the forefront of our response to the pandemic, at the forefront of our recovery, and I commend this Statement to the House.”

13:18

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, first I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Secondly, I place on record my thanks to the whole of local government, including elected mayors, councillors, officers and all staff, for the fantastic job that they have done in the most difficult of circumstances over the past year.

When our communities have been most in need, local authorities and their staff have stepped up and delivered in every field—teachers, social workers, care staff, refuse collectors and all the others doing the important jobs that must be delivered. However, this is a disappointing Statement from the Government. It will lead to job losses and cuts to key front-line services, such as adult social care, which will cause great hardship to people and communities. On top of that, the Government are proposing that councils raise additional revenue through a 5% rise in the council tax, taking money from hard-pressed people who are already struggling.

Council tax is a regressive tax. It hits people and families on lower-than-average incomes much harder than people on higher incomes. In our most deprived areas, people on lower incomes will, as a result of this Statement, see the bills that they pay rise and the services they rely on cut. “Pay more, get less for your money” seems to be the by-line of the Government—not a great deal in my opinion.

So can the noble Lord tell the House what plans the Government have to support local authorities during the year as we seek to get out of the nightmare of the pandemic? It is very likely that Covid costs will outstrip even the revenue that can be raised from the council tax increase.

What plans do the Government have to support hard-pressed families? Is the noble Lord talking to the Treasury to ensure that support packages are available after March this year? Can he say something about the support that will be available for councils to help families who find themselves homeless? Does he think that the funding system for local government is fair and fit for purpose? If he does not, what action is he taking to change it? If he does think it is fair, can he please justify that?

At the start of the pandemic, the Government said that they would provide local authorities with all the support they needed. Sadly, however, I do not think that many in local government would say that that is the case at the start of 2021—that promise has not come to fruition.

Another huge issue for local authorities is the costs associated with people who have no recourse to public funds. How does the noble Lord intend to address that with this settlement? On a more general note, does he see the practical sense, particularly in these extraordinary times, of providing a multi-year settlement for local government? It would seem to be worth considering and would certainly help local government with its long-term financial planning.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

I draw the attention of the House to my interests as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This annual announcement of the funding package for vital local government services is never given the attention it merits. In the last year, it has become ever more apparent how dependent our communities are on the services provided by local councils. In March, it was local councils that ensured that nearly all rough sleepers were placed in accommodation. Contact tracing by local council officers has been over 90% successful, as compared with the approximately 60% success rate for the private sector, which has had vast resources to do the task. It is local councils that have encouraged and enabled hundreds of thousands of local volunteers to support their communities by befriending the lonely, and that have provided food and meals for families on the breadline and have continued to provide essential services, carried out by unsung heroes—the key workers in waste collection, social care and children’s services, to name just three.

The Public Services Committee of your Lordships’ House has reported that, in the nation’s efforts to combat the pandemic, it was locally delivered services, provided by local councils and the voluntary sector, that were able to rise effectively to the challenge and respond to new demands in very different circumstances. On behalf of Liberal Democrats in this House, I express thanks for the amazing effort and leadership of councillors and council staff across the country.

That is the context of this funding settlement. It is, then, disappointing to read that those sterling efforts are not to be rewarded by the provision of funding that will enable councils to provide the additional services that their communities will need in the months and years ahead. For example, all predictions are that there will be a considerable rise in unemployment and business closures.

The funding settlement has a top-line figure of an increase in spending of 4.5% in what is described as “core spending power”. However, this is predicated on councils increasing council tax by the maximum amount permitted by the Government before triggering a local referendum. Unpacking this top-line increase reveals that 85% of the increase in funding comes from council tax payers—hard-pressed council tax payers. There will be a 2% council tax increase and, on top of that, a 3% increase in the social care precept, resulting in an expectation by the Government that council tax payers must pay an additional 5% this coming year.

Since the social care precept was first introduced by this Government, it has resulted in council tax payers being required to pay 15% more, over and above the 2% maximum allowed. For an average band D council tax payer, the extra imposed by this could mean a further £260 each year. Do the Government intend to pile the pressure on council tax payers every year via this social care precept? Can the Minister let the House know when proposals for social care funding reform will be published?

It is welcome that the Government have recognised the cost pressures on councils as a result of Covid. Those cost pressures come in the form of lost income for, for example, leisure services teams, but there are additional costs in tackling the pandemic. Unfortunately, the Government appear to be willing to fund only 75% of the losses, which simply puts even greater pressure on service delivery at a time when this is needed as never before. The consequences are, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just said, inevitable job losses in local government and a reduction in vital services at a time when they are needed as never before.

If the Government’s levelling-up agenda is to be meaningful, it has to include enabling local government to extend its services—for instance, in the regeneration of local economies and improving skills to open up better-paid opportunities for local people. Can the Minister give any assurances to the House that the Government’s thinking on the levelling-up agenda includes a substantial and properly funded role for local government?

Of course, fundamental reform of local government funding and business rates is the basis of a secure future for local government when the role of public services, locally determined and delivered, has been never clearer. Therefore, can the Minister tell the House when the fair funding reform for local government is to be published and determined, and when business rates reform is to be tackled? I look forward to his answers to those questions.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, unfortunately I do not have the ability to declare an interest in local government as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, despite 16 years as a local councillor, six years as council leader in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and four years in City Hall as Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, but that gives me the ability to talk with some confidence about why I think this settlement by the Government is particularly generous at this time.

Even when you unpack the numbers, as has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the reality is that there is a headline increase in core spending power of 4.5% but we see not a single reduction in grant income. Indeed, in some areas the grant income has increased considerably. Of course, if local town halls want to maximise their core spending power, they have a choice in how much they increase council tax. This coming financial year is not disproportionately different from the previous one in assuming increases of 2% in council tax and 3% for adult social care, as compared with 2% in the previous financial year, but, as a balancing item, that is a choice for council leaders and their Cabinets up and down the country to take, with, in some cases, elections looming. They have a choice in how much they increase council tax for their residents.

The Government have honoured their commitment to support local government through the pandemic. I too pay tribute to the amazing work of people in our town halls, providing services on the front line at a particularly difficult time. I commend them, and I agree with both previous speakers that they have played a phenomenal role in this pandemic. Long may that continue. As we have heard, the Government join both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in supporting the work of people throughout the country delivering local services to their local communities.

So far the Government have provided—I am sorry to hesitate, but I am not seeing too well at the moment—£6.2 billion in support specifically to meet the pressures of the pandemic. Sorry, I got that figure wrong; it is £7.2 billion. I can add an extra billion for you: there has been £7.2 billion in support through the pandemic. As mentioned in the other place, the estimate of what local councils have spent is £4.4 billion. My maths is not terribly good, but that is less than the £7.2 billion given to councils. Frankly, that is putting our arms round town halls and supporting them through those inevitable pressures during a pandemic.

It is estimated, rightly, by local government itself, that that expenditure will increase and hit £6.2 billion. But again, within this settlement is £1.55 billion for Covid-related pressures. That shows a tremendous commitment from the Government, and tremendous work by my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick in negotiating with the Treasury for a great settlement for local government, and one that honours the support needed for our town halls.

It is fair to say that we face tough times. The economy has contracted, and people may be unable to pay their council tax. I can declare an interest as a council tax payer, and as a director of a business that pays business rates. Yes, businesses are struggling, and people are struggling to pay their bills. But covering 75p in the pound, without knowing the downside, is a pretty good deal from the Treasury, rather than the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, described it.

There is the same commitment to ending rough sleeping, and a 60% increase in funding. There is also the same commitment to people with no recourse to public funds. The derogation for London has been widened to the rest of the country, which is commendable. We have also told local town hall leaders that they have the discretion to support people without recourse to public funds who are not EEA nationals, as they see fit. That is the leadership we need to see in our town halls.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we need to think about council tax, and about balancing council tax and grants. I will say more about that later, because I want to save some of my ammunition for speakers to come.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions, and I call the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton.

13:35

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

The Oxford-Cambridge arc is an economic powerhouse, but we desperately need more new homes for skilled workers if we are to help drive the economic recovery post-Covid. The challenge for local authorities is the up-front funding of vital infrastructure such as roads and schools, given that council tax receipts will not come until after the homes are built. The new homes bonus is most welcome, and although I will not join the chorus for more money, may I simply ask my noble friend whether he thinks it could be better targeted at the areas that need it most?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for mentioning the Oxford-Cambridge arc. Unlike the Prime Minister, I err more towards the Cambridge end of it. My noble friend is absolutely right to draw our attention to the importance of getting the infrastructure right to unlock growth and the prosperity of this country. That is why, as part of planning for the future—we discussed this at length in connection with the Planning for the Future White Paper—we are looking at an infrastructure levy, which would be much more transparent and streamlined, as a way of raising the funds that local areas need to ensure that they have the infrastructure to unlock their potential.

[Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Cumbria County Council, and I seek the Minister’s advice, because we have a meeting on Monday morning about whether to proceed with the 3% supplement on council tax to fund social care. Does he agree that, in total, a 5% increase in council tax is a very considerable real-terms increase at a time of great economic stress? Secondly, does he agree that council tax is an unfair tax, because it does not make the broadest backs bear the heaviest burden, which should be a fundamental principle of taxation? Thirdly, does he agree that, given the desperate position of social care, made worse by the Covid crisis, local authorities have little real choice in whether to implement the 3%? Finally, will he make a commitment that this will be the last year when this grossly unfair mechanism for funding social care will be applied, and that in 2021 the Government will produce their long-promised plan for putting the funding of social care on a long-term sustainable basis?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I have never heard so many questions poured in with such economy, but I refuse to give advice to any council, or any councillor, on how they should tax their local communities. I could point to my own record as the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. For six years we cut council tax by 3%, and for one year we froze it. That was because I believed that our council tax level was too high. I did not understand why neighbouring boroughs such as Wandsworth and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea had substantially lower council tax than Hammersmith and Fulham. I chose the route of being able to tax less and provide better services, through more efficiency and driving greater productivity. So I would say that it is down to local leaders to decide how they set their council tax. My advice would be: what do you think is in the interests of your people? I agree that council tax is a regressive tax—but it is particularly ridiculous to see how some councils have to raise their funds largely through council tax increases, because they receive so little grant as a proportion of their combined budget. I shall give more examples of that later.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, in the Statement we are discussing, the Secretary of State said:

“I want local government to emerge stronger, more sustainable and better able to meet the needs of those it serves.”


Does my noble friend, with his local government experience, recognise that the current tax base for local government is unsustainable, with domestic rates 30 years out of date—and, as he has just admitted, regressive—and commercial rates killing the high street? Will the White Paper on devolution and local recovery, promised for last autumn, set out a firmer and broader basis for local government, so that it can be empowered as the Secretary of State wishes?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I have saved my data, which I carefully put together—although I will not be able to read it very well—for my noble friend’s question, of which he kindly gave me notice. I shall tell a tale of two boroughs—the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, a Liberal Democrat authority, and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, now, sadly, a Labour borough. It was taken over after I was leader of the council—but that is democracy for you. Things can change back again, I hasten to add, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Things can swing both ways. For those two boroughs, exactly the same budget base was estimated, through both council tax and grant. Richmond upon Thames had £173 million and Hammersmith and Fulham £174 million—pretty much the same amount. Yet 83% of the money in Richmond upon Thames is raised through council tax, whereas only 31% of the money in Hammersmith and Fulham is raised through council tax. That is patently absurd. Of course we need to think about a more sensible system of local government finance. It is very hard to estimate via complex formulae, and I am sure the devolution White Paper will look into some of the vagaries of local government financing, whereby a river can separate, and thus create such great differences between, two neighbouring authorities.

[Lord Scriven (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interest in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The public health grant for 2020-21 was 22% lower per head in real terms compared to 2015-16. Restoring spending per head to this level would require an additional £1 billion. At a time of a public health crisis, to deal with the local ongoing and long-term effects of Covid-19, and to restart public health services that have had to be paused during this pandemic, does the Minister think the £1 billion should now be reinstated?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I will have to write to the noble Lord about that. I did not quite catch his question, but I will make sure that we get a full and proper answer to him and put a copy in the Library.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. On the subject of local government finance, I am going back to two answers from the Government on 15 December to questions that I and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, had asked, referring to the £500 self-isolation payment to people who were ordered to self-isolate due to Covid-19 exposure or infection. At that point it was clear that there was a postcode lottery, and some local authorities had run out so people were unable to get payment. On 15 December the Government gave two answers, one of which said there was a fixed envelope of money and implied that no more money would be given, while the other, from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that this was under review. Has it been reviewed, and has the postcode lottery over the money being paid out by local government been fixed?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bethell is absolutely right and the matter is under review.

[Lord Greaves (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of Pendle Council. Pendle is a small district in east Lancashire. I speak again from the sunlit uplands of east Lancashire but they are not sunlit from the point of view of local government finance. The Minister talks about a 4.5% increase in core spending power but in my authority, if we did not increase council tax by the 2% that is allowed, we would have a reduction in core spending power, which is grossly unfair. About two-thirds of our council tax payers are in band A, which puts that band up to unsustainable levels. It is getting out of hand. People simply cannot afford the council tax that they are now being asked to pay. What is the Minister doing about that? Will he give an absolute commitment that not only is there the £1.5 billion in the settlement for Covid-related extra costs but there is still a commitment from the Government that all extra costs to local authorities from Covid during the next financial year will be met by government grant?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I remind everyone that we have seen a seismic contraction of the economy and that many people have lost their jobs and will need to retrain. This has been a dreadful pandemic and it continues to be extremely tough as we enter another lockdown, but with the glimmer of hope that we have with the vaccine being available. We are providing grant funding that is absolutely flat in cash terms. Baseline funding remains £12.48 billion, the revenue support grant has increased a tad from £2.32 billion to 2.33 billion. Other grants have increased from £4.98 billion to £5.26 billion. That is quite a sizeable increase. There is no reduction at all in cash year on year, with inflation at relatively low levels and, as I mentioned, huge amounts of support for Covid-related pressures. I think that is an excellent financial settlement for local authorities. It really is up to the people in town halls to show some civic leadership and decide what they tax the local residents. If they choose to tax them heavily then they may have to pay the price at the ballot box, but that is democracy for you.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I humbly succumb to the Minister’s statistical genius, so I am not going to go into that arena. I welcome all the resources and measures introduced by the Government so far, especially regarding homelessness and commitments towards easing the “no recourse to public funds” rule for families. The Minister will be aware that, in Newham and Tower Hamlets in particular, homelessness issues and overcrowding have contributed in part to the incredibly high numbers of infections and admissions. Yesterday in this Chamber we debated the commitment from the Government, and indeed all of us, regarding housing for families fleeing domestic violence. What consideration is being given to ensuring that that commitment and the Statement encompass and embrace all these very pressing needs and demands? How will we continue to ensure that the Government adhere to their own principles and desires to level up and be fair and equal and just?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for raising the issue of homelessness. I know from having visited the London Borough of Tower Hamlets on many occasions and the London Borough of Newham on a number of occasions that homelessness is a real issue. I would point out that this settlement is pretty good news: it is reasonable to put forward £100 million to start planning for move-on accommodation from temporary accommodation, which is not a place where you want families to be. That was provided in the summer. There is a commitment in the financial settlement of £750 million towards supporting people whom we have a statutory duty to house—the homeless—and £430 million of that is for move-on accommodation. I hope that assures the noble Baroness that we take issues of how to tackle homelessness very seriously.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, largely because of the needs of Covid, the national finances are now in a dire state. Many retailers are experiencing serious financial problems for the same reason. The temporary suspension of business rates, a national policy, is relevant. Is the Minister satisfied that the Government’s policy on business rates is optimal and value for money and that it best deals with the serious problems both within the retail sector and, more generally, the problems of the high street?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for raising the issue of the high street. There is support through the high streets fund to ensure that our high streets thrive, but they are places where we need to see significant change. As my noble friend points out, a lot of businesses on the high street are struggling to pay their business rates. I think that, in the longer term, the tax base needs to shift. This is not policy, but self-evidently we are seeing online business take a greater share, and those housed in bricks and mortar are struggling to make a go of their businesses.

We need to see a policy shift over time. The Government cannot do that by waving a magic wand, so we need to make sure that there are policy tweaks to support the high street in the interim. There are a lot of measures to do that in those that my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick has announced. More will be coming to support our high streets, which are the very bedrock of local economies.

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I too should remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The Minister said earlier that the settlement is particularly generous, but the reality is that the Statement means that council tax could rise for council tax payers by up to 5% in April. At the general election just over a year ago, the Conservative Party manifesto promised not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT in this Parliament. The consequence is an increased burden on council tax payers for the sixth year in a row, largely to fund adult social care. Why do the Government force up council tax in this way, well above the rate of inflation?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, all of us who have run local authorities recognise the spending pressures intrinsic to local government, particularly for adult social care but also for social care for children. They form a significant part of any local authority budget, so it is quite right and proper to think about giving the option, as a balancing item, to have the latitude to increase council tax to pay for some of our most needy. The other 2% is very much guidance; it is a balancing item. It is for administrations up and down the country to decide whether they want to increase council tax to achieve the maximum core spending power. That is the situation that we find ourselves in. There is no reduction in grant and significant extra funding to see local councils through the Covid-related pressures. That is a good deal, particularly given the state of our national economy and the rise in national debt.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wei, has withdrawn so all Back-Bench questions have now been asked.

13:50

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:00

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including the Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. The groupings are binding, and it is not possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in the group to a Division must give notice, either in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.

Trade Bill

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day)

14:02

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Constitution Committee

Amendment 17

Moved by

[Lord Hain]

17: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Trade agreement with the EU: compliance with the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
Any trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union that is subject to sections 20 to 25 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is not to be ratified unless it fully complies with the requirements of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland as part of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, as signed and ratified by Her Majesty’s Government.”

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will move Amendment 17 and speak to Amendment 18. Both on the Irish border and have been largely superseded technically, if not in spirit, by the December deal. I will also speak to Amendment 26 on the Irish Sea, on which I will seek leave to divide, with the permission of your Lordships’ House. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

First, I will address Amendments 17 and 18 on the Good Friday agreement and the Irish border. As I have argued before, both on this Bill and on other Brexit-related Bills, I am profoundly convinced that the objectives of Amendment 18 are absolutely essential to provide for full protection for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in all its parts, and, as part of that, to prevent a hardening of the border on the island of Ireland. Very importantly, the amendment is also consistent with, and indeed complementary to, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, into which this House placed important text along similar lines to Amendment 18, with the eventual agreement of the Government in the other place at the final stage.

There is now agreement between the UK and the EU on how to implement the Irish protocol, which is fully incorporated in the December deal, but we must help the Government to keep to their word and stated commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, not least—crucially—when negotiating future trade agreements.

The future relationship agreement, negotiated just before Christmas, thin though it is, at least removes the question of tariffs from the long list of barriers that Brexit has put up around this country. Those of us who have served as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whether Labour or Conservative, know how politically unique and ever-fragile matters are on the island of Ireland.

Amendment 18 is consistent with our international legal obligations. In fact, it will help with trade negotiations, because our potential trading partners will know where they stand and what the parameters related to the protocol are, and it would therefore be good to hear the Minister uphold the principles within the amendment when he replies, even if technically its drafting is now outdated because of the deal struck in December.

Let us remind ourselves one more time why we have the Northern Ireland protocol. The border is the key sensitive issue: it is 300 miles long, with 300 crossings, unlike almost every other border in the world. Of course, there is more to the protocol than the border. We have the unique arrangements under the Good Friday/Belfast agreement for north-south co-operation: no less than 157 different areas of cross-border work and co-operation in Ireland, north and south.

I have said it before here and will say it again: the work of successive UK and Irish Governments, in helping courageous and visionary leaders in Northern Ireland, was all about taking borders down, not putting them up. It is vital that the United Kingdom and its Government keep in line with that. No new international trade agreement between the United Kingdom and another nation must ever be ratified unless it is compatible with the Good Friday agreement and Northern Ireland Act 1998, is fully compliant with the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, does not negatively affect any form of north-south trade in goods and services, and does not create physical infrastructure related to customs checks, customs or regulatory compliance checks. These are all things that Ministers say they agree with, and they are contained in Amendment 18.

I turn to Amendment 26, on the Irish Sea, on which, as I said, I will seek to divide. It is designed to ensure unfettered market access for goods moving between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market, and unfettered market access for services between the two. It is also designed to ensure that there are no tariffs or customs procedures for goods originating in Northern Ireland that are entering Great Britain so that there is no discrimination against Northern Ireland’s businesses.

We had significant progress last month in the meeting of the co-chairs of the UK-EU joint committee, which was most welcome and not before time. That “agreement in principle” was to implement the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in a way that reduces potential friction and burdens on businesses come 1 January. However, the protocol is not an event but the environment or a process in which Northern Ireland’s economy will have to develop, and many uncertainties remain for Northern Ireland’s businesses, which have suffered huge stress because of that over the past year, and in many respects are still suffering.

The conditions of Northern Ireland’s economic development will be directly affected by the UK’s trade deals to be sought and negotiated with other countries beyond the European Union. This is not just by virtue of its access to those free trade agreements; it is also by virtue of the potential consequences of those deals on Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.

The protocol that was agreed and ratified as part of the UK’s withdrawal agreement puts Northern Ireland in a wholly new position. It is a unique set-up in terms of global trade, let alone a distinctive arrangement with the European Union. The protocol text makes it clear that there are significant limitations and boundaries to its scope, most particularly when it comes to trade. Article 4 states that

“nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from including Northern Ireland in the territorial scope of any agreements it may conclude with third countries”.

Article 4 also states that

“nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from concluding agreements with a third country that grant goods produced in Northern Ireland preferential access to that country’s market on the same terms as goods produced in other parts of the United Kingdom.”

Furthermore, Article 6 of the protocol states that there is nothing in it that would prevent

“the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom’s internal market”—

as this amendment states. Those restrictions on the scope of the protocol put the onus squarely on the United Kingdom to deliver such things for Northern Ireland—access to the UK’s free trade agreements and unfettered access to the markets in Great Britain.

However, what the protocol does not and cannot do is ensure that there is no discrimination against Northern Ireland, and no knock-on consequences for its place in the UK’s internal market when it comes to the UK’s future trading relationships.

We saw with the recent UK-Japan free trade agreement an acknowledgement that there could be an “inconsistency” between a free trade agreement and the protocol. Thankfully, in the case of the UK-Japanese deal this will be minimal, because—I stress this—of the pre-existing conditions of the Japanese trading partnership with the EU. It was much easier to protect Northern Ireland’s situation in this new Japan-UK deal because the Japan-EU deal meant that Japan could offer “full extended cumulation” in its deal with the UK: it could count all goods with EU origins, and even those part-processed in the EU, as being from the UK. This helps to keep Northern Ireland, which is producing to EU standards, in the ring.

These conditions, however, will not be the same for many future free trade agreements. It is quite conceivable that differences between the UK’s rules and the EU’s rules in trading with any particular country could bring friction for Northern Ireland, both on the entry of its goods into Great Britain and on the entry of goods from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. Given these risks, it is quite extraordinary that the UK Government’s own impact assessment on the UK-Japan free trade agreement explicitly acknowledges that it did

“not explicitly take account of any impacts arising from the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland”.

Amendment 26 is necessary for four main reasons. The first is the distinctiveness of Northern Ireland’s economic and trading position under the deal. The second is its dependence on the commitment of the UK to delivering on filling the gaps in its trading arrangements. The third is the possibility of tensions between the terms of new UK free trade agreements and Northern Ireland’s position in the protocol. The fourth and final reason is the failure of the UK Government, in their most substantial non-EU free trade agreement to date—with Japan—to give due consideration to this matter.

We can be sure that the economic and trading environment for Northern Ireland—de jure in the UK’s customs territory, but applying the European Union’s customs code—will become only more complicated over time. It is therefore absolutely essential to put protections for Northern Ireland into UK domestic law that ensure that government commitments to this most vulnerable of UK regions are upheld and secured, even as the tough decisions and pay-offs in international trade negotiations become an increasingly familiar reality.

The same applies to services as to goods. Though they were not covered by the protocol—or by the deal struck with the EU before Christmas—and are often not included in free trade agreements, we must ensure that there is no discrimination against services either, because they are a very important part of both the Great Britain and Northern Ireland economies. I therefore urge your Lordships to support Amendment 26, on unfettered access for Northern Ireland, when the House divides.

14:15

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hain, who has outlined in a very detailed and expansive way the purpose and remit of these three amendments.

These amendments, to which I am one of the signatories, are very much Northern Ireland-specific. It is important that there is now a trade deal. I was a remainer and I will always be a remainer: I did not vote for Brexit but I recognise that there was a need for a trade deal between the UK and the EU—albeit a thin deal, as this is. Having talked to businesses in Northern Ireland, I know that it is clear that mitigations are still required. As a result of the trade deal—which is totally wedded to the protocol—and the acceptance and acknowledgement of the Northern Ireland protocol between the UK and the EU in the joint committee, Amendments 17 and 18 are largely eclipsed.

Notwithstanding the need to see ongoing commitments that demonstrate the implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, all efforts must be made to ensure the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement and the principles of parity of esteem and reconciliation. These are fundamental to our political and peace settlement. Having served as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive when my noble friend Lord Hain was in the later stages of his tenure as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I know that he will be well aware of the importance of parity of esteem, reconciliation, working together and partnership in the process of bringing people together.

Borders are generally anathema to us: we do not want to see borders on the island of Ireland—hence the need for the protocol—or a border in the Irish Sea. Sadly, however, that has happened, because there are now border posts at Larne, Belfast and Warrenpoint ports. There have also been some teething difficulties, such as the vacant shelves announced today by Tesco and Sainsbury’s. Can the Minister say that those teething issues will be resolved, if at all possible, and that mitigations will be introduced to assist the business community and keep our local economy buoyant?

So far, analysts and researchers, such as Professor Hayward from Queen’s University Belfast, have indicated that the trade and co-operation agreement did very little to soften the Irish Sea border. But one thing is sure: Amendments 17, 18 and 26 precipitate the need to look out for certain things in relation to the protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement.

The TCA is complicated, and it will take months for experts, lawyers and officials fully to work out its implications, and on many of these we will be reading across to the protocol. The TCA is a work in progress; there are many references in the document to future development or anticipated improvements. There are four overriding concerns for Northern Ireland. How will the evolution of the TCA be connected to that of the protocol? How will the governance of the protocol, including its unique institutions for that purpose, be linked into relevant areas of governance of the TCA in a specialised committee for SPS measures? How will the British-Irish and north-south strands work to develop substantive and serious bilateral arrangements to meet the gaps in the TCA and common travel area? When the real impact of Brexit takes effect on Britain and the EU, how much care and flexibility will either be prepared to show Northern Ireland, which is on the periphery of the UK and of the European Union?

As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, stated, Amendment 26 deals specifically with the need to ensure that there is no discrimination in goods and services from Northern Ireland to Britain. It is important that provision for that unfettered access is placed in the Bill. The amendment would mean that any trade agreement between the UK and any other party that was subject to Sections 20 to 25 of CRaG was not to be ratified if anything in that agreement prevented the UK from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK’s internal market and services provided by a service provider in Northern Ireland to customers in other parts of the UK and vice versa. It would also ensure that the Northern Ireland economy was protected and not undermined in any specific or deliberate way and, particularly with the ravages of Covid-19, was allowed to become buoyant again.

I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in proposing Amendment 26. If he calls for a Division, I shall support him in the virtual Lobbies later this afternoon. It is important that Northern Ireland’s distinct trading position is protected and that any tensions that may arise between the protocol and the internal market are resolved. The one way in which to do that is by accepting Amendment 26.

[Lord Eames (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I want to address the terms of Amendment 26, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others. I do so with a feeling of compulsion, not just for historical reasons but because of the situation as it is now in Northern Ireland. When we talked about this amendment for the first time, it was possible to refer to the fact that the Northern Ireland land border would soon become the border between the United Kingdom and the European Union. As time has passed and we have considered this Bill, the situation is now slightly different. The difference is that the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is the border between the United Kingdom and the EU. Because of that, many would say, “Well, the situation has clarified for Northern Ireland, and many of the worries that you have expressed to the House over the years have resolved themselves to a certain degree of clarity, because the situation is that your border is the border with the EU”.

I refer to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on a previous occasion in debate on this Bill. He said that trade was about people—a simplistic remark that it would be very easy to erase from the memory. However, in the light of what we who support this amendment today want to stress to the House, that remark stresses something of great importance. Over the years, I have at some length spoken to your Lordships of the sensitivities in Northern Ireland based on our history, and this is not the occasion to do so again—except to say that nothing in this Bill can be dismissed as having no historical context, because trade is about people. I speak after years of experience of dealing with those problems, and dealing with them on a practical level, as the Anglican primate of the whole of the island.

The wording of Amendment 26 attempts to answer what underlines a great deal of the trouble and worries in Northern Ireland at this moment. Those worries can best be summed up as uncertainty, because uncertainty brings with it stress. The business community is faced with Brexit, with the unknown future lying before us all and with the questions of our relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, painted so clearly just now. All that uncertainty combines to figure dangers for the trade and business prosperity of a part of the United Kingdom—namely, Northern Ireland. If the sense of this amendment is not included on the pages of the statute book, in the light of what else is said about the Trade Bill, its absence will make even more visible the uncertainty and the stress for our local community.

We have spent a long time in this House looking at this Bill. We have had to face its terms not only in what is before us on the Marshalled List but in what is happening in the situation around us, far from Westminster. The plea that I make, coming as I do from Northern Ireland, is that your Lordships realise that we are not playing with words. We are not trying to overdramatise for historical reasons the need for this amendment. We are saying that we represent genuine uncertainty and doubt and, as one businessman put it to me at the weekend, the fear of the uncertainty that lies ahead of us as part of the UK.

I stress one other aspect. One lesson that the debates on this Bill has produced has been a new recognition of the doubts as well as the achievements of the devolved settlement. We have learned a great deal about that relationship and that settlement; we have learned how good it can be, how welcome it can be and how strong it can be for the whole United Kingdom, but we have also recognised its limitations.

Amendment 26, so ably produced by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, shows the need to be clear in those areas of uncertainty where part of the United Kingdom finds itself not as a future border with the European Union, but the border today between two Administrations. I hope the Minister will realise, when he comes to reply, that one of the shortcomings of the way in which we work as a House under our present conditions is that there are often things that cannot be examined in detail. This is very true of matters of trade but even more true of matters to do with people, and because people are a part of trade, I support Amendment 26.

14:30

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on his tremendous work in the area of Northern Ireland-Great Britain relationships. I was delighted to add my name to Amendments 17 and 18, alongside the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie. I am also happy to congratulate the Minister and our Government for reaching an agreement on trade with the EU that avoided a no-deal Brexit and all its disastrous consequences for every part of the UK. I recognise that this means Amendments 17 and 18 have been superseded, but I want to mention my ongoing concerns about the position of Northern Ireland within the UK and the fact that the UK-EU trade agreement reached in December still means that goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain need a customs declaration, and new border posts have been set up, yet Ministers continue to suggest that there is no Irish Sea border. Will my noble friend just confirm for the House that, indeed, there is one?

I fear that trade experts confirm that there are still unanswered questions on tariffs and trade, even with the deal. Indeed, customs officials with decades of experience have said that post-Brexit Irish Sea border arrangements are cumbersome and complex, and that there is a shortage of customs agents, which is already causing significant problems in Northern Ireland. Will my noble friend tell the House how many agents are expected to be required, how many are in place at the moment, and when the Irish Sea border will be fully staffed? Will my noble friend also explain why the Government refused to accept Amendments 17 and 18 in December and why they reject Amendment 26 now? Surely, the Conservative and Unionist Party would agree with this amendment as it does protect the Northern Ireland protocol. Will my noble friend reassure the House and comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said about the UK-Japan trade deal, which did not contain an impact assessment of its effect on the Northern Ireland protocol?

Clearly, the position of Northern Ireland is a special one, and it is special also to those of us on these Benches who have, for so long, been supportive and concerned about the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland, the Good Friday agreement and the protocol. I hope my noble friend can explain to the House, reassure us on a number of these issues and explain what reasons the Government have for not accepting Amendment 26.

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Altmann. I join her in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on the ingenuity of his important Amendment 26. As he and others have recognised, Amendments 17 and 18 have, to a large degree, been overtaken by events, but I believe that something along the lines of Amendment 26 must be incorporated in the Bill to give reassurance in Northern Ireland. I would go so far as to say that the success of the deal concluded on Christmas Eve, which I welcome, hinges to a large degree upon Northern Ireland.

In his very moving words, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, indicated that the fact that the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland is also the border between the United Kingdom and the European Union is a matter of great significance. He also pointed out the sensitivities in Northern Ireland, sensitivities of which I became acutely aware during my five years as chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place and which, for me, were seen at their most acute and most moving at a meeting I had the privilege to address in Crossmaglen village hall in 2009, following the brutal and sadistic murder of Paul Quinn.

Northern Ireland is a precious part of the United Kingdom. The Belfast agreement must not be put at risk. Free passage across that border, with its 300 points of crossing, must remain and anything that can give reassurance where, at the moment, there is uncertainty, as the noble and right reverend  Lord, Lord Eames, so graphically outlined, must be to the betterment of our relations not only within the United Kingdom—which I pray remains the United Kingdom—but between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Anything that can give such reassurance must, surely, add strength and purpose to the Bill.

I am not going to attempt to rehearse the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. He put them succinctly and graphically and I believe they should command the support of your Lordships’ House. I therefore have pleasure in supporting these amendments, particularly Amendment 26, and I beg my noble friend on the Front Bench to give a reply that means that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, does not need to divide the House. We should not be divided on an issue that, above all, should unite us—the future of the Belfast agreement. If this amendment cannot be accepted for some technical reason, then I beg the Minister to undertake to introduce an amendment at Third Reading that will encapsulate the fundamental points of this one and underline its purpose. I am glad to give my support to the noble Lord, Lord Hain.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to offer the Green group’s support to all these amendments, particularly Amendment 26. It is a pleasure to follow the detailed, highly informed expositions of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I do not feel there is a great deal to add, so I will be very brief, but I want to ask two questions of the Minister. First, what assessment have the Government made of the understanding and ability to deal with this of small businesses, particularly in Northern Ireland but also those exporting goods and services to Northern Ireland? How are they dealing with, and how will they be able to deal with, the trading co-operation agreement arrangements? Is the Minister confident that there is sufficient support for those, given the uncertainties that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, just referred to?

Secondly, venturing into a very complex area but one that I know is of great importance to some people, as I understand it there is a hard border down the Irish Sea for seed potatoes and possibly also for fresh potatoes. Can the Minister explain the situation with potatoes going to and fro across the Irish Sea?

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and to support very warmly the vital point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who has shown such great commitment to Northern Ireland over the years and continues to do so, particularly in the dimension of the Brexit process. I also warmly support the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Altmann, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. I address these remarks particularly to subsection (1)(b) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 26, relating to goods originating in, or moving from, Northern Ireland and entering Great Britain.

Assurances were given to business in Northern Ireland by the Prime Minster that there would be no bureaucratic hindrances whatever on the goods they trade with other parts of the United Kingdom. It now appears that in some circumstances there can be documentary imposition placed upon them. This has serious implications for those selling such goods and those operating ports such as Holyhead. I remind the House that many of the products from Northern Ireland destined for UK markets have in the recent past been coming via Dublin and Holyhead. This is a matter I have repeatedly raised here in the Chamber. If trade such as this requires documentation, whereas trade directly from Northern Ireland to English ports does not, clearly this represents discrimination against Holyhead whether the goods, or part of them, originated wholly in Northern Ireland or were partly imported from third countries.

Holyhead has already suffered in recent days since the conclusion of the Brexit deal, with shipments that previously would have come from Dublin via Holyhead to English markets or on to continental markets now shipped from other locations in Ireland and not coming via Holyhead. Some, indeed, are going directly to the European mainland. We need clarification, so I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment 26 and can give some assurances, which are needed by those operating the port of Holyhead.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I seek clarification on Amendment 26. We were promised unfettered access to the Northern Ireland market. I am privileged to sit on the EU sub-committee on the environment, which has taken a great deal of evidence on food producers, hauliers, and others in connection with trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the run-up to the agreement now in place from 1 January 2021.

This unfettered access is clearly not in place. Although the briefing I was fortunate to receive last week from the Food and Drink Federation says their concerns in this regard are reduced, they certainly remain. One of the difficulties relates to sausages, which seems to cause great hilarity because of the “Yes Minister” sketch that keeps being revived. Sausages and processed foods such as pies, in the short term, are apparently not permitted to enter the Northern Irish market. Are the Government, including the Minister and his department, aware of this? I know that there is a longer-term concern over these goods as well as milling flour, rice, some sugar products, and seed potatoes to the rest of the European Union, but there is the short-term issue of exporting these goods to Northern Ireland. I imagine that this is an unforeseen consequence of the deal which was announced at very short notice. I would be grateful for a commitment from my noble friend to ensure that this will be resolved and that sausages, whether made in north Yorkshire by Heck or other producers across Great Britain, will have access sooner rather than later to Northern Ireland.

What is the position on the time and cost to be taken on issuing export health certificates? Does my noble friend share my concern and that expressed by others, including the British Veterinary Association, of which I am an honorary associate, about the shortage of vets and potential impact on exports and movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in this regard?

There is a need for a provision along the lines of Amendment 26, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to allay my fears.

14:45

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to speak in connection with Northern Ireland matters and have tended to leave these matters to those with more experience of the Province. Like many noble Lords, I regret that the Northern Ireland protocol introduces uncertainties into the status of the Province as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Amendment 17 is fair enough, except that it is unnecessary in a trade Bill. It is not necessary to complicate the Bill in this way because it is incumbent on the Government to comply with the requirements of the protocol. This includes, as noble Lords are aware, an affirmation of the place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom customs territory. Furthermore, the Government would not be able to enact any FTA not consistent with our international obligations. I believe that there is a strong case for saying that entering into the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol breached Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. As the noble Lord, Lord of Kerr of Kinlochard, knows well, because he drafted it, the treaty clearly states that the terms of withdrawal of a member state shall be agreed against the background of that state’s future relationship with the European Union. The EU, in my view, wrongly decided to cajole us into negotiating and agreeing the terms of withdrawal separately, and ahead of, agreeing what our future relationship should be. I trust that the Joint Committee will continue to make progress in mitigating the damage the protocol may do to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Amendment 18 covers only north-south trade. It does not mention east-west trade. Amendment 26 covers east-west trade, but not in precisely the same terms. I believe that neither amendment is relevant or necessary in this Bill, although it is most important that facilitations should be agreed which minimise damage to both north-south and east-west trade.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. He is not there, so we will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I rise to express my concern at these amendments. They have been presented at length and with much eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others. However, they ought not to be for this Bill.

This is not a Bill on our future relationship with the EU or the Northern Ireland protocol. We put all that to bed last month; there is another debate on Friday and a great deal of work continues not least in the EU committee on which I have the honour to serve and in the Joint Committee. However, except on procurement, the Trade Remedies Authority and data, this Bill is concerned with existing agreements between the EU and third countries. I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister and Secretary of State Truss on the 63 agreements concluded with third countries in the last year, a record that will undoubtedly stand. The idea of attaching new conditions to such continuity agreements on other policy areas such as the Good Friday agreement, however strongly felt by those involved, is inappropriate. I will vote against the amendment for that reason, as I hope will others across the House.

The EU deal is behind us, thanks to the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Frost and the team, and the time has come to get this Trade Bill, which started as long ago as 2017, on to the statute book. I will not extend proceedings by speaking on other amendments which suffer from the same problem and which will also, no doubt, be presented with an equally eloquent case. We do no good in this House by introducing these kinds of conditions into inappropriate or irrelevant Bills. To my mind, they should be rejected.

Separately, as someone who loves and has historically been involved in investment in Northern Ireland, and in the interests of reducing uncertainty, to which my noble friend Lord Cormack referred, I look forward to the Minister’s comments on the teething problems in supermarkets mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I call again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie.

[Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a somewhat unexpected pleasure to end up following the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who always brings so much practical business experience to debates, not least on Northern Ireland, given her experience with Tesco.

This has been an interesting short debate, with many powerful speeches. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others have said, these amendments were tabled before a trade deal was reached with the EU and an outcome had been found for many of the remaining unresolved issues on the Northern Ireland protocol. Although Amendments 17 and 18, to which I have added my name, have clearly been passed by events, the anxieties surrounding the Government’s ongoing commitment to the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast agreement remain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, spelled out so powerfully. It is unfortunate that, as a result of the timings of this Bill, this House was unable to express its view through a vote on Amendments 17 and 18 before the ratification of the UK-EU trade deal.

These cross-party amendments stem from a lack of trust in this Government’s ability to stick to their word. The handling of the Brexit negotiations has done little to increase that confidence. I therefore hope that the Minister can reconfirm to the House in his concluding remarks, for the record, the Government’s total commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement now that the trade deal has been agreed.

Amendment 26 deals with unfettered market access between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market and in many ways reiterates the Government’s stated policy. We are now in day six of the post-Brexit world and dealing with the realities rather than debating ideologically based theories. We are now beginning to see the realities of barriers to trade and of what the BBC has described as the “internal UK border”. We are also witnessing the consequences of doing a deal so much at the last minute that proper preparation for the business community in Northern Ireland was not really an option.

Before Christmas, as the Minister will know, Northern Ireland trade groups warned that, in spite of the £200 million trader support service, businesses would not be ready to deal with the new border processes, computer systems and bureaucracy in time for 1 January. We are already seeing significant disruption to deliveries in Northern Ireland from many large retailers, such as Amazon, Sainsbury’s, John Lewis and others. There is a genuine and understandable concern that this is not just a result of teething problems but could mark the beginning of a long-term trend where retailers based in Great Britain cut their services to Northern Ireland because of significant additional red tape and costs.

The introduction of the three-month grace period, while welcome, begs the question of what preparations the Government are making now to ensure that similar problems do not occur after 1 April this year. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little about what preparations are taking place to prepare for the end of the grace period and what mechanisms the Government are putting in place to minimise barriers to trade. Will he commit to ensuring genuine consultation with Northern Ireland businesses, as well as with businesses based in Great Britain, that are directly affected? Will he also commit to listen, make changes and reduce barriers to trade, where such changes are still possible within the constraints of the EU trade deal?

I end by referring to the very powerful speech of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, quoting my noble friend Lord Fox, saying that trade is ultimately about people. Passing Amendment 26 this afternoon would go some way to removing some of the deep uncertainties currently facing people and businesses in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hain for pursuing these issues of such immense importance to the lives and prosperity of the people who live on the island of Ireland. I thank all those who have contributed to this rather good debate on the issues he raised. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, reminded us, successive UK Governments of all political colours have supported the people of Ireland and the peace process.

These amendments speak to that history. The Northern Ireland protocol is now the definitive statement about how trade in goods, but not services, is to be organised going forward. However, as my noble friend Lord Hain said, it must be supported, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, reminded us, it is really complicated. Amendment 26, which we support, raises how future UK FTAs will impact trade in goods and services in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to any discrimination which might arise, directly or indirectly.

The Minister will almost certainly say that we should not worry and that all the issues raised today are covered. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, urged us to move on. However, as my noble friend Lord Hain said, future free trade agreements may well raise issues, and he is right to insist that this Bill makes the position crystal clear. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, warned us, the absence of such a clause may have a disproportionate impact on the current situation. We should heed carefully his words about fear and uncertainty ahead and do what we can to mitigate it.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the Government should offer to bring this issue back at Third Reading, but I am not optimistic. If they do not, we will support my noble friend Lord Hain if he decides to divide the House.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Altmann for their amendments.

Amendment 17 strives to make the ratification of any future UK-EU trade agreement conditional on compliance with the Northern Ireland protocol. As noble Lords will be aware, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, himself has said, we have been overtaken by events—I think the word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, was “eclipsed”—and the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement has now been ratified. Noble Lords will also be aware that we remain fully committed to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol.

However, I am happy to provide further reassurances in my remarks today—I hope I will be able to do so. Our commitment is demonstrated by the agreement we have reached with the EU in the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee on the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. To reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh, this upholds unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to their most important market, eliminating any requirement for export declarations for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. It safeguards Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory, establishing the platform to preserve tariff-free trade for Northern Ireland businesses, protect internal UK trade and maintain the UK’s VAT area.

On the question raised by my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lady Neville-Rolfe on supermarkets, the Government acknowledge there are some teething issues and are working closely with the relevant stakeholders to urgently iron them out. The issues are being addressed, to give some reassurance.

15:00

Throughout 2020, we worked intensively to ensure that the withdrawal agreement, in particular the Northern Ireland protocol, would be fully operational on 1 January 2021. The noble Lord and the noble Baronesses can be reassured that the agreement we have reached with the EU protects the interests both of the EU single market and, more importantly, the territorial and constitutional integrity of the whole United Kingdom so that both sides can have confidence in the agreement. We remain fully committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and will not allow a hard border to appear between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

My noble friend Lord Trenchard put this more eloquently than me, but, crucially, the Bill we are debating here does not address the UK’s future relationship with the EU. That was dealt with via Parliament’s ratification of the deal agreed with the EU last year. The Bill is concerned with, among other things, the implementation of international trade agreements with trade agreement continuity countries and making provision for establishing the Trade Remedies Authority.

Amendment 18 seeks to make ratification of any future trade agreement between the UK and the EU contingent on, first, compliance with the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, and, secondly, ensuring that there is no negative impact on trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

The protection of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is a grave and solemn responsibility for both the UK and Irish Governments as its co-signatories, and both the UK and the EU have affirmed in the protocol that the agreement must be protected in all its parts. The protocol is a practical solution to avoid a hard border with Ireland while ensuring that the UK, including Northern Ireland, leaves the EU as a whole, enabling the entire UK to benefit from free trade agreements. As a result, there will be no change in the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland. That means there will be no new paperwork; no tariffs, quotas or checks on rules of origin; nor any barriers or checks on movement into the Republic of Ireland for goods in free circulation in Northern Ireland.

With the agreement in the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee on the 18 December last year, we have been able to deliver a package which now means that the protocol can be implemented in a pragmatic and proportionate way. It takes account of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. I understand your Lordships’ desire to ensure that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and it is a concern I share. The agreement we reached with the EU both on the protocol and on the UK’s trading relationship with the EU ensures that this is an issue with which we need no longer be concerned.

Finally, Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that the UK’s trade agreements cannot impede the unfettered access of goods and services from Northern Ireland to Great Britain or services from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I took note of the passionate speech made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, where he said—quoting the noble Lord, Lord Fox—that trade is about people, and, of course, he is right. He went on to say that, therefore, people need certainty, and he is right again. But let me explain why we give this.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Government are already committed to ensuring unfettered access while maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act guarantees UK companies can trade unhindered in every part of the UK by ensuring the free flow of capital, labour, goods and services. It also ensures that Northern Ireland is fully part of the UK’s customs territory by ensuring that there are no tariffs on goods remaining within the UK customs territory and that businesses based in Northern Ireland have true unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom, without paperwork.

Our aim is to ensure that all our international agreements are implemented in a way that takes full account of the Northern Ireland protocol; this includes unfettered access. As set out in the Command Paper on the UK’s approach to the Northern Ireland protocol, unfettered access means no declarations, tariffs, new regulatory checks or customs checks, or additional approvals for Northern Ireland businesses to place goods on the Great Britain market. We recognise that international trade partners will seek full access to the UK market. The UK internal market system provided for in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act will provide a stable, consistent regulatory framework that will support the UK’s exporting and inward investment ambitions. Ensuring regulatory coherence across the UK internal market will help support free trade agreement implementation while maintaining unfettered access.

My noble friend Lady Altmann asked a number of questions. In terms of the focus on customs officers, I reassure her that we have already hired 900 more officers as customs agents, and 1,100 are to be hired by March. The Border Force will have recruited over 2,000 officers by July 2021, so there is urgent work in hand there. May I also attempt to answer her question on what the deal means for goods travelling into Northern Ireland from Great Britain? As she will know, a UK trader scheme will allow authorised businesses to undertake that the goods they are moving into Northern Ireland are not at risk of onward movement to the EU, and therefore not liable to EU tariffs. The scheme will be focused on goods being sold to, or provided for final use by, end consumers located in Northern Ireland. The scheme will be open only to businesses established in Northern Ireland, or businesses that meet certain closely linked criteria, to prevent abuse by letterbox or shell businesses.

As such, I can assure noble Lords that the Government are already fully committed to ensuring that the unfettered access that is the intent of Amendment 26 is maintained and—as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, himself said—that the principle is upheld. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

I have received no requests to ask a question of the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hain.

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all the speakers. Perhaps I could single out my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames for his powerful and passionate exposition of the worries in Northern Ireland at the moment, especially those of its businesses that face a very uncertain, stressful future.

Amendment 26 especially is a very live issue in Northern Ireland, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick emphasised; she quoted the examples of hiccups over supply from Tesco and Sainsbury’s. Northern Ireland’s businesses feel they are left high and dry at present, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, emphasised so compellingly, and as my noble friend Lord Wigley said about Holyhead and the hiccups around that, in terms of trade across the Irish Sea with the Republic of Ireland.

I am afraid that there is a reality gap between ministerial assurances, as we have heard so decently from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and what is happening on the ground. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made it clear that unfettered access is not in place, especially for agri-food products and others. With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Amendment 26 is about this Bill. As the Japan deal—a rollover deal—shows, these free trade agreements which will take place in the future could still affect Northern Ireland negatively, regardless of the assurances given. It is important to put this principle of unfettered access in statute in this Bill, which is about future free trade agreements.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for his assurances—absolutely compellingly meant, I am sure—on the Irish border and the Good Friday agreement. But I am extremely disappointed, as many in Northern Ireland and especially in its business community will be, that the Government will not accept what they profess to uphold: the principle of unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses contained in Amendment 26. Although I will withdraw Amendment 17, I will divide the House on Amendment 26 when the time comes.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Amendments 18 and 19 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 20

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

20: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Ratification of international trade agreements
(1) An international trade agreement may not be ratified unless it enables the United Kingdom to require imports to meet standards that are equivalent to the principal standards laid down by primary and subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom regarding food safety, the environment and animal welfare.(2) The condition in subsection (1) does not apply if the international trade agreement is with one or more least developed countries and, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, is seeking equivalence on standards which would present an unfair impediment to trade for the country or countries concerned.(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify which of the standards laid down by legislation in the United Kingdom regarding food safety, the environment and animal welfare are principal standards for the purpose of subsection (1).(4) Regulations made under subsection (3) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.(5) In this section “least developed countries” means any country on the United Nations Committee of Development’s List of Least Developed Countries, as amended from time to time.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause ensures that UK standards regarding food safety, the environment and animal welfare cannot be undermined by imports produced to lower standards.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I will be brief. I think there are several more exciting amendments coming after mine. My Amendment 20 is about the ratification of international trade agreements. The Government have failed miserably to demonstrate any material benefits from Brexit so far, and now focus almost exclusively on reclaiming our sovereignty, which they do not seem able to do in other arenas.

In the same way that some individuals agree to sacrifice some personal autonomy by forming a contract or association, trade agreements, by design, cede a degree of sovereignty in exchange for streamlined trade. Amendments 20 and 22 are expressions of parliamentary sovereignty and our sovereignty as a so-called newly independent nation.

They say to the Government and our trading partners that there are areas of our sovereignty that we refuse to sacrifice in the name of trade. Those protected areas include food safety, the environment and animal welfare, which we all care about across your Lordships’ House, the general public and, apparently, the Government, who keep telling us how much these issues matter to them but then encourage their Members to vote “Not Content” to any amendments that would put these protections into legislation. At times, it feels rather pointless. The only thing that has cheered me up today is that it looks as if the Democrats have taken back the Senate in the United States of America. I beg to move.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for initiating this group of amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her support. This opening amendment is on conditions for free trade in relation to environmental obligations. It goes somewhat wider than Amendment 22 in my name and has perhaps a slightly different purpose. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Jones, for adding their names to the amendment to which I shall speak, which is more specifically on the standards that must be maintained across a range of areas of international trade agreements.

The maintenance of food standards within a domestic context was the subject of much debate during the passage of the Agriculture Bill last year. This amendment to the Trade Bill takes the importance of the issue into trade agreements that must abide by those same standards. It would clarify the mechanisms that would ensure that standards were not compromised. I will not replay the many arguments expressed during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, but merely add that legal guarantees on food imports through trade deals should also be laid down in a transparent procedure or code of practice which Ministers must commence in statutory instruments. Such standards on imported food products as appropriate to trade deals must be widened to certain other areas of human rights, public health and labour laws. Should a Minister decide that a change in standards needs to be made, subsection (5) of the new clause proposed by the amendment would specify the transparent steps that would need to be undertaken to effect that change.

Although it was in the Conservative Party manifesto, the Government have been reluctant to commit both to legislative certainty of standards and to public transparency in relation to scrutiny of trade deals. We are all rightly proud of the high agricultural and food standards in this country. Many people believe that trade must be encouraged not to undercut those standards, not only to maintain fair competition across food sectors, including catering and manufacturing, but to maintain and improve health benefits to consumers from transparently-certified production regulations. There are significant doubts over the claim that protections stemming from EU membership have been transferred into UK law. The final EU-UK agreement allows latitude for the UK to diverge from the level playing field in future. The UK will maintain an autonomous sanitary and phytosanitary regime.

15:15

We all know the threat posed by potential trade agreements with America and Australia. With this amendment, we want to see Ministers following a strict governance procedure of constant advice and engagement with stakeholders, trade unions, the Food Standards Agency, environmental agencies and businesses, and reports to Parliament with evidence to the relevant committees, all building on Section 42 as inserted into the Agriculture Act. This could lead to a legal review of standards in statute for each relevant area, but Ministers must have a procedure to follow to ensure that standards are maintained.

Where any changes in standards are deemed necessary, they should be undertaken via primary legislation before a trade deal or agreement is laid under the CRaG process. Standards must not be changed through the back door of a trade agreement. This amendment will aid and improve scrutiny of trade deals, drive up international standards and aid countries to increase trade with the UK, while improving environmental conditions, animal welfare, human rights and labour laws. I am likely to press this amendment to a vote.

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

I support Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and will vote for it. On the previous day of the debate, I spoke at some length about the importance of ensuring that our trade standards are consistent with our high standards of food and animal welfare, and our climate and environmental obligations in particular. I will not repeat those arguments here, because I have bored noble Lords enough by my concerns about public health and food, but this amendment is important and, without it, we run a lot of danger of leaving ourselves open to standards that are below ours and will damage our health, animal health and environment.

More generally, in 2020, we saw a small reduction in emissions globally as a result of the pandemic that we still have. This reduction should not be a blip; we need to see it as a more permanent arrangement and build on it. If we do not have considerations such as those in this amendment brought to the front of trade policy, we risk doubling down on our old ways of trading, increasing global emissions again. We need to use our trade power for good and to encourage others to produce carbon-neutral products. If we do not, even if we reduce emissions at home, we will import them from abroad. The same general principle applies to the food that we import into this country which we expect ourselves and, more importantly, our children to eat.

This amendment is about parliamentary scrutiny, which I am sure will carry favour with many noble Lords. It would not make it illegal to import products that were produced to a lower standard but, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has so clearly set out, it would require consultation and a vote in Parliament to approve any deviation from existing standards. In essence, it is a compromise that would give our farmers as well as the huge swathes of the population which have made their voices heard in the last few months—about their determination to maintain not just good food standards but transparency in food standards—peace of mind without making trade impossible.

Finally, I specifically ask the Minister what he and his department know—I am sure they are aware of it—about the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability, or ACCTS, as it is called. This is led by New Zealand. Nations are free to sign up to it to show that they are committed to using their trade policy to support action on climate change. As we have now left the EU and the transition period is over, can we join this agreement to show our intent in this hugely important year before COP 26? I will return to ACCTS when I talk about labelling later in the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his amendment and give him my wholehearted support.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I speak to Amendments 20 and 22 in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, moved Amendment 20, and I fully support her and others in ensuring that imports will meet the current principal standards on food safety, the environment and animal welfare.

We have had numerous direct debates about ensuring that these issues remain at the forefront of the Government’s commitments to the public. It is, however, vital that in order to trade with least developed countries and encourage their entrepreneurial skills, our standards do not act as a blockage to those countries. At the same time, it is important for public confidence that food safety standards are maintained and animal welfare is not compromised. We are, after all, a nation of animal lovers.

Cross-party Amendment 22, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also mirrors debates that took place during the passage of the Agriculture Bill. It is an extremely important amendment to ensure that Parliament is fully involved in ensuring that standards affected by international trade agreements are maintained at our current high levels.

Members of Parliament are elected to ensure the well-being of their constituents in a wide variety of areas, and it is simply unacceptable for them to be excluded from debating trade agreements that could have a dramatic impact on local businesses and their constituents. Similarly, the upper Chamber, while not currently elected, has a wealth of expertise and knowledge that can be brought to bear to enhance future trade agreements, where necessary.

Issues of food safety, quality, hygiene and traceability are essential not only to protect consumers but to ensure a level playing field for our farmers and food producers. It is important for human rights and equalities to be included, especially women’s and children’s rights along with other classifications under the Human Rights Act of 1998.

The devolved Administrations should not be an afterthought but should be consulted at an early stage and able to express their view on trade agreements that affect them. The relevant committees of both Houses, including the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, will also have a view.

As we move forward with the continuing process of separating ourselves from the rest of Europe and bringing the UK closer to other countries in the world, standards and scrutiny will be important to maintain the confidence of the public, business and our other partners, some remaining in the EU. This amendment gives the reassurance that is required for this to happen. I fully support these two amendments, and I will support Amendment 22 should the House vote in the virtual Lobby.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, knows what I am about to say about her Amendment 20, which is yet another attempt to hardwire the maintenance of UK standards into statute.

Time and time again the Government have said that they have no intention of lowering standards. The noble Baroness has usually replied that she does not trust the Government. I hope she will accept that amendments to legislation are not customarily made in your Lordships’ House in order to confirm what is already government policy, especially when it has been repeated at the Dispatch Box numerous times.

I can levy the same criticism at Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and others, but my main reason for putting my name down to speak on this group is because I think that Amendment 22 is quite extraordinary. There are certainly examples of codes of practice required by statute, and some also require approval by Parliament, but as far as I am aware, there is no precedent for an Act requiring one Minister to set out how that Minister or any other Minister must behave. The codes of practice that exist are usually intended to complement often complex legislation to guide those who need to implement it. I believe that they have never been used as instructions to Ministers on what to do, and I do not believe that we should start to do that now.

I also remind noble Lords that the negotiation of international treaties is firmly within the royal prerogative. I believe that Amendment 22 would fetter the royal prerogative, and apart from anything else it should not be pursued on those grounds

The Government have said that they will maintain standards, but Amendment 22 just tries to tie Ministers up in knots. We should just let them get on with their jobs. I hope that noble Lords will not support these amendments if the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, or the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, choose to press them.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, my interests are as listed in the register. It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is extremely well informed. I speak to Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and my noble friend Lady Boycott.

I will be brief and reserve most of my comments on the proposed trade and agriculture commission when we debate amendments in the group beginning with Amendment 26. However, I have a straightforward request for clarity, which is linked to this grouping of amendments. How do the Government plan to respond to the report that will be delivered by the existing Trade and Agriculture Commission within the next couple of months, when I assume it will report? We look forward to the conclusion of the crucially important task that the TAC was commissioned to undertake by the Secretary of State. It may well recommend a code of practice, as proposed in the amendment, and will certainly make recommendations that should influence the way we conduct future trade deals.

We must assume that the Trade Bill will have become law before the current TAC reports, so I am concerned that we will not be able to take its recommendations into account. I am interested in what the Minister has to say about how the Government will respond to the TAC’s recommendations retrospectively, having passed the Trade Bill before it delivers the report.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my environmental interests in the register and my interest as chairman of the Royal Veterinary College.

I support Amendment 22 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester and other noble Lords across the House. I absolutely agree that there should be parliamentary scrutiny of a code for ensuring standards and of any variation of standards in these highly important areas. My primary areas of interest and expertise are in the environment and animal welfare.

I am sure that the Government may say that provisions such as those in subsection (5) in Amendment 22 would be cumbersome and could delay important free trade agreements which the Government regard as so important to the UK in forging its future place in the world. However, I hope the Minister can reassure us that lowering or abandoning standards will not occur frequently—in fact, that they will be an exception—so the use of the subsection (5) provisions will not prove burdensome at all.

I hope, indeed, that it might be the reverse: that the Minister might welcome this amendment. I am not sure that the Government truly understand the pressure to reduce standards that will come from other countries in some trade negotiations. Having a bulwark in legislation should be a comfort to the Government, so that they can say, “We’re very sorry. We can’t agree to any lowering of standards unless our Parliament approves that”.

15:30

I was singularly unpersuaded by the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, against Amendment 22. She described very fully the situations when codes of practice are generally used for guidance on the basis of complex legislation and in negotiations where the legislation needs to be explained by the code of practice, and that is the precisely the situation that we fall into as regards these trade negotiations and the maintenance of standards. I also find it rather staggering that she said that the Government have already promised to maintain the standards and therefore we should not fetter Ministers any further. My memory is that the Government promised us that Covid would be over by Christmastime, so I am not entirely convinced by government assurances on these standards. Let us have it in the legislation.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on my way in today I was reflecting on the fact that I started last year, at about this time, discussing a trade Bill on Report, so it is nice to see that some traditions in the House of Lords do not change.

I support Amendment 22, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester indicated. He moved it very well. I do not need to rehearse all the arguments because, as my noble friend indicated, we have had many debates on this issue.

I was grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to what looks to be the news that the Senate of the United States may well be changing hands. That will bring about a direct consequence for the UK’s trade negotiations. This amendment refers to domestic standards, but it also links to who we trade with. Will there be pressure on our domestic standards by the country that we seek to have an agreement with? We know that the discussions with America are ongoing, and they are likely now to be impacted by a Democrat-controlled White House and full Congress—both Houses.

The consequence of that will mean that the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act 2015, which put in place conditions on the US trade representative in negotiations on agriculture, environmental standards and objectives, will be reformed, so the United States will have a new position when it comes to the ongoing discussions with the United Kingdom. That is now inevitable, which means that in our approach to the negotiations it is valid that we discuss what our equivalent legislation in this country will be that set our standards, and what the requirements on Ministers will be.

We know that the Government have accepted in part to enshrine standards obligations in a treaty. The European TCA, for example, has set a three-year standstill on organic standards. That is a guarantee, if ever there was one, that there would be no change over a period. Why three years? The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated that it would be a nonsense to put into any form of legislation a commitment that a Minister has given not to deviate from standards, but why then did we legislate for that exact thing last week in the Act for the European agreement? A standstill for three years on organic standards is a restriction on how this Parliament can now operate standards on organic farming. With that legislation, the Government have bound us for three years. I do not think there is any disagreement about that, because offering some degree of certainty to organic farmers on the standards that will be accepted for trading between the United Kingdom and the European Union is a positive thing. We suggest that under Amendment 22 there are other positive elements that should be highlighted regarding the way that we trade.

I was puzzled by the assertion that Amendment 22 will fetter the prerogative of Ministers and will limit their freedom to bring measures to Parliament for approval by indicating in effect instructions under statute of how they exercise their powers. What puzzles me is that the opposite side supported that with a government amendment to the Agriculture Act. I remind the House that Section 42 is a fettering of the prerogative power that limits the freedoms of Ministers, because it requires them, before they bring forward approval under CRaG, to carry out an exercise whereby they seek an independent body, now a statutory independent body—to emphasise the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about something that she has already supported—to report before Parliament acts. Therefore it is not we who do not necessarily trust the Government, because clearly the Government do not trust themselves if they brought forward an amendment to their own Bill that required an independent statutory body to report to Parliament before we even had a vote on it.

The noble Baroness’s point is even more reduced by the very quick search I was able to do on the legislation website for “Ministers must have regard to” before they carry out their duties. There are scores of examples in legislation where Ministers “must have regard to” before they exercise their ministerial functions on immigration, the health service, judicial appointments, inquiries. In most large areas where Ministers carry out their duties, such as negotiating trade or carrying out health duties, judicial appointments or whatever, there are many statutory expectations of what they must do before they carry out their functions. Amendment 22 is appropriate, because it puts in a slightly wider set of criteria on Section 42 of the Agriculture Act, which the Government themselves had put forward.

My final point is on standards in particular. I am glad that Amendment 22 references women’s rights. We debated the UK-Japan agreement at length, and there was consensus around the House that one of the deficiencies of that agreement was that it did not expand on the areas for supporting women’s rights and expanding women’s economic empowerment within that agreement. On human rights, we know that the Cotonou agreement is already out of date and has to be replaced, so the extra elements under proposed new subsection (3) of Amendment 22 are appropriate.

I will make one point on food rights that links to developments just three days ago with regard to food imports. We assume that food that comes into the United Kingdom is of the same standard that we would expect our own producers to sell elsewhere, and we have worked very hard through the Fairtrade Foundation, which we have supported, and other organisations to make sure that that is the case. I was very sad to learn that Brexit tariffs were imposed on a shipment of fair-trade goods from Africa that arrived into Portsmouth—£17,500 on shipments of bananas from Ghana—and that tariffs of 16.5% will be imposed on tuna.

I hope very much that the Government will recognise that this should not be the situation and that it can be rectified. As much as we want to promote other countries improving standards on labour rights, environmental standards and food standards, as we do here at home, we must work in partnership and we should not penalise those for whom we seek to have much higher standards. I am very happy to support Amendment 22.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, it seems very appropriate that we are beginning the new year by welcoming a familiar friend: a debate on standards in the Trade Bill. Yet again, there were most interesting comments from noble Lords in the debate.

I turn first to Amendment 20, so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which seeks to prevent the ratification of FTAs unless there are provisions that ensure that imports under those FTAs comply with the UK’s domestic standards for food safety, animal welfare and the environment.

As noble Lords know, the Bill is principally concerned with continuity agreements, which we have now signed with 63 partner countries. It is rather cheering that each time I speak from this Dispatch Box that number has crept up. I should emphasise to noble Lords that none of those agreements has led to a lowering of domestic standards. Cheap food is not flooding our market. Workers’ rights are not being undermined. All we have done is deliver on our central objective of providing continuity for businesses and consumers.

The amendment has unintended consequences that its signatories have not addressed. It could, I am afraid, jeopardise the UK’s ability to meet its WTO commitments. WTO rules constrain the ability of the UK to restrict imports based on criteria such as animal welfare and environmental protection. These WTO rules play an important and balanced role in containing disguised protectionism, but inevitably mean that there is a real risk of a WTO dispute if we do not handle these important matters with care.

Establishing the amendment as a negotiating objective has the potential to create great uncertainty and undermine continuity for businesses at an already critical time. I know that noble Lords would not wish this. It may of course jeopardise the implementation of continuity agreements, including those already signed but not yet ratified. Let us not forget that UK businesses have a long history of trading under these agreements and rely on them for stability and certainty. Any delay to implementation will impact the import of goods on which businesses and consumers are dependent. Furthermore, the noble Baroness’s amendment could result in similar measures being deployed by trade partners with regard to UK exports. That could prevent UK producers from being able to export goods overseas until they had demonstrated that they had met the domestic standards of our trade partners.

However, we of course understand the importance of this issue and the Government have established a number of initiatives to ensure that any concerns around agriculture and the environment are addressed at each stage of the negotiation processes. This includes: public consultations ahead of new trade negotiations; increased engagement with agriculture and agri-food stakeholders; establishing the trade advisory groups; and of course passing an amendment to this Bill, placing the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing.

I now turn to Amendment 22, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Purvis, alongside the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. As I have explained, our continuity programme maintains high standards in areas including food standards, human rights and environmental obligations. Indeed, in many areas the UK goes much further than the EU. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I am proud of our standards. Let me give some examples.

When discussing workers’ rights, the UK has led the way and the EU is significantly behind us. The statutory minimum wage in the UK for people aged 25 and over is £8.72 an hour, whereas the EU has no legal minimum. Furthermore, UK workers can get statutory sick pay for up to 28 weeks, whereas the EU has no minimum sick leave or sick pay legislation. Further still—this gets to the crux of our debate—the UK has world-leading standards for animal welfare, while food standards are overseen by the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, which I am sure noble Lords agree are the most independent of experts.

The UK has a strong history of protecting human rights and promoting our values globally. We will continue to encourage all states to uphold international human rights obligations. It should also be said that there is no provision within the Trade Bill that could allow amendment of the Human Rights Act.

15:45

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, asked about the agreement on climate change, trade and sustainability. We very much support this agreement. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has an Oral Question for answer on Monday about this very subject, and I look forward to answering further questions from noble Lords at that time.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked about the report that we shortly expect to receive from the Trade and Agriculture Commission. We are looking forward to the report and we will of course respond when it comes forward and, as appropriate, take it into account in future trade agreements. The horse of future trade agreements has certainly not yet bolted.

In conclusion, the Government have always been clear that we have no intention of lowering standards as part of our trade agenda, through either the front door or, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, feared, the back door. The continuity agreements that we have signed thus far maintain our commitment to vigorously defend and uphold standards. I therefore ask that Amendments 20 and 22 not be pressed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, made in his usual sincere and emollient way. I had not understood just how devastating the impact of my amendment would be. I think there might have been a tiny bit of scaremongering in that. He also said so far, so good—but we all know that it is early days and we have a long way to go to get the sort of trade deals that we really want. We need the protections that we are asking for. We have had this debate a lot and the Minister knows full well how the majority of the House feels.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I particularly enjoy the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, whom I very much enjoy clashing with. I should like to say to her that it is absolutely true—I do not trust this Government. I am in awe of her unswerving loyalty to them, especially in view of the fact that in the other place our Prime Minister stands up, makes all sorts of promises and then reneges on them. How she maintains her loyalty is absolutely astonishing.

However, we have had this debate many times. I do feel that the Government just do not understand the depth of feeling on this issue, not just in the House but among the general public, farmers and all sorts of producers. Ignoring this issue is a terrible mistake.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

Is the noble Baroness withdrawing her amendment?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

I am, yes.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

Amendment 21 not moved.

Amendment 22

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

22: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Standards affected by international trade agreements
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a code of practice setting out how a Minister of the Crown should take steps to maintain standards established by any enactment regarding—(a) food, (b) animal welfare,(c) the environment,(d) human rights,(e) welfare, and(f) labour law,if a proposed international trade agreement is likely to affect such standards.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.(3) The code under subsection (1) may provide that a Minister of the Crown ensures as far as possible that a future trade agreement is consistent with United Kingdom levels of statutory protection regarding, among other things—(a) human, animal or plant life or health;(b) animal welfare;(c) the environment;(d) food safety, quality, hygiene and traceability;(e) employment and labour standards; and(f) human rights and equalities, including but not limited to—(i) women’s rights,(ii) child rights, and(iii) the Human Rights Act 1998.(4) This is in addition to and does not impact on the provisions in section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (reports relating to free trade agreements).(5) Where a Minister of the Crown decides that it is appropriate and necessary to change standards in pursuit of an international trade agreement, a Minister of the Crown must—(a) send a notification of the necessary changes to primary or subordinate legislation to the relevant Committee in each House of Parliament at the earliest opportunity;(b) consult and seek the consent of the devolved authorities; and(c) take steps to ensure that necessary changes to primary or subordinate legislation have completed their parliamentary processes before the final texts of agreed trade agreements, together with full impact assessments which cover the economic impacts and social, environmental, and animal welfare aspects of the agreement, in advance of such agreements being laid before Parliament under section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.(6) In this section, “United Kingdom levels of statutory protection” means levels of protection provided for by or under any—(a) primary legislation,(b) subordinate legislation, or(c) retained direct EU legislation, which has effect in the United Kingdom, or the part of the United Kingdom in which the regulations have effect, on the date on which a draft of the regulations is laid.”

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I wish to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who said that she finds this amendment extraordinary. I would merely say that making trade agreements has not been specifically undertaken by the UK while a member of the EU and that this is a new area of competence. Thus, new procedures need to be set up and how these agreements will be scrutinised needs to be fully understood—in this amendment, specifically in relation to food standards and other standards. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his remarks in reply to the noble Baroness.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked the Minister how the Government may respond to the existing TAC as it moves through its report. There are many and varied anxieties. We must have certainty regarding standards that must be maintained in trade agreements. I am very glad to hear that the Government have maintained continuity in rolling over more deals, yet it is disappointing to repeatedly hear misleading arguments about how WTA commitments will constrain us or be an unintended consequence. They do not seem to have fettered the laying down of our current standards. Let us make sure that these current standards can continue by supporting this amendment and setting a governance procedure in regulations. I beg to move and wish to test the opinion of the House.

15:50

Division 1

Ayes: 290

---

Labour: 138
Liberal Democrat: 78
Crossbench: 49
Independent: 15
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Green Party: 2
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 274

---

Conservative: 222
Crossbench: 39
Independent: 10
Ulster Unionist Party: 2

16:04

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

We now come to Amendment 23. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 23

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

23: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection of children online
(1) The United Kingdom may only become a signatory to an international trade agreement if the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied.(2) International trade agreements must be consistent with—(a) other international treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party, and the domestic law of England and Wales (including any changes to the law after the trade agreement is signed), regarding the protection of children and other vulnerable user groups using the internet;(b) the provisions on data protection for children, as set out in the age appropriate design code under section 123 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (age-appropriate design code) and other provisions of that Act which impact children; and(c) online protections provided for children in the United Kingdom that the Secretary of State considers necessary.(3) In this section a “child” means any person under the age of 18.”

[Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 23 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sheikh. This amendment represents the wishes of many colleagues from all sides of the house, and with that in mind I have informed the clerk that we intend to divide the House. I refer noble Lords to my interests in the register, particularly that as chair of the 5Rights Foundation, a charity that works to build the digital world that children deserve.

The amendment has been slightly revised since it was tabled in Committee, to reflect comments made then, but its purpose remains resolutely the same: to ensure that the online safety of children and other vulnerable users is not compromised as a consequence of clauses that appear in future free trade agreements.

Like many colleagues, I would rather that the UK Parliament had, as the US Congress does, a system of parliamentary scrutiny of all aspects of trade deals, but that is not the case. The amendment would offer significant protections for UK children online by protecting UK domestic law, widely regarded as the best in the world, as far as it affects children’s online safety. It would sit after Clause 2 and would therefore pertain to all future UK trade deals.

Proposed new subsection (2)(a) would capture existing UK legislation and treaties. This would allow the Government to cite existing treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the UK has ratified but the US has not, or domestic legislation that already offers protections for children online. It would also capture any further advances made in UK law between now and the time that any trade agreement is settled.

Proposed new subsection (2)(b) specifically refers to data protections brought into law on 2 September last year in the form of the age-appropriate design code, which will have a profound impact on children’s online safety. That code was an initiative introduced and won in this House by a similar all-party grouping, with support from all sides of the House. It would also ensure that the Data Protection Act 2018 was protected in total, since many of the provisions of the children’s code build on the broader provisions of the DPA.

Proposed new subsection (2)(c) would give the Secretary of State the power to carve out from a trade deal any new or related legislation—for example, the upcoming online harms Bill, or any provisions put forward as the result of inquiries by the Competition and Markets Authority, the Law Commission, Ofcom, the ICO and so on. Digital regulation is a fast-moving area of policy, and the discretion given to the Secretary of State by subsection (2)(c) would ensure his or her ability to reflect the latest commitments on children’s online protection in FTAs.

The amendment would also define children as any person under 18. This is crucial, since the US domestic consumer law, COPPA, has created a de facto age of adulthood online of 13, in the face of all tradition and decades of evidence of child development. Using 13 as a false marker of adulthood has been thoughtlessly mirrored around the world. It fails to offer any protection to those aged 13 to 17, who require protections and freedoms in line with their evolving maturity but are clearly not yet adults.

I am very grateful to both the Minister and the Minister of State for Trade Policy, Greg Hands MP, for taking the time to speak to me since I first tabled this amendment. I am sympathetic to their overall position that the Bill should not tie the hands of UK trade negotiators, but in this case it is imperative that we do so, because some things are simply not for sale.

In the very few weeks since we debated this amendment in Committee, we have seen that the protections outlined in the amendment are entirely absent in the EU-UK deal, and in the same few weeks we have seen suggestions for the inclusion of provisions in the proposed mini-deal with the US that could completely undermine all the advances that we have made to protect children. That is even before we get to a full-blown US-UK FTA. In this context, Ministers can no longer cast doubt on the relevance of the amendment, nor can they suggest that this is an issue that can be dealt with at some indeterminate time in the future. We have set our sights on being a sovereign trading nation and are seeking to do that in short speed. We must make sure from the very beginning that we do not trade away the safety and security of our children.

In closing, I point to the Government’s recent online harms response and say to the Minister, whom I know to be personally committed to the safety of children, that it is simply impossible to balance the promises made to parents and children in the context of the online harms Bill without us also determinedly protecting the advances and commitments that we already have made. Amendment 23 would ensure that the UK domestic attitudes, legislation and guidance that protect children’s safety online could not be traded away. In a trade deal, no one side ever gets everything that it wants. We have to take kids off the table. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and her extremely cogent introduction. I have signed Amendment 23, which we on these Benches strongly support. I pay tribute to her consistent campaigning efforts in the area of online child safety and child protection. Very briefly, I will add why we need this amendment, through some recent media headlines which illustrate the issues involved.

First, on the extent of online harms, here are just a few headlines:

“Social media stalking on rise as harassers dodge identity checks”,


“QAnon is still spreading on Facebook, despite a ban”,


“Facebook’s algorithm a major threat to public health”


and

“Tech companies continue to provide online infrastructure for contentious Covid-19 websites even after flagging them as fake news, finds new Oxford study”.


Many of these online harms impact heavily on children and other vulnerable groups.

Secondly, here are two headlines on the power of big tech:

“Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research documents”


and

“Facebook says it may quit Europe over ban on sharing data with US”.


There can be no doubting the sheer global lobbying power of the major platforms and their ability to influence governments.

Thirdly, on the opportunity for change and to retain our laws, the headlines included

“New ‘transformational’ code to protect children’s privacy online”,


which refers to the age-appropriate design code that has now been renamed “the children’s code”, and

“Britain can lead the world in reining in the tech giants if we get the details right”,


which refers to the proposals to introduce a new online duty of care.

“CMA advises government on new regulatory regime for tech giants”


refers to the new digital markets unit, and the CMA is referred to again in:

“Google told to stamp out fraudulent advertising”.


We have started down a crucial road of regulating the behaviour of the big tech companies and preventing harm, particularly to our children and the vulnerable. In any trade deal we want to preserve the protections that our citizens have, and all those that are coming into place, and we do not want to water them down in any way as a result of any trade negotiation.

The trade deal that looms largest is of course with the US, and there are indications that with the new Administration, which so many of us welcome, there will be new attitudes towards privacy rights, especially now that it seems that Congress will have Democrat majority control. I hope that they will vigorously pursue the antitrust cases that have been started, but we have no guarantee that they will go further, for instance in successfully eliminating the all-important safe harbour legal shield for internet companies, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. There is no guarantee that this will go, or that there will not be attempts to enforce this by the US in its future trade deals.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, for whom I have the greatest respect, will no doubt say that the Government will have red lines in their negotiations and that there is no way that they will countenance negotiating away the online protections which we currently have. But, as we have seen with the withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland, the fishing industry and the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement, these can be washed away, or blurred, as data protection is in the agreement with Japan. So there is a great degree of uncertainty on both sides of the Atlantic. For that reason, without doubting any assurance that the Minister gives, this amendment is essential, and on these Benches we will strongly support it if the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, takes it to a vote.

16:15

[Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 23, to which I have added my name as a supporter. I spoke on this issue in Committee. As we have now left the EU, we must outline our priorities as a nation, and protecting children online must be high on the list.

Amendment 23 would offer significant protections for UK children online by effecting UK laws relating to online safety in future trade deals. I have been impressed by Her Majesty’s Government’s ambitions and efforts to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. I support the regulatory framework outlined in the Government’s response in December 2020 to the Online Harms White Paper, which is ground-breaking in creating a new duty of care that will make companies take responsibility for the safety of their users.

This amendment is an important part of this new strategy and should be supported. As set out in proposed new Clause 2(a) in Amendment 23, international trade agreements must be consistent with other international treaties and domestic laws on the protection of children and other vulnerable groups using the internet. This would refer to treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognises the special safeguards that children need in all aspects of their life, including protection from all forms of violence, and the right to privacy.

Proposed new Clause 2(a) could also refer to the Digital Economy Act 2017, which prevents under-18s in the UK accessing pornography on the internet. During the pandemic, digital technologies have helped us to work and connect with loved ones, but they have also opened up greater risks for children. For instance, during the first lockdown, the Internet Watch Foundation and its industry partners blocked at least 8.8 million attempts by UK internet users to access videos and images of children suffering sexual abuse. At the same time, research by the British Board of Film Classification shows that 47% of children and teens had, during lockdown, seen content that they wished they had not seen.

The risks to children online are growing by the day, and we need to be proactive in tackling these harms and encouraging others to do so by supporting this amendment. In Committee, I was pleased that my noble friend the Minister said,

“we stand by our online harm commitments, and nothing agreed as part of any trade deal will affect that.”

This is reassuring, and I welcome his support. However, protecting children online is such an important issue it needs to be guaranteed in legislation, so that it is not accidentally traded away. This amendment will make sure this cannot happen by ensuring our online protection is a necessary requirement of any future trade deal.

In Committee, my noble friend also said that

“our continuity programme is consistent with existing international obligations, as it seeks to replicate existing EU agreements, which are themselves fully compliant with such obligations”,—[Official Report, 1/10/2020; col. GC 140.]

to protect young and vulnerable internet users. Although I welcome this continuity, my concern is with countries such as the US, which may not have the same standard of protection as we do in the UK and the EU.

As has been mentioned previously, the trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada has effectively created a legal shield for tech companies in line with US domestic law. In this agreement, service providers are not liable for content on their platforms or the harm it may cause to users. This fails to hold social media companies to account and risks protecting the big tech firms over children online. Rather than just replicating the existing legislation on online harms in future trade agreements, the amendment will also apply to updated or new legislation. For example, proposed new subsection (2)(c) of Amendment 23 refers to

“online protections provided for children in the United Kingdom that the Secretary of State considers necessary.”

This means that future legislation, such as the upcoming online harms Bill, will be protected in international trade agreements.

The digital space is continually changing and growing at a rapid pace. I am sure that, over the next few years, more legislation will be created for new technologies that we may not even know exist at present. With this amendment, we will ensure that protecting children goes hand in hand with technological innovation.

In Committee, my noble friend the Minister reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to international obligations on protecting young and vulnerable internet users. Supporting this amendment is the best way to strengthen this commitment and make it truly enforceable, as it means that children online will be fully protected within future trade deals, regardless of the make-up of the negotiating team of the day.

Data protection is also central to protecting children online, and proposed new subsection (2)(b) will ensure that the age-appropriate design code is also properly honoured. The code came into force in September 2020, and is a code of practice that explains how online service providers can ensure that they appropriately safeguard children’s personal data.

Data is essentially the building block of the digital world and affects how we use it. Although data is important and useful, it can also be dangerous in exposing children to age-inappropriate content, such as material on self-harm, sexual abuse, bullying, misinformation and extremism. As data travels across borders, it is important that future international agreements are consistent with our leading online protections.

In proposed new subsection (3) of the amendment, a child is defined as

“any person under the age of 18.”

This is consistent with existing UK law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is important, as the age of a child differs between countries. For example, US domestic consumer law has created the de facto age of adulthood online as 13. I am sure your Lordships will agree that a 14, 15, 16 or 17 year-old is still as much at risk of sexual exploitation, misinformation, grooming, bullying and harmful content online as a 13 year-old. For instance, in a survey by Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office in 2019, 79% of 12 to 15 year-old internet users claimed that they had had at least one harmful experience in the past 12 months. It is important that this amendment is supported, so that any person under the age of 18 can be protected, as, even at 17, a young person is still developing, and harmful experiences online can impact them for the rest of their life.

I applaud the Government’s use of digital technologies to power economic growth across the UK and abroad. This is exciting, but we must exercise caution. To quote the response to the online harms Bill White Paper:

“we must be able to look parents in the eye and assure them we are doing everything we can to protect their children from harm.”

By supporting this amendment, we are making a true commitment to create a safer digital world for our children.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am an enthusiastic supporter of this cross-party amendment to the Trade Bill.

The Government do not have that much to be proud of right now, but they should be rightly proud of their moves to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online, especially for children. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has done great work, both through the 5Rights Foundation and in this House on this issue. Her efforts to persuade the Government to bring in the age-appropriate design code in the Data Protection Act were hugely important and ground-breaking. Ministers should be proud that they listened and acted to ensure that technology platforms put the interests of children first.

Although I have been critical of the delays from the Government in bringing forward the online harms Bill, we are finally seeing movement. Again, Ministers should be proud of what they are doing to make the online world safer for children in the UK through the measures they are bringing forward this year. But we know that the large US tech companies hate the “duty of care” idea at the heart of the Bill and have an equal dislike of age-appropriate design. We know that they have successfully persuaded the US Government to write into trade deals with Japan, Mexico, Korea and others that tech companies should not be liable for the harms they cause. And they do cause harms.

Just this week, I was followed by someone on Twitter. When I checked her Twitter account, I was faced with a highly graphic image of her genitalia. I blocked the user and reported the account, and have heard no more from the user or from Twitter. This is just an everyday example of what we all have to navigate.

Of course, for children, this is much more serious. I was talking yesterday to a leading researcher into children’s mental health. We agreed that, for primary-aged children, it is reasonable—and, I think, desirable—to ban online devices from bedrooms, but she advised me that her research shows that secondary-aged pupils will get a device into their rooms, whether parents like it or not. A study published last year found that 75% of parents did not believe that their children would have watched pornography, and yet the majority of children told researchers that they had.

Of course, we know that this goes way beyond porn to grooming, bullying, radicalisation and so on. We must protect our children as best we can. Parents have a responsibility, and education has some responsibility, but so do we as legislators, and so do the technology companies that profit from our engagement with this content.

16:30

Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act 1996 allowed internet companies a free rein to make and break things. This did some good in the early years, but it also allowed unimaginable amounts of child sexual abuse imagery and grooming, and the targeting of teenagers with harmful content.

Especially with the news today from Georgia, we can be hopeful that the US may now want to do more itself to regulate the technology companies, but our responsibility is to the UK, and Amendment 23 would make it impossible for the UK to sign away through trade deals the protections that we in this Parliament are putting in place for children.

I know that the Department for International Trade wants a free hand in negotiation. I imagine that there is a good old row across Whitehall over this issue with DCMS. This House should be on the right side of the argument and back Digital Ministers and, in doing so, safeguard our children by, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said in opening this debate, taking them off the table.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight, who clearly has a much more exciting life on Twitter than I do.

In respect of the substance of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I again say that your Lordships’ House does not need to—and, indeed, should not—seek to write on to the face of legislation that to which the Government are already committed.

The noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have supported this amendment are aware that the Government have recently published their response to the online harms consultation and have announced that they will create a new regulatory framework, overseen by Ofcom, which will apply internationally. Once that is legislated for, it will be the law of the land, as is the Data Protection Act 2018, and cannot be overridden by any international trade agreement. The only way that the law can be overridden is if Parliament chooses to change it. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Grimstone of Boscobel will provide further reassurances in respect of the Government’s position.

I should like to concentrate my remarks on the drafting of the amendment. We all know that amendments for Committee can be somewhat rough and ready because they are often used as probing amendments and are rarely divided on—at least, that is the modern practice, although it was not like that when I first joined your Lordships’ House—but I hope that the House will agree that it is incumbent on those moving amendments at later stages of a Bill, including Report, to ensure that they are well drafted. With that background, I wish to offer three comments on Amendment 23.

First, subsection (1) of the proposed new clause has a misplaced modifier. The word “only” is incorrectly attached to becoming a signatory to trade agreements. I believe that the noble Baroness intended to say that the UK may become a signatory only if certain conditions are met, rather than that the only thing that the UK can do if the conditions are met is become a signatory to a trade agreement.

Secondly, subsection (1) refers to

“the conditions in subsection (2)”,

but subsection (2) is not drafted as conditions to be satisfied; rather, it is just one statement—that trade agreements must be “consistent with” three things. I also remind the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that her concerns are not addressed by whether or not international trade agreements are consistent, because trade agreements do not, and cannot, change UK law, as I have already said. If they were inconsistent, they would have no effect unless and until changes were made to UK law, which would of course require the agreement of Parliament.

Thirdly, proposed new subsection (2)(a) refers to consistency with the domestic law of England and Wales, which rather begs a question about Scotland and Northern Ireland. They may or may not have their own relevant child protection legislation at the moment—I am not an expert on that—but, even if they do not have relevant legislation now, they presumably could have in the future. I am mystified by why paragraph (a) is restricted to English and Welsh law.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will reflect on those points.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 23. The Government’s proposed online harms Bill will provide a welcome framework to protect the most vulnerable from exposure to dangerous content by placing the burden of responsibility on social media companies. This crucial legislation will better equip Britain to deal with the digital age.

Much has been made of our new-found freedoms now that we have left the EU, and some people might wish to use those freedoms in a race to the bottom. However, some of us are hoping that they can be used to give a very strong lead in the world as to the ways in which nations can seek to protect the most vulnerable from all sorts of harms that can come their way when they are online.

Concerns have been raised about the prospect of protections for big tech firms being forced into future trade deals, particularly those between the UK and the US, which might undermine our national efforts to hold tech firms accountable for the content on their platforms. The recent trade deal between the EU and the UK should serve as a reminder of the gap that exists between rhetoric and reality. For all the Government’s talk of a fishing renaissance, the trade deal with the EU achieved only a marginal improvement in quotas, much to the dismay of many. As such, there is, rightly, a fear that, without strong legal provision within trade agreements to protect children online, this will simply become another area up for negotiation—a concession that could be traded away to secure a deal.

The collective efforts of the Government and this Parliament to protect children from exposure to dark and sordid material, which in some cases can lead to serious mental health problems—even, exceptionally, to suicide—cannot and must not be sacrificed on the altar of material gain. The amendment would guarantee the safety of children online and ensure that these protections could not be negotiated away, and I hope that your Lordships’ House will support it.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on bringing back this revised amendment on Report. I was happy to support it in Committee and am now very happy to do so on Report.

There is a concern that the upcoming UK-US trade deal will put at risk the UK’s progress in providing a safe digital world for children. I hope that, on the side of the United States, President-elect Biden and his colleagues can address that issue. There is a fear that the US tech lobby has forced domestic protections for big tech firms into US trade deals with Japan, Korea, Mexico and Canada, and, according to informed research, is trying to do the same with the UK-US deal. What update does the Minister have on that issue? There is no doubt that it would undermine both existing UK law that protects children online and the impact of the much anticipated online harms Bill.

It is important to ensure that future trade deals carve out our domestic legislation so that the UK can continue to be a leader in child protection online. Amendment 23 would clearly require all future trade deals to respect and protect the progress that has been made in the UK, including through the online harms Bill, the ICO’s age-appropriate design code and the Data Protection Act 2018, of which the code is part, and make it impossible for the UK to sign deals that put these protections at risk. It would stop children’s safety being compromised by US trade interests and, in doing so, maintain the leadership in children’s online safety. I am happy to support the amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I support this amendment, which has been brilliantly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and we have heard some very strong and emotional speeches in favour of it. It is quite obvious that the internet is a most incredible thing. I cannot imagine what the past year would have been like—and, of course, this year and all years into the future—without the connectivity that the internet has given us when life could have been extremely lonely.

At the same time, the internet can be a very dangerous place because the dominant companies have the most incredible amount of power. This small but crucial amendment would go a long way towards protecting our children. With the USA, it is obviously even more important that we have these sorts of protections, not just because those companies think that anyone over 13 is not a child any more but because they have a strategic interest in disassembling regulations from other countries, which is to maintain their dominance in this area.

This Government like to use moral panic to justify all sorts of legislation—repressive legislation, I would call it—using censorship and spying to further their aims. They cannot have that in only one direction. The same logic must support this amendment, to protect children from the darkest corners of the internet.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too support this revised amendment. Like everyone else, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who is a true reforming pioneer. Her ground-breaking work both domestically and internationally in seeking protective regulation for children really goes before her. She has been combating the hugely damaging impact of social media on children’s lives and has been at the forefront in creating a code of standards for child-sensitive design in technology and so on. Here is an area where, because of her persuasive skills, the UK really is leading the world. I hope that it will continue to do so and be at the vanguard of protecting children.

There is increasing recognition of the addictive nature of social media; probably most of us suffer from it in relation to our constant need to check our emails and our inability to function without our iPhones, so we know the nature of this particular development. For young people at an important stage in their psychological development, the harm can have very long-term effects and be especially damaging. I sit on the human rights advisory council for one of the big American tech companies, and not one of the people who lead those companies would let their children have the kind of access to the internet that so many of our young have. They put restrictions on their children having phones; they do not allow them usually until they are well into their teens; they put limits on their app use once they are 15 and 16, and they demand a handover of the phone in the evenings after supper so that they do not take it to bed and stay up all night linked in to other people.

16:45

You have to ask yourself why that is, and the answer is because they know the truth. They know that, in order to monetise their inventions, which feed the human desire for connection with others, they have had to have something to sell. You have to ask yourself: if your children are not paying for a product such as Facebook, Snapchat or Twitter, where is the profit? The answer, as we now know, is that the way it is monetised is that the children become the product. Shoshana Zuboff, the Harvard professor who has written a powerful book on surveillance capitalism, says that getting children addicted to phone usage is like trading in pork belly futures. They are being manipulated into being the ultimate consumer.

One of the designers that I have met spoke of his guilt about creating “likes” on these apps, because, of course, for advertisers pushing a commodity or for those promoting a particular political position, it is a vital indicator of interest and propensity. For the young, it feeds into, unfortunately, unmanageable emotions of uncertainty and feelings as to whether they really are likeable or attractive, and it can often lead to self-loathing. Recent research in the United States has shown that there is a frightening escalation of anxiety among the young—and it is certainty true here too—leading to self-harming, depressive illness, hospitalisations and suicide because of the kind of stuff that they find on the internet. It is not only among the older groupings of people in their teens; it goes right down to pre-teens of 10, 11 and 12.

I recently received a letter from a mother, Catherine Liddell, pleading for something to be done by Parliament because of the conflict this issue creates inside homes. Having a phone becomes a rite of passage for children when they go to secondary school, and sometimes they even have them at the end of their period in primary school—children of 10, 11 and 12. Children face ridicule if they do not have one. Platforms are designed to get them to spend as much time as possible on a company’s page, and it is made possible because each child is uniquely targeted by algorithms and supercomputers, which know and build up a profile of their every preference.

I know that the Government’s position is that they do not want the hands of its trade negotiators to be tied. Well, I am afraid that I do want them to be tied because, when it comes to the values that inform our trade negotiators, they really have to have some clarity when it comes to things as important as the well-being of our children. While we may feel slightly more optimistic today about the fact that a Democrat-led Administration in the United States will come to future negotiations for trade with perhaps a different set of values from those of the Trump Administration, we should not underestimate the real power and influence of the tech companies, as has been said by others. They are going to put the press on the Democrats as much as Republicans. We have to recognise that our trade negotiators will really be put under the cosh by the big internet companies. That is why this amendment is so important. Some things have to take precedence over commercial interests.

I urge the Government to support the amendment and display their commitment to leading the world on this important issue of online harms to our children.

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as ever, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I also want to speak in support of the amendment. My intervention is based on a long-term commitment to seeing age-appropriate design embedded—as it was in the Data Protection Act 2018—activated and written into future legislation. That commitment owes much to the efforts and persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as has been noted by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and others.

My fears for the future of that commitment have not been helped by awaiting the implementation of the long promised internet harms Bill. The harms identified by the 2018 Act are real and present now, and delay leaves ongoing harms unchecked. For over a year I have been working with the Carnegie UK Trust on a paving Bill intended to ease the passage of the online harms Bill. In its briefing for this Bill, the Carnegie team had this to say:

“At Carnegie we remain concerned about the opaque nature of the discussions on the UK/US Trade Agreements and the risks that the wholesale imports of provisions relating to section 230 of relevant US legislation”—


that is, the legislation referred to earlier in the debate—

“may significantly restrict the ability of the UK to enact the systemic online harms regulation it intends”.

My concerns were further increased by the briefing from the 5Rights Foundation, which warns that the US tech lobby is working to ensure that US domestic legislation protects big tech companies from liability, and that that is written into all US trade agreements—a warning that Lord Sheikh emphasised.

If such clauses were to appear in a future UK-US trade deal, they would have a chilling effect on all the advances the UK has made to protect children online. So I believe that this amendment is necessary to protect safeguards already in law or proposed in future law, but which could be voided by clauses written into trade treaties.

I believe the good intentions expressed by the Minister, but we are only six days into our new liberties, so claiming that there are no problems is a little premature. I am a little worried about the self-styled buccaneers in his party, whose idea of behaving in accordance with commitments to the law may be equal to that of the old buccaneers.

Although the amendment would be a valuable addition to the Bill, we must also address the wider issue of the use of the royal prerogative in making treaties. There is an urgent need to review how Parliament deals with trade and other treaties. The 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—the CRaG Act—is now not fit for purpose. It was drawn up when we had already spent 30 years in the EU, which then had responsibility for our trade treaties. The CRaG Act is out of date, but so too is the concept of the royal prerogative, which is a useful fig leaf for giving Ministers power and preventing Parliament from having power.

A Government who came to power promising to return power to Parliament, not to the Executive, should really examine the CRaG Act, the royal prerogative, and how we handle trade treaties. As has been said, there are lots of Governments, chiefly the US Congress, who have powers to scrutinise. American Ministers, and other Ministers in the same situation, simply have to live with that kind of scrutiny. Let us pass this amendment, but let us then put down a firm marker that there is other work to be done before Parliament can regain sovereignty over treaties.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling Amendment 23. My noble friend and I do not usually speak on the same amendment, but there is a particular range of issues that I want to speak to on this one—issues that no other noble Lords have addressed. I am talking about controlling advertising, a fast-rising area of concern.

When I talk about advertising I also mean some of the broader online issues such as product placement and payments to influencers, which are effectively indirect forms of advertising. This is where I agree with a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, yesterday, which may surprise the House. He expressed concern about differential controls on advertising for broadcasters in the UK, which do not apply online. Yet we know that consumption of media is very much blending now; indeed, the divisions between broadcast and online material, from consumers’ point of view, are pretty artificial these days.

In some areas we already have quite tight controls in the UK for broadcasters and others—on smoking advertising, for example, as well as some controls on gambling advertising, and limited controls on alcohol advertising. We have also seen, particularly in the London underground, controls on the advertising of unhealthy food. As we start to face up to our role as chair of COP26, and face the climate emergency and the nature crisis, a broader concern about advertising is rising, in relation to its place in driving consumption, and driving the destruction of our planet.

The amendment is about children in particular. It is Green Party policy that all advertising directed at primary school age pupils, who psychologists tell us cannot distinguish between advertising and programmes, or editorial content, should be banned. In the online context, it should be possible to create a situation in which we can protect children up to a certain age from online advertising.

I note that just before Christmas, on a question about gambling advertising, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, speaking for the Government, said:

“We very much welcome moves by the major platforms that give individuals greater control”.—[Official Report, 14/12/20; col. 1518.]


over gambling advertising. Should a future Government decide to enforce even the rights of users to block advertising, I suggest that we do not want to see trade Bills stopping that happening.

I conclude by referring to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said. What we are talking about here is giving guidance and democratic control—sovereign control—to our trade negotiators in future trade deals.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all speakers for their contributions to this rather important debate. I was happy to sign up to Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, because surely ensuring online safety for children and otherwise vulnerable people is one of the key issues of our time. Secondly, while the age-appropriate design amendments your Lordships’ House made to the Data Protection Act 2018 have made a start in ensuring that the UK is a safe place for children to be online, much still hangs on the progress of the as yet unpublished online harms Bill. Sadly, there is still rather a long way to go before that become law. If, and when, the online harms Bill, assuming it retains its present ambitions, becomes law, it may provide a bulwark against any tendency the Government may have in future to trade away current or future protections for our children and other vulnerable users. But we are not there yet.

The points made by my noble friends Lord Knight and Lord McNally about the way in which the US tech giant lobby has been forcing changes on recent trade deals are, frankly, chilling. This is not the time to weaken current protections for children online. We must ensure that future trade deals protect our current, and prospective, domestic legislation, and we can do that by taking this issue off the negotiating table.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sheikh, would preclude the Government from signing an international trade agreement that is not compliant with existing domestic and international obligations relating to the protection of children on the internet, including under the Data Protection Act.

I thank noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for meeting me and discussing this in more depth. Nobody can doubt the passion and resolve she brings to this issue, and I can assure her that the Government share her concerns, and those of other noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully in the debate. I personally fully share those concerns.

That is why I am pleased to confirm that our trade agreements are already fully compliant with existing domestic and international policies protecting children on the internet. We are already committed to making the UK the safest place in the world to be online. We carefully consider any interaction between trade policy and impacts on user protection in trade agreements.

17:00

I am pleased that we have now published the full government response to the Online Harms White Paper consultation, setting out the new expectations on companies to keep their users safe online. Our proposals mean that companies must tackle illegal content on their platforms and protect children from harmful content and activity online. The full government response will be followed by legislation, which we are working on at pace, and which will be ready this year. As my noble friend Lady Noakes emphasised, no FTA, no matter who it is with, will be able to overturn this legislation. I hope all noble Lords agree that it is absolutely inconceivable and, frankly, verging on the insulting to suggest that any Government of any persuasion would ever seek to trade away children’s safety for a trade advantage.

The major platforms will need to set out clearly what legal content is acceptable on their platform and stick to it. I am very pleased that these laws will close the gap between what companies say they do and what they will actually do. We are also confirming the decision to appoint Ofcom as the regulator, and we will give it a range of enforcement powers, including substantial fines. Our proposals will set out how the proposed legal duty of care on online companies will work in practice; they will protect children, with the strongest possible protections for children and young people from harmful or inappropriate content.

Social media, websites, apps and other services which host user-generated content or allow people to talk to others online will have a duty to remove and limit the spread of illegal content such as child sexual abuse, terrorist material and suicide content. They will need to do far more to protect children from being exposed to harmful content or activities such as grooming, bullying, pornography and the encouragement or promotion of self-harm and eating disorders. Further still, the most popular social media sites will need to go further by setting and enforcing clear terms and conditions which explicitly state how they will handle content that is legal but could cause significant physical or psychological harm to adults.

As I have previously stated, online harms protections belong in online harms legislation, and the legislation that the DCMS will be bringing forward is the appropriate vehicle to address the matters raised by the noble Baroness. Through the Trade Bill, we are seeking in part simply to provide continuity in trading relationships with existing partners. As I have mentioned, the FTAs that we have brought into effect with 63 countries are all consistent with obligations relating to the protection of children on the internet, including those found in the Data Protection Act. We have replicated existing EU agreements, which are themselves fully compliant with such obligations.

I also emphasise that there are no powers in this legislation to implement a future FTA with the USA—whether mini, moderate or max—and I direct the noble Baroness’s attention to the negotiating objectives we have published for the US negotiations, which give far more information on our vision in this area.

I am pleased that we are entering a new age of accountability for tech, to protect children and vulnerable users and to restore much-needed trust in this industry. As such, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]]

Well, I am somewhat surprised. I want to say at the outset that I do not doubt the passion of the Minister himself for protecting children, just as he does not doubt my passion. But this is not about passion; it is about insurance. I am surprised that, even though he set out at great length the online harms legislation—and I indeed agree with him that that is where we will ensure that all the protections that we wish for children exist—he does not see that, as others have said, this amendment seeks to protect such legislation and existing legislation.

I also have to say—and we have such recent evidence that I do not want to extrapolate—that trading objectives and trading results are two very different things. As many noble Lords have set out, the tech lobby is probably the most powerful lobby in the world now and its ability to get into trade agreements has been eye-watering.

I thank all noble Lords who spoke. If I had not been in favour of this amendment in the beginning, I would have been as a result of noble Lords’ words. They were very powerful and persuasive speeches. I would really just like to say this: many people have said in the course of this debate that it is about using the freedoms we have, setting out the priorities we have and ensuring that children are taken off the table. These are things that we must all agree with. I am actually saddened that the Government, while promising so much to parents and children about online safety, have not adopted this amendment or, indeed, a better-drafted amendment that would satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—or, indeed, found another route, which, as I think the Minister will remember, I did offer.

I always take the line that I would prefer to work with government rather than against it to protect children online, because it is an area in which the Government have some cause to be proud. However, in the absence of that possibility, I have no option but to test the opinion of the House.

17:08

Division 2

Ayes: 340

---

Labour: 144
Crossbench: 83
Liberal Democrat: 79
Independent: 14
Bishops: 10
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Green Party: 2
Conservative: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 248

---

Conservative: 220
Crossbench: 15
Independent: 11
Ulster Unionist Party: 2

17:21

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 24. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 24

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

24: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Consent of devolved authorities
(1) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom so far as it contains provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1), unless the Scottish Ministers consent. (2) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom so far as it contains provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1), unless the Welsh Ministers consent.(3) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom so far as it contains provision which would be within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1), unless a Northern Ireland devolved authority (within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1) consents.(4) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom unless a Minister of the Crown has consulted and sought the consent of devolved authorities on the implementation of international trade agreements.(5) An international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom without the consent of devolved authorities sought under subsection (4) only if—(a) the period of one month beginning with the day on which consent was first sought has elapsed, and(b) a Minister of the Crown has made a statement to each House of Parliament explaining why consent has not been obtained.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 24 is in my name. Although devolution is a settled fact in our constitutional arrangements, it is odd how often we find that legislation brought before Parliament either ignores it completely or makes token gestures in that direction. The recent experience of those involved in this Bill and the then United Kingdom Internal Market Bill has made this abundantly clear.

The proposed new clause is offered to the Government as a template that I hope they might find of interest as they consider matters relating to the devolved settlements. Building on successful amendments that were made to the then United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which were accepted by the Government, they propose a two-stage approach: where devolved competences are engaged, there is a separate process, and, where they are not, committing to consult and seek consent from the devolved Administrations should be combined with setting a one-month time limit for the consent process. This proved successful in what became the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and, as far as we are aware, it is acceptable to the devolved Administrations. I hope it will be of interest to the Minister when he comes to respond, and I thank others who have decided to support this amendment in this debate. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and to back his amendment. As the noble Lord said, this is territory that we have covered over and over again, so I will not take a great deal of time. The sections of this amendment say that the devolved Scottish Government should not be overruled on matters within their purview; that the Welsh Ministers should not be overruled on matters devolved to them; and that the Northern Ireland Government should not be overruled on matters devolved to them.

We have here something of a reflection of what happened on 30 December, when many noble Lords participated, in one way or another, and in one day both Houses passed a Bill to which we had no consent from the devolved Administrations—indeed, there was opposition from two of them. This amendment aims to create, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said, a blueprint for the way forward. It is a balanced amendment. Clause 5 says that if the Westminster Government seeks to overrule the devolved Administrations, that has to be explained to both Houses of Parliament.

We hear an enormous amount about sovereignty and taking back control. This Bill seeks to ensure that the nations of the UK are in control of their own destiny in the areas where they have been given powers. I very much hope that your Lordships’ House will back this amendment.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for tabling this important amendment and presenting us with the opportunity to debate, yet again, the issue of powers and responsibilities in areas of devolved competence being overlooked or ignored—in this Bill and, as we have seen, in other Brexit Bills that have recently come before Parliament.

I acknowledge, as does the Senedd’s External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, that the regulation of international trade is a matter reserved to the UK Government, and that on the other hand the implementation obligations arising from international agreements are primarily the responsibility of the devolved Governments and legislatures. Another of the Senedd’s committees—the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee—agrees with this analysis, pointing out that the international trade agreements covered by this provision will encompass a wide range of policy areas that fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, including agriculture and fisheries.

It is of some comfort that Clause 2 of this Bill confirms the respective responsibilities of the two Parliaments by confirming that non-tariff regulations can be made by UK and Welsh Ministers, alone or concurrently, and are then subject to the affirmative procedure in the appropriate Parliament. Nowhere in this clause, however, is there a recognition of the role of the Welsh Government in trade agreements in their areas of devolved competence. I accept that the agreements themselves are a reserved matter, but omitting the devolved Administrations from playing any part in the process indicates the desire of the UK Government to control and create trading agreements in their favour—agreements that might not meet the needs of the devolved nations.

Sadly, we are faced once again with an example of the UK Government ignoring the powers and responsibilities of the Senedd and the other devolved Administrations, and the lack of a reference to them in Clause 2 makes their omission obvious to all. It is another example from this Government of what I have referred to before as “attempted constitutional change by stealth”.

Actions such as these are perceived in Wales as making a mockery of the promise of taking back control. Control is now seen as being consolidated in Westminster, and evidence is mounting that these omissions act merely as a recruiting sergeant for those who wish to promote an independence agenda.

This amendment seeks to provide that, if trade agreements contain provisions relating to the devolved competences of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland Ministers, the consent of those Ministers is required to authenticate that agreement, and it has my full support.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that I cannot support Amendment 24 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It would weaken the authority of our negotiators in agreeing the best possible terms in an international trade agreement for the whole United Kingdom.

In an earlier debate, on Amendment 6, my noble friend Lord Lansley explained that although the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, maintained that that amendment did not restrict the prerogative powers of the Government, it did in fact do so by placing limits on the prerogative powers to proceed with negotiations. The arrangements in the CRaG Act, together with the further measures that the Government have taken to increase parliamentary involvement, are sufficient.

Noble Lords will be aware that the negotiation and entering into of international treaties are a function of the Executive exercising their prerogative powers and are a reserved matter for the United Kingdom Parliament.

We should also remember that international trade is an exclusive competence of the European Union, and that member states have the power to block ratification only in the case of trade agreements that include matters other than trade matters and which are shared competences. It seems to me that this amendment would further weaken the prerogative powers and would be likely to give rise to arguments about the extent of the devolved competences described and contained in Schedule 1, which could be exploited by a Government with whom we were negotiating a free trade agreement. Can my noble friend confirm that the Government are already taking the views of the devolved Administrations fully into account? Subject to this assurance, I believe that the amendment would create more uncertainty and should not be accepted.

17:30

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad to add my name to those who have spoken in support of Amendment 24 and, yes, we have been here before many times over recent months. Clearly, I totally support the principle that trade agreements should be acceptable to devolved Governments—they may not have a veto, but that acceptance should be sought. The opposition and the reservations of the devolved Governments to the recent European agreement should be a timely reminder to the UK Government of the importance of securing that sort of consensus.

I have some reservations about the adequacy of both this amendment and of the Bill as it stands in meeting the needs of the Welsh Government, so I will pose a question to the Minister. If there were a UK agreement with New Zealand for the import of lamb in terms that would undermine Welsh hill farmers, what safeguards are in the Bill as it currently stands? If the Minister believes that this amendment is unnecessary, will he please tell me how the Bill as it stands meets such worries and how he can persuade the House and the Welsh Government of that fact?

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to say a few words on Amendment 24, which I support, moved by my noble friend Lord Stevenson. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I am concerned about the position of Welsh lamb, as I come from a family that has been breeding them for centuries now and continues so to do in three counties in Wales. If there were any barrier, inhibition or taxation on its export, it would ruin the hill farmers of Wales.

I am surprised that my noble friend had to table the amendment at all. I welcome what is devolved very much. I repeat what I have said many times: what is devolved is devolved and cannot be withdrawn without primary legislation. Proposed new subsections (2), (4) and (5) concern me. One of the side-effects of the coronavirus pandemic is a wake-up call to Whitehall that there are four Governments in the United Kingdom as far as health is concerned. I wish there had been more fruitful dialogue between Whitehall and each of the devolved Governments so that there was more uniformity. It was not to be, and I respect the decisions of the Welsh Government on matters entirely within their competence. I support the amendment.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like others who have spoken, I recall that I have spoken several times on similar amendments to this Bill, the then Agriculture Bill and the then United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I do not intend to repeat previous speeches, but rather to challenge the Government to wake up and smell the coffee. Because, in spite of paying lip service to the contrary, Ministers have been careless or dismissive of the concerns of the devolved Administrations and clearly disregard the impact of this insouciance, coupled with incompetence, on the mood across the devolved Administrations, which has hardened. If they had a voice, mind you, I suspect that that mood would be articulated by a number of English regions as well.

Before we got here, the interconnection of the EU, the UK and devolved decision-making worked pretty well, but the transition to the UK outside the EU is clearly having a disruptive effect. The rise in the support for separatism, which has been commented on across the devolved Administrations, has been driven by the combination of incompetence and scathing indifference to the concerns of a growing number of our citizens. The combination of Brexit, the Covid pandemic and an ideological, right-wing Government has created a toxic mix that is putting the future of the UK as a working enterprise at grave risk.

I believe there is a positive case to be made for the United Kingdom, and for the benefits to all its parts of staying together, but it will not be achieved by London-centric English exceptionalism. All the peoples of the UK benefit from both our own achievement in developing the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine and the UK’s ability to secure significant quantities of this and other vaccines and begin the process of distributing them fairly, on a pro rata population basis, to all corners of the kingdom. The resources of the UK have delivered furlough to millions and survival support to businesses to try to get us through the crisis, and that has reached all corners of the UK.

Our security and defence capacity and diplomatic reach across the world may not be appreciated on a day-to-day basis by the average citizen, but they would certainly be missed if they were disrupted by the break- up of the UK. So that is a warning. It is the case, unfortunately, that much of this has been compromised by the Government’s cavalier disregard for international law, the surrender of many of the hard-won advantages and influences we had secured through the EU and the cut to our aid budget—much of it administered, as it happens, from Scotland.

The defeat of President Trump and the election of the new, more constructive and engaging Administration in the United States surely demonstrate that we should not lightly throw away the things we share across the United Kingdom just because we dislike or even despise the current Prime Minister and his self-serving cronies. However, with elections in Scotland and Wales in May, the Government need a desperately urgent reset of their stance towards the devolved Administrations. As has been said, the fact that trade policy and, more pertinently, trade treaties are reserved does not justify excluding Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from having a say in shaping them.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, may be right in saying that the negotiation of these treaties is a reserved matter exclusive to the Executive, and that this amendment is unhelpful, but I say to him very gently that I think he is totally failing to understand the mood that is growing in the devolved Administrations about this approach. If the UK Government could secure more preferential access, for example, for Scotch whisky into India, it would be a cause for rejoicing—but not if at the same time we saw a relaxation of standards for imported beef. So the devolved Administrations would first want to have a positive input into the things they wanted to secure, as well as a protective input and concerns about agreements that might damage significant parts of their interests in the economy. Surely the UK Government should seek to represent the whole of the UK in their approach to trade negotiations and agreements.

So I support the basic aims of this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It is, I believe, weakened by proposed new subsection (5) which, although requiring the UK Government to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations, allows that to be set aside. However, I understand that that has been put in in a spirit of compromise. Personally, I would prefer some form of qualified majority voting, and also a way of testing the interests of English regions. Unless the Government respond to the spirit of this and similar amendments, by engaging much more positively with the devolved Administrations, they will face a constitutional crisis on top of the pandemic and Brexit—a perfect storm.

I say to Ministers that they should recognise that this has been a growing movement since the Brexit scenario has developed and the legislation relating to it has come forward—on agriculture, trade and the internal market. As has been clearly stated, we have tabled and supported a series of amendments seeking to secure the role of the devolved Administrations in the decision-making process. If the Government choose to disregard that, they will only be fuelling the centripetal pressures on the future of the United Kingdom, and I plead with Ministers to recognise that it is not just about the terms of the legislation, it is about the mood, the spirit, the language and the body language of Ministers when they speak to and about the devolved Administrations. Because, right now, that body language is driving support away from the future of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention, but it is the effect of their behaviour and I think they should really reflect on that.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for Amendment 24, as it provides a further opportunity to talk briefly about the important issue of the devolved Administrations’ role in our new international trade policy.

The UK Government are committed to working closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver an independent trade policy that works for the whole of the UK, and this has been reflected by statements from the devolved Administrations. For example, as I noted earlier in previous debates, the Counsel General for Wales, Jeremy Miles MS, recently said in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 19 November that the department has listened to the devolved Administrations and established a new ministerial forum for trade, which we have used to consult them on all our trade agreements. The forum met four times last year, most recently on 9 December, and regular engagement will continue in 2021. I listened to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and do not entirely agree with his version of how the continuing talks are going.

This engagement has meant that the devolved Administrations’ views have already begun to be reflected in our free trade agreements. For example, the devolved Administrations made it clear that they supported high ambition for the mobility of professionals in all our FTAs. With regard to the Japan FTA, the UK Government delivered this by securing more flexibility for Japanese and British companies to move talent into each country, covering a range of UK skilled workers to enter Japan, from computer services to construction.

I also listened to the brief speeches by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on their concerns over Welsh lamb. As noble Lords will know, the Bill does not give the UK Government powers to implement future trade agreements with partners, including New Zealand, but we will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations on all our current FTA negotiations, so that their interests and priorities are reflected through negotiations.

However, while it is absolutely right that we engage meaningfully with the devolved Administrations, we must do so within our existing constitutional framework. That is why the DIT has sought to strike the proper balance between engaging with the devolved Administrations and respecting that, under our constitutional settlement, international trade is both a reserved matter and a prerogative power.

My noble friend Lord Trenchard spoke at greater length—and in my view, very wisely—on these points. I agree with him that, unfortunately, this amendment would upset that balance. It would require the UK Government not only to consult but to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations for FTAs covering areas of devolved competence. This goes far beyond what is appropriate, given that international trade is a reserved matter and would have significant implications for the strength of the UK’s negotiating position. I believe that my noble friend Lord Trenchard also made that point.

The principle that the UK Government have sole responsibility for decisions on international trade negotiations is not just long-standing constitutional practice but is critical in ensuring that the United Kingdom can speak with a single voice in our international relations, providing certainty for our negotiating partners and the strongest negotiating position for all the regions and nations of the UK. The amendment would undermine this unity and could lead our negotiating partners to try to play different Administrations off against one another. This is surely one of the reasons why the UK Parliament decided that international relations should remain a reserved matter and enshrined this in the devolution settlements.

The UK Government have worked hard with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the Bill is already drafted in a way that respects the devolution settlements. The Minister of State for Trade Policy has undertaken a significant programme of engagement to achieve this, including regular meetings with devolved Ministers, bilateral calls and attending the devolved legislature committees to discuss their views.

As noble Lords will know, the Scottish Government withheld consent from the previous Bill—the Trade Bill 2017-19. For this Bill, we therefore made additional amendments to address their concerns, such as removing restrictions on Scottish Ministers’ use of the Bill’s delegated powers. As a result, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee changed their position and recommended that the Scottish Parliament consent to the Bill. On 8 October, a legislative consent motion—an LCM—was formally granted.

17:45

Similarly, following our amendment and commitments on the data sharing parts of this Bill, the Welsh Government have also now recommended consent to all the relevant clauses of the Bill. We expect the Welsh Parliament to debate a legislative consent motion on the Bill shortly. The House of Lords Constitution Committee welcomed this progress in its report on the Bill, and a recent report by the Institute for Government on the Sewel convention highlighted the Trade Bill as an example of positive intergovernmental working on Westminster legislation.

We continue to engage with the Northern Ireland Executive, so that they also recognise this progress and support the Bill, which is vital to ensure continuity of trading relationships for businesses in all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland.

Therefore, while I absolutely share the noble Lord’s belief that the UK Government should be working closely with the devolved Administrations on our trade policy, I do not think that this amendment is the appropriate way to achieve this, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to withdraw it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I always listen very carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and again I thought that he spoke with great sense about some of the issues here. However, I was left a little puzzled by where he ended up in his contribution. If the best possible deal in a future trade negotiation means that we have to change the devolution settlement, where will that judgment be taken? At the moment, the issue we have is that there is no sufficient structure or support for the interrelationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to resolve the difficulties and tensions that will occur most on these issues.

This is a little unfair, because the Minister perhaps needed more notice, but, when he responded to the questions about Welsh lamb from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, he did not get down to the details. Perhaps he would write to them with a more considered position, because of exactly the point they made: where is a decision that affects the narrow interests—as some might call them—of Welsh upland farmers going to be taken, in relation to a trade deal that has been made by the UK Government as a reserved matter? This is of real importance to those affected by it in the devolved Administrations.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, suggested that Ministers need to wake up and smell the coffee, and that there is a need to reset this relationship, which I have already covered. He made the very good point that, just because a matter is reserved, it does not mean that good would not flow from a debate and a discussion, and the emergence of common positions around the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom.

That is where we were trying to get to with this amendment: it is clear that, while the Government are going through their paces and beginning to get the hang of how negotiations need to happen, they do not yet have the mood, spirit and body language—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—in their day-to-day workings. That shows, I am afraid. If you want an example of that, the Minister ended on the changes that have been made between the Bill’s first emergence in 2017 and today, but of course they include a number of amendments to try to paper over the arrangements that previously existed for trade, as it affects the devolved Administrations. That makes my point.

However, this is not the time to force change. This needs more debate and discussion, important use of the existing channels, and some reform of those channels. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I reserved my position on Amendment 25 when we debated it before Christmas. I will not divide the House on Amendment 25, which relates to trade with developing countries. In the previous group, I referred to the consequences of the tariffs now being charged. In the next few days, I hope that the Minister will add extra effort to ensure that this situation does not continue and that we see an agreement with Ghana, in particular, to resolve this issue. On that basis, I will not move Amendment 25.

Amendment 25 not moved.

Amendment 26

Moved by

[Lord Hain]

26: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Northern Ireland: non-discrimination in goods and services
(1) Any trade agreement between the United Kingdom and any other party that is subject to sections 20 to 25 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is not to be ratified if anything in the agreement prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for—(a) goods moving between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom's internal market,(b) services provided by a service provider in Northern Ireland to customers in other parts of the United Kingdom, and(c) services provided by a service provider in another part of the United Kingdom to customers in Northern Ireland.(2) Regulations under section 2(1) may not impose any tariffs or any requirement of customs procedures for goods originating in Northern Ireland which are entering Great Britain, or discriminate, either directly or in effect, in relation to such goods entering Great Britain as compared to other goods being traded within the United Kingdom.”

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

With permission, I move Amendment 26 and seek to divide the House.

17:51

Division 3

Ayes: 298

---

Labour: 137
Liberal Democrat: 81
Crossbench: 52
Independent: 17
Conservative: 2
Green Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 252

---

Conservative: 213
Crossbench: 29
Independent: 9
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

18:03

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 26A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 26A

Moved by

[Baroness Boycott]

26A: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Product standards: labelling
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision that any relevant food agency must specify that products imported under an international trade agreement meet UK levels of statutory protection for—(a) food safety,(b) quality,(c) hygiene,(d) traceability,(e) human and animal welfare, and(f) the environment,with labelling on the packaging.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 26A, which concerns the importance of labelling, and will support Amendment 31A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Both are connected with public health and human health.

People do not realise how hard fought the campaign for clear labelling was. Someone I was at school with called Caroline Walker, a great food campaigner in the 1980s, made the wonderful point that we knew more about the ingredients that went into our socks than we knew about the ingredients that went into our food. She fought long and hard for good, clear labelling, and it would be an incredibly regressive step if, for any reason, the UK lost control of this.

Other countries that we are considering signing trade deals with take very different approaches to labelling. To choose just one example, I am sorry to come back to the USA again but it is permitted to refer to mechanically recovered material as “meat.” This could be any parts of anything that runs around on four legs or two, scrambled together from anywhere.

If the UK opts to accept another country’s labelling as part of a free trade deal, we could end up with food that has less information on labels and perhaps nothing at all. Our own labelling is not brilliant. For instance, pigs can be reared in Denmark, imported into the UK and turned into sausages in the Midlands. They can then be labelled as made in Britain. That is legal, but I think it is slightly deceitful, because it hides the fact that those pigs have been reared in conditions that we find to be unacceptable ill-treatment of animals.

Consumers here are very accustomed to using labels not only to buy what they want but to buy according to their values. They know that they can also eat to stay healthy. It is incredibly important to understand how much salt or sugar there is, and if you are diabetic this is a matter of life and death. The UK’s front-of-pack traffic light labelling scheme, which uses colours, words and numbers to help UK consumers to understand fats and saturated fats, was introduced in 2013. Our Government describe it as

“a crucial intervention to support healthy choices and reduce obesity rates by communicating complex nutritional information to shoppers in a way that’s easy to understand.”

To understand the risk that future trade deals could have on our food labels, leaked US-UK trade negotiation papers show that the US side says that food labels are “harmful” and that they are

“not particularly useful in changing consumer behaviour.”

They say this particularly about sugar, and I would bet my bottom dollar that that comes from the sugar lobby. I and many health experts would beg to disagree.

Health matters are intrinsically interwoven with all food and farming. It is very hard to see how Ministers can try to unpick them and put one bit here and one bit there. Research shows that some of our prospective trade partners have really irresponsible approaches, for instance, to using medically critical antibiotics in farming. It could have a serious impact on health in the UK, despite our own standards, if we water them down in any way. Similarly, prospective trade partners use a great many more pesticides. Some of these are known to be linked to cancers and are currently banned in the UK.

We know that the UK is reliant on foreign trade for a great deal of its fruit and vegetables, but other trade can also have a negative impact on diets. The obesity rates rose in Mexico and Canada post-NAFTA due, most researchers now believe, to the greater availability of food and drink products that are high in calories but very low in nutrition—in other words, snacks and fizzy drinks, out of which the manufacturers make a great deal of money.

Thanks to their greater transparency, the US produces barriers to trade reports. These show their hostility to the sorts of measures which the UK has already introduced or would like to undertake as part of its obesity strategy. It includes front-of-pack labelling, sugary drinks taxes, a ban on junk food adverts, and limiting the use of cartoon characters in marketing and reformulation policies. Free trade agreements could change our food environment not only by increasing the availability of such foods but by limiting our Government’s ability to introduce policies that will help to encourage healthier diets.

Turning to Amendment 31A, I am still confused as to why the Government are happy for the Trade and Agriculture Commission to consider plant and animal health but not human health. The Minister has previously said that consideration will be given to the impact of trade on human health and that advice will be shared with Parliament. However, despite many helpful briefings I am still somewhat confused as to where this incredibly critical issue is going to live. I would like to see it in the Trade and Agriculture Commission, because the commission is statutory and to some degree independent. If it is not going to be there, could the Minister say which agency has the equivalent status and would be best placed to provide advice? Government health agencies do fantastic work, but will they have the independence and clout of the TAC?

There are many issues of human health at stake here. World health rates are not going up, due to bad diets, and I find it deeply alarming that the TAC will not be allowed to consider the impacts of trade on human health. I beg the Minister to reconsider when the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is put forward. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution to the debate on this group of amendments.

Amendment 26A, on the accurate labelling of products, as laid out so eloquently by the noble Baroness, is essential. I will not repeat the arguments that she has made, which I have made myself in debates. Consumers wish to know that the food they are buying is safe to eat, is of high quality and has been produced in hygienic conditions. Should there be a problem with any of the above, it is important that the produce is traceable, that both human and animal welfare have been protected during production and that the environment has not been damaged during growth and production. The latter is becoming more important by the day as we see the effects of climate change on our environment. Our agriculture and food industry produces the very best for human and animal consumption. Clarity on labelling provides the reassurance that both our farmers and the public expect.

Confidence in government is currently at a bit of a low ebb. It is necessary to repair that confidence, and detailed labelling is a step in the right direction for both farmers and food producers. Both Houses of Parliament must be reassured that this will take place at all stages, from inception—the planting of seeds—right through to harvesting and processing. This cannot be a back-door function of any trade deal.

Amendment 31A would ensure that public and human health came within the remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Given the pandemic that we are living through, it is vital that we as a nation make every effort to ensure that such a situation does not happen in future. The TAC is the right place for this to be considered on a legal footing. Public health is an important element of maintaining confidence in all levels of government, from national level down to district and parish councils. All are interested in ensuring that inequalities are dealt with effectively and removed, and I hope the Minister is able to accept these amendments.

Amendment 34A would leave out the words

“except insofar as they relate to human life or health”.

The amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to limit the advice which the Trade and Agriculture Commission can provide to him or her. For the TAC to be truly effective, it must be able to provide independent advice across a wide range of areas, many of which may not be obvious now. We have no way of telling with any accuracy what future world events may affect our trade and agriculture agreements and sectors, and I believe that it is wise not to be prescriptive at this stage. I support Amendment 31A and will vote in favour of it if a Division is called.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this amendment being moved, because it means that we can debate something that is now a reality: changes in the way that goods coming into the UK and those to be exported will have to be labelled. We know that changes are already under way because of the result of the European agreement, and this amendment would take it to the international stage when it comes to the implications of any goods coming into the UK from other markets beyond.

18:15

I was reflecting on my noble friend Lady Bakewell’s comments about how in the past we have perhaps taken for granted that our goods, especially our foodstuffs, meet the high standards that we expect, because the consumer can understand clearly what is on the product label. I was on a CPA visit last year to an Asian country, and part of the menu for the delegation’s lunch was the option of what were called “exciting sandwiches”. One of the “exciting sandwiches” we were offered as a delegation was called “the Scotsman”, which had “Norwegian smoked salmon on pumpernickel bread, cream cheese, egg and onion”. Even just in terming it “the Scotsman”, there was no comprehension that any Scotsman might be slightly offended that it was Norwegian salmon. That would be jarring for us, and that is a very obvious case, but when it comes to consumers’ confidence in the products that they purchase, and will then consume if it is a foodstuff, it is very important indeed. Therefore, I agree that while we have debated it thoroughly in the past, it is very important.

I want to ask the Minister just one question to follow up, and it is linked with what procedures will now be in place for the changes to product labelling within the UK itself, because it is relevant for those that will be coming in, as I said, from imported countries. As I referenced in a previous group, there is a three-year arrangement with the European Union for labelling for organic products, and there are separate marks now, which will have to be put on goods, that will replace the CE marking. They will be replaced with a UKCA marking or, if goods are to go to Northern Ireland, a UKNI marking. But there is less than clarity as to how those goods will be decided upon in the markets that they go to.

What is the Government’s position on goods entering the market, as has been referred to in the previous group, compared with those that will be either ingredients or component parts of UK goods? What will the requirements be and what we will ask of those countries for those component products? There are, of course, very many. What markings will have to be put in place? Will the UKCA marking be the requirement?

We know that there is a period with regard to goods coming from the European Union and migrating from the CE mark to the UKCA mark, but for many countries that have automatically assumed that the UK standards are EU standards, what labelling are we asking countries that have signed continuity agreements to put on their products coming into the UK? If the Minister can answer that point, I think it would go some way to provide a degree of assurance. That is one technical aspect. I support the overall approach of these amendments. As my noble friend indicated, we will also support the amendments if they are pushed to a vote.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for joining with me in this group of amendments and leading with Amendment 26A on labelling. I have added my name to this amendment as a further step that accompanies all the measures being undertaken to maintain, in a fully transparent manner, the equivalence or consistency of imported food to the current standards that will be applied within the UK. I will speak to Amendments 31A and 34A in my name in this group, and once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her support, and other noble Lords who have spoken.

This returns the House again to the debates undertaken on the Trade and Agriculture Commission during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, which other speakers will remember so well. The conclusion of the Agriculture Act was that the CRaG Act 2010 was amended by new Section 42, while the Trade and Agriculture Commission to implement scrutiny on trade deals would be implemented in the Trade Bill. Unfortunately, the shape of the TAC in this Bill does not comply entirely with the shape agreed with Defra Ministers regarding public health, or the fact that others may well have other ideas about what the TAC should be.

Amendments 31A and 34A would reinsert public health considerations through food imports into the functions of the TAC. Defra Ministers had agreed these aspects and, indeed, Clause 42 includes them. Why, then, does the Minister in the Department for International Trade wish to go back on that agreement? In discussions, Victoria Prentis declared that the Government across all relevant departments, including Defra, the Cabinet Office and the Department for International Trade, had signed off on that agreement. It could well have included the DHSC as well.

I thank the Minister and his team for the discussion undertaken with myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on Monday afternoon. Indeed, I listened carefully to his replies in Committee that gave rise to these amendments. I am grateful to his further but, unfortunately, unconvincing explanations. In Committee, he replied that Ministers can and do receive advice on standards on food from the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, which will take on the role of upholding current legislative bans on foods that would continue to be banned, and that Ministers do not need advice from the TAC as well. He expanded on this on Monday, saying that he sees Amendment 31A as channelling all that advice from the FSA to Ministers through the TAC. To his department, that is not necessary. He wishes the agency’s advice to come directly to his department.

Once again, as experienced when pressing the Minister, the reply seemed to be about process. However, the amendment is not about process and where advice to Ministers comes from. It is about full transparency to Parliament and the public, not merely to Ministers, through the scrutiny of the new export body, the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It does not take over all the reporting structures of the FSA. The TAC can direct and ask questions of the FSA, I am sure, on its investigations and analysis. Normal advice and input from agencies can continue during all the long process of negotiating trade deals, and not be concertinaed down into the CRAG, time-constrained process.

Is the Minister saying that his department did not sign off on the agreements reached during the passage of the Agriculture Bill? Amendment 31A would reinsert expertise on human health into the membership of the TAC, and Amendment 34A would consequently reinsert that advice into the reports of the TAC.

I shall press my amendment to a vote and call on the support of the House to return this matter for further consideration in the Commons, which previously agreed to the Agriculture Bill outcome, with the addition of public health in the scrutiny process of the TAC.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I turn now to Amendment 26A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.

First, it is important to note—I hope this provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness—that all imports must meet the UK’s regulatory requirements, and this includes imports needing to meet our high food safety standards. Of course, this will remain the case. However, the amendment will undermine our abilities to successfully negotiate and agree new international trade agreements and to import goods from trade partners. That will have implications for all goods imported under our international trade agreements, including continuity agreements and the WTO agreements.

Requiring that such labels be applied to imports only would discriminate between domestic and imported goods. This may seem a technical matter, but it would risk violation of the UK’s WTO and FTA commitments, as well as imposing additional labelling costs and administrative burdens on imports. The amendment would also have dire consequences for developing nations, which are unlikely to be able to meet this new requirement and would no longer be able to export goods to the UK, thereby losing a valuable income stream for them, their local businesses and communities.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about conformity marking. This is a complex matter and to ensure that my answer is completely accurate, I will, with his permission, write to him and, of course, place a copy in the Library.

Turning to Amendments 31A and 34A, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for the meeting we had on Monday to discuss these. I completely understand the good intentions that lie behind these amendments. Of course, the Government recognise that public health and health inequalities are important issues. The fact that advice will not be sought from the statutory TAC in relation to this should in no way dilute this message, which I thoroughly endorse. This is why the Government have taken steps to ensure that relevant interests are taken into account at every step of the negotiations process, from public consultations at the start, dedicated trade advisory groups during it and, of course, independent scrutiny of the final deal at the end.

The government amendment to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing, which we discussed at length on the first day of Report, provides an advisory role for the TAC to help inform the report required by Section 42 of the Agriculture Act. The TAC will advise the Secretary of State on the extent to which FTA measures applicable to “trade in agricultural products”—as specified in the Act—are consistent with UK levels of statutory protection relating to animal and plant life and health, animal welfare and the environment. It will not advise on human health because the Government believe that this advice is best taken from other appropriate bodies. This in no way diminishes the importance of that advice; it means that we believe that it would be best for this advice to come from other, better-qualified, bodies. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, we will, of course, make it clear, in due course, where the advice is being drawn from in this important area.

We believe that it would be inappropriate for the TAC to be expanded in the way proposed because there are already groups looking to tackle the issues raised by this amendment. We consider that, if the TAC advised on these issues as well, it would risk wasteful duplication of effort with existing groups with similar functions—indeed, this could overwhelm the TAC and prevent it from fulfilling its obligations in other areas. Important issues such as health inequalities involve multiple factors beyond trade policy that the TAC’s remit cannot fully address. I really believe that this is not the right forum. The TAC’s advice should focus specifically on product characteristics rather than broader policy on public health and health inequalities.

In preparing the Section 42 report, the Secretary of State may also seek advice from any person considered to be

“independent and to have relevant expertise.”

Of course, this will be a transparent process. This does not restrict or exclude experts in any specific area of human health. I hope that this reassures noble Lords, and I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

First, I thank the Minister and the people who spoke in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who made the point that good labelling gives us confidence in the Government, which we all really need right now. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who made the point that we now take these things for granted and that we should never do so with something like this: it is a privilege to have good labelling, and it is one that we should hold on to. I will not press this to a Division, but I wholly support the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in his desire to push Amendment 31A to one. I thank the Minister for his words and attempted reassurance, but I am afraid that it has not worked for me at all.

18:30

I cannot understand why we are in this position on this critical issue of human health. At the end of the day, we farm in order to eat and we eat in order to live and yet, once again, after all these years, food is being kicked around like a football with nowhere to live. We still do not know where it will live. The Minister said just now that we are waiting on advice as to which body will give this advice. How will the advice be received? Will it have power, and will we be able to trust it? If the Government are serious about the issue of public health—human health—and I believe that everyone is, it absolutely defies belief as to why it cannot be put at the heart of the Bill. It was moved out of agriculture directly and given, as we understood it, to this new body, the TAC. Now we are told that it cannot be there. It is a homeless fellow right now, wandering around the walls of Westminster with nowhere to live.

I support this amendment wholly and think that it is extremely important, because this is risky stuff. The other side of it is that, if we get this right, it benefits our health and the environment, and, quite honestly, it benefits us all. I am confused, but I certainly know where I will vote in the next few minutes.

Amendment 26A withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 27. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Clause 6: Provision of advice, support and assistance by the TRA

Amendment 27

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

27: Clause 6, page 4, line 16, at end insert—
“( ) In order to provide the Secretary of State with the advice, support and assistance under subsection (1), the TRA must within six months of its establishment publish a strategy for its engagement with stakeholders, including, but not limited to—(a) representatives of climate change and environmental groups,(b) businesses,(c) small businesses,(d) trades unions,(e) consumers, and(f) each of the devolved administrations.”

[Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]]

There are many issues to cover this evening. I am moving Amendment 27, in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which is designed to ensure that the TRA engages with and listens to a wide range of concerned stakeholders as it does its work and does not disappear into its own bubble. Appointing representatives of stakeholder groups to the TRA does not achieve the purpose of wide engagement—I wish it did—but the responsibilities of TRA members prevent them from advocating even in areas where they are specialists. The role of TRA members is to assess the procedures followed by the TRA against its rules and mandate. I have no objection to the appointment of the diverse and widely experienced range of members to the TRA as proposed in Amendments 47 and 48, but it will be an unsatisfactory body if it does not hear from a wide range of voices as it seeks to make its determinations.

Amendment 27 would require the TRA both to develop an engagement strategy and publish it. I drafted a suggested list of stakeholders with which the TRA must engage but the list is deliberately not limited. It would make sure, for example, that small businesses, unions and consumers were heard but also climate change and environmental groups, all of whom will contribute to the TRA’s understanding of the implications of its decisions, and those decisions will genuinely matter. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House; clearly the message that I had scratched from this group has not got through. I reflected on the fact that three Liberal speakers on this group would spoil the House too much, so I have nothing to add after the very able way in which my noble friend moved this amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the very humble noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I shall speak to Amendment 27, which stands in their names and to which I have added mine. I shall also speak to Amendment 47, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to which I have attached my name, and to Amendment 48, which I think might best be described as a friendly amendment to Amendment 47, as it makes just a small addition to it.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said in introducing this group, these amendments very much fit together. Amendment 27 refers to the fact that the TRA should listen to a wide range of representative groups. That very much relates to the debate on the preceding group, where the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and many others made a powerful case for the importance of food standards and labelling standards. If consumers were listened to by the TRA, it would certainly be very helpful. As we are in a climate emergency and a nature crisis, we need to make sure that expert voices from that area are listened to as well. It is something that perhaps we do not always see traditionally as part of trade, but it is becoming very obvious that it is a crucial part of the whole issue.

On Amendments 47 and 48 in particular, we know that we have a huge problem with the bodies or organisations that are appointed, particularly by Westminster, being representative of all parts of the country in terms of region, background, knowledge and skills. As has just been highlighted by the appointment of the new chair of the BBC, it would seem that, under this Government, there are very few positions in UK society that a long career in the financial sector does not qualify you for. Crucially, we need our government institutions and bodies to be far more representative of our society as a whole. That means including different voices, genders, backgrounds, regions, educational backgrounds, et cetera. These three amendments taken as a package are a modest but important attempt to ensure that, when we formulate and make decisions about trade policy, a range of voices is heard.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I shall speak to Amendments 28, 29 and 30, which are intended as probing amendments. I refer in passing to the report on the Trade Bill from the Select Committee on the Constitution, published in September of last year. The committee says at paragraph 11:

“We remain of the view that the Bill’s skeletal approach to empowering the Trade Remedies Authority is inappropriate.”


It goes on to say at paragraph 12:

“We recognise that there continue to be significant uncertainties regarding the UK’s trading relationships at the end of the Brexit transition period”,


which of course has now passed, and it concludes:

“However, it is not clear why, more than two years after the previous version of the Bill was introduced, the functions and powers of the Trade Remedies Authority cannot be set out in more detail in this Bill.”


Therefore, I gently nudge my noble friend the Minister to say, when he responds to Amendments 28, 29 and 30, what the intention behind the original Clause 6 was.

With Amendments 28 and 29, I seek in particular to focus on understanding better what limits might be appropriate to a request to the Trade Remedies Authority to provide advice on matters of international trade, and, with Amendment 30, to clarify the purpose of the initial consultation before proceeding to a request. At this stage, I should say that I am most grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for its assistance in briefing me and preparing these amendments.

With regard to Amendment 30, it is not immediately clear from the legislation why the Secretary of State would consult the Trade Remedies Authority under Clause 6(3) and how this is different from issuing the original request under subsection (1). I might be missing something but, if you are issuing a request, that seems a little odd. I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for raising this with me and, in turn, for the House this afternoon. Surely, if you make a request to the Trade Remedies Authority, you do not need to consult the authority beforehand on the nature of that request.

Can my noble friend clarify whether there is any distinction between the two actions, making it clear that the duty to consult in Clause 6(3) relates to framing or scoping a request to the Trade Remedies Authority, just so we can understand why it is appropriate to shape that request when, in fact, the Trade Remedies Authority is meant to be independent and impartial? By going through this process of consultation, I am slightly concerned that that impartiality and independence may be impugned or compromised.

Amendments 28 and 29 point to the fact that the Trade Remedies Authority has already existed, and exists in abstract, having been incorporated by reference in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, although we are formally constituting it in the Trade Bill before us today. If it is the case that the Trade Remedies Authority is responsible for carrying out investigations and advising on remedies as set up under the cross-border trade Act, while it is an essential aspect of international trade, it is only one part of that. The proposed amendment therefore would ensure that requests for advice are limited to matters on which the Trade Remedies Authority is competent to advise, having regard to its remit and functions.

The purpose of this group of three amendments is simply to explore a better understanding from my noble friend and the Government through the department as to what the remit of the TRA should be and to ensure that the independence and impartiality of that body will not be infringed through the present drafting of Clause 6(3).

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The amendments in this group all relate to the composition, functions and approach taken by the Trade Remedies Authority. I am very glad to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She rightly referred to the powers and approach set out in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. I have to say equally gently that that is the answer to the points made by the Constitution Committee of this House—that they do not need to be set out in this legislation, because, way back when we first started considering the previous Trade Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and I fondly remember, it was introduced at almost exactly the same time as the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill. They were intended to proceed in parallel and are now entirely separate.

To some extent, that also gives a further reason why we should briefly consider at this stage the Trade Remedies Authority’s understanding that it has, in the form of the trade remedies investigation directorate of the Department for International Trade, been up and running, working on the transition review from the European Union and making recommendations relating to the imposition of countervailing, anti-dumping or safeguarding duties inherited from the European Commission. To that extent, we seek to influence not something new but something that has an ongoing role.

In this debate, I want to raise several issues. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not regard it as necessary to elaborate on all these issues now. If he wishes to write later, that is absolutely fine, but I do want to make one or two points.

18:45

First, there has been some concern that the delays to this legislation and its predecessor have disrupted the processes of establishing the Trade Remedies Authority and staffing it as we would have wished, leading to staff turnover. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that we are now getting much greater stability in staffing. The leadership for the authority is now established. I have the utmost respect for the chair designate and chief executive designate, both of whom will be known to Members of this House—Simon Walker, the former head of the Institute of Directors, and Oliver Griffiths, who was trade negotiator on the UK-US negotiations in recent months. I express particular thanks to Satjit Singh, whom I remember from his health responsibilities, who has stood in as interim chief executive of the Trade Remedies Investigation Directorate in recent months. That has helped us to get to a good place. I hope that the fact that the chair designate was formerly the lead non-executive director of the Department for International Trade, and that the chief executive designate was formerly a very senior official in the department, does not undermine the independence of the Trade Remedies Authority. If we set out for it to be independent, it should be so and I hope that that will be demonstrated by the manner in which it goes about its task.

I want to make one point about engagement. It is important to understand the nature of the functions that the TRA is pursuing. With reference to the list of the TRA’s stakeholders in the amendment, the importance of industry bodies, trade associations and trade unions in identifying the interests of UK producers in a particular sector is central and cannot be overestimated. For example, there is a requirement that a complaint needs to be brought by 25% of UK producers and not be opposed by others. The fact that a trade association is bringing such a complaint must often be of the essence. A central aspect of the Trade Remedies Authority’s engagement must be with trade associations and trade unions—in relation to the workforces of those sectors—and that is not reflected in the purpose of these amendments.

That said, these amendments have helped identify some important issues. I hope that the Minister will not mind that I raised slightly wider issues, but these amendments are not necessary in order to give effect to a well-functioning TRA.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, there was some good debate on the TRA in Committee, and the amendments in this group largely follow up on those themes, about which there was quite a lot of agreement. The disagreement was about whether or not they should be included in the Bill. I will speak mainly in support of Amendment 27, which my noble friend Lady Kramer has already explained. I want to add more background to why it is proper to put a little more on the face of the Bill when a regulator is created.

We have a lot of independent regulatory bodies in the UK. We will have even more, such as the TRA, following Brexit. They become part of the system of unelected power. That system has its strengths and weaknesses. We seem to have been broadly free of corruption, but maybe we have had our fair share of ineptitude. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the system, there is really only one opportunity for Parliament to intervene in the objectives and formulation of the regulator in a way that is seen as benign and away from incidents, rather than threatening it or treading on its powers, as it may see it. That time is when it is being set up, as the TRA is now. If I recall correctly, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, said that the TRA will have heard Parliament’s views and could take account of them. It is true that the TRA, once formed, may take note, especially if the Minister is supportive, despite wanting to keep amendments down.

However, in reality, reliance on kind words in debate is not enough, especially ones lost in the mists of time. The Government may get another go, whether through policy messages of a formal nature or otherwise, or through statutory instruments, which we all know that Parliament has no power to change. For Parliament, once the Bill is passed, it is down to how far Select Committees will manage to harangue a regulator when it goes wrong or to how many Members pose Parliamentary Questions and cause enough publicity and aggravation to force a review, usually after a dramatic failure. I have trodden that path, but how much better it would be to accept the benign influence of a few more words in legislation at the outset, so that slippages are prevented or can be reminded about and caught sooner. Maybe there will be some constructive sessions with Select Committees and regulators will say “I will take that idea back” but, in my experience with financial services regulators and the FRC, that rarely leads anywhere.

As has been pointed out, the TRA has some well-defined functions stemming from WTO rules already in legislation, but there is wriggle room left around the economic impact assessment and it is all happening at a time of great sensitivity. Although I acknowledge that the department is doing a good job in its current work and preparation for the TRA, there would be comfort for the future in having something in the Bill to remind it about engagement with stakeholders.

The other amendments in this group also have merit. Amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, concerning the scope of advice, raise in my mind the question of whether the Government might at any stage wish to consult the TRA about state aid subsidies. What co-operation might there be between the CMA or other state aid control bodies given that the TRA has the other side of it? In a similar vein, I wonder whether the TRA will have the role of investigating infringement of state aid by the EU under the trade and co-operation agreement, as well as under WTO rules.

My plea to the Minister is that he put something on the face of the Bill so that there is at least something to point to concerning stakeholders.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak only to Amendment 27 in this group. I do not support it, mainly because I believe it is not necessary to tell a public body how to do its job. The TRA will be set up with a chief executive, staff and a board which will have a majority of non-executive directors and a chairman. It is being set up in a perfectly conventional way, which should allow it to ensure that it operates effectively.

A public body—or indeed any kind of body—does not need to be told to draw up a stakeholder engagement strategy. I also find it slightly bizarre that the amendment focuses on an engagement strategy. There will be far more important aspects of the TRA’s work—for example, on the kinds of information it seeks and the kind of analysis it carries out—but no strategy seems to be required for those. I also find no merit in the requirement to publish a strategy; I fail to see how that would add to the effectiveness of the TRA in providing advice.

Even if we need to specify that there must be an engagement strategy, it is quite unnecessary to specify a list of stakeholders with whom engagement must take place. I must say that the relevance of some in the list in this amendment is not entirely obvious. It seems to me that those proposing this amendment have forgotten that the TRA will focus on the kinds of things set out in Clause 6(3). It is a body focused on trade and traders, not on solving the problems of the world which are of interest to lobby groups.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, now that the Brexit transition period has ended, the creation of the Trade Remedies Authority is obviously both necessary and very welcome. It should allow the UK to protect domestic industries, investigate allegations of unfair practices by overseas competitors and seek their resolution via the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism. We must have a Trade Remedies Authority that has a broad membership from sectors and regions across the UK, conducts meaningful stakeholder engagement and, of course, is independent from the Government.

I do not buy the argument from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that it is not the business of Parliament to give some guidance or ideas as to who those meaningful stakeholders might be in ensuring that we get this right. Only then, I argue, will it be transparent and fair when investigating and challenging practices that distort competition against UK producers. But the Bill appears not to secure this, as reflected by my Amendment 47 and the other amendments in this group, which are in their own way entirely benign. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Lords Constitution Committee said that it was not clear why the functions and powers of the Trade Remedies Authority could not be set out in more detail in this Bill. We cannot have an unbalanced TRA that simply supports the priorities and approach of this Government, or indeed any Government. We need a functioning TRA and a functioning trade remedies system, but its functioning will be undermined if there is no independence.

Amendment 47 is simple. It allows the Secretary of State to ensure that members of the TRA should have the

“skills, knowledge or experience relating to producers, trade unions, consumers and devolved administrations in different parts of the United Kingdom.”

The amendment clearly seeks to guarantee an appropriate balance of views at the TRA, not in favour of any party or sector but for the benefit of all regions, nations and businesses. In particular, I argue that we need trade union representation in the TRA. The TUC has said that, without it, there will be

“no guarantee provided that the non-executive members will represent the interests of workers in manufacturing sectors who will be severely affected by the dumping of cheap goods such as steel, tyres and ceramics.”

I hope that the Minister can explain in some detail how this balance can be achieved without the necessity of this and other amendments being in the Bill.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, there have been some succinct speeches in this debate and I shall keep my remarks relatively brief, but bearing in mind that there are six amendments to address.

Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, seeks to require the TRA to publish a strategy of its engagement with certain stakeholders within six months of its establishment. I am afraid that I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes that we do not see merit in this, and I shall briefly explain why. The TRA’s processes are set out in legislation and limited by the scope of WTO agreements, including much of the basis of how it will engage with stakeholders in its investigations. UK producers will be able to bring complaints directly to the TRA through an innovative digital service which will underpin the process and make it easier for businesses to engage. I hope that I can provide further reassurance to the noble Baroness by outlining that we have engaged extensively with various stakeholders on establishing the TRA and encouraged them to build constructive relationships with the TRA itself, once established. I shall say more, particularly in relation to questions raised by my noble friend Lord Lansley, about progress on setting up the TRA in a moment.

I will move swiftly on to Amendments 28 and 29, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in relation to the TRA. These amendments would seek to narrow the limits of a request that the Secretary of State may make to the TRA for advice, support or assistance. We are committed to creating a world-class organisation staffed by a team of highly skilled international trade experts. The Secretary of State may require assistance from the TRA’s knowledgeable experts in certain circumstances to assist work carried out by government departments. There are some situations where the Secretary of State may need to request assistance from the TRA outside of trade remedy disputes arising under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, including assistance in respect of provisions relating to trade remedies in regional trade agreements. In seeking assistance, however, the Secretary of State must have regard to the TRA’s independence, impartiality and expertise.

19:00

The provisions of Clause 6(1) specify the matters on which the TRA can provide advice, support or assistance when requested by the Secretary of State. They are limited to areas of international trade and relate to the TRA’s area of expertise. The provisions of Clause 6(2) set out the types of advice or assistance that the Secretary of State may request. While the list is not exhaustive, it is limited by subsection (1) to particular matters. If the TRA received a request that went beyond the matters set out in Clause 6(1), it would provide what assistance it could—but within the scope of this provision. The TRA will be a specialised body with expert understanding of trade remedies and international trade. It is unlikely that narrowing the limits of requests that the Secretary of State can make will do anything other than hinder the TRA’s ability to assist on these matters.

Amendment 30, also in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, seeks to change the purpose of the initial consultation between the Secretary of State and the TRA before making a request. It is important that the initial consultation allows the TRA to provide the Secretary of State with a range of relevant information so that she can determine whether her request is appropriate.

I recognise that my noble friend is trying to ensure that the consultation process is clarified. However, restricting the consultation to a discussion of the scope of the request would limit the amount of information that could be requested about the impact of the request on the TRA. The Secretary of State must be able to make informed decisions based on the information that she receives from the TRA. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State being obliged to seek during the consultation process information that pertained to the TRA’s expertise and independence, although she would still be required to have regard to these issues when making decisions based on the TRA’s assistance, under Clause 6(3)(b).

I will say a bit more about the questions asked by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, focussing mainly on why the department would need to request assistance from the TRA. My noble friend linked her questions to issues of independence and impartiality, which I quite understand. As she will know, the TRA will be an independent body staffed by trade remedies experts. There are a number of situations where the Secretary of State may need to request assistance. In relation to trade remedy disputes arising under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, which I mentioned earlier, these may include, assistance in respect of bilateral or regional trade agreements, or assistance in relation to technical issues arising in appeals against decisions made by the Secretary of State following recommendations made by the TRA. For example, the UK may be involved in a dispute relating to an investigation carried out by the TRA. The Secretary of State would be responsible for defending the decision in this dispute but would understandably need to work closely with the TRA to do so effectively. I hope that that gives some assurance and answers to my noble friend.

Amendment 47, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, seeks to ensure that members of the TRA have a balance of skills, knowledge or experience relating to producers, trade unions, consumers and devolved Administrations. Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, adds civil society to that list. Although the full process behind these amendments may appear laudable at first sight, the skills that board members can provide to address the issues facing the TRA must be the focus of any recruitment process, and limiting that process to reflect the interests of particular parties—a good few parties—would be counter- productive.

Furthermore, this amendment does not give a description of what an “appropriate balance” may mean for the membership of the TRA board. This would create considerable vagueness in terms of prescription and uncertainty for the Secretary of State when selecting members of the board. For example, would a gap in experience relating to producers mean that the board is unbalanced? What if there was only one member with experience of the production sector, but two with experience relating to consumers? I could go on. Does there need to be an equal number of members experienced in each area?

We believe that the addition of “civil society” to the list would create even more uncertainty. The term can have a broad range of meanings and it would be difficult to discern candidates with skills in such a loosely defined area. Identifying appointments who fall into this category, rather than that of consumers or trade unions, would be challenging, further complicating the process of striking balance across the board.

As I mentioned earlier, my noble friend Lord Lansley made a number of points. I may need to consult Hansard later and write to him, but I will have a stab at replying on the progress of the TRA. Good progress is being made. There are currently 100 staff in post and plans to increase this to 130 as the workload increases in parallel. I welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Lansley for the leadership of the TRA, particularly for the experience of the current chair and CEO-designate. I thank him for his comments.

We have had applicants from a wide range of backrounds and all areas of the UK, and I assure noble Lords that appointments are being made on merit. As I said earlier, being beholden to a narrow and ambiguous set of criteria to appease certain interest groups would be unhelpful and open to interpretation and misinterpretation. I hope that these explanations have reassured noble Lords and that the amendments can be withdrawn.

[Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]]

I will be brief. I was disappointed by the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I heard that the TRA should engage with one stakeholder group only: producers. It was an outdated and out-of-touch view of the role of trade within the UK economy. If the Government pursue this path, it will be one to rue. I hope that the Government go away and think again, but I will not press Amendment 27. I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of the very constructive amendments in this group.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I did not receive note of her wish to intervene.

Amendments 28 to 30 not moved.

Amendment 31

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

31: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“PART 2ATHE TRADE AND AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONTrade and Agriculture Commission
(1) The Secretary of State may appoint members to a committee to be known as the Trade and Agriculture Commission (the “TAC”).(2) The TAC’s purpose is to provide advice under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (reports relating to free trade agreements).(3) When appointing members to the TAC, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of appointing members who, between them, have expertise in—(a) United Kingdom animal and plant health standards,(b) United Kingdom animal welfare standards,(c) United Kingdom environmental standards as they relate to agricultural products, and(d) international trade law and policy.(4) In subsection (3)(c), “agricultural products” has the meaning given in section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for appointments to, and the purpose of, the Trade and Agriculture Commission.

Amendment 31A (to Amendment 31)

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

31A: After Clause 6, after subsection (3)(d) insert—
“(e) public health and health inequalities.”

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

Any potential drop in imported food product standards will directly affect public health. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her wide-ranging perspective on food, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for their support. There is an issue with contaminants and food poisonings in other countries’ food products, and there are efforts from Downing Street on obesity. There is the issue of highly hazardous pesticides, as well as growth promoters and AMR concerns.

We feel that the TAC has an important public health role to play and will need expertise returned to its function to advise Parliament and Ministers on such matters and on future trade deals, or its importance will be severely diminished. The FSA is not expected to put great emphasis on production methods, and the environment and animal welfare impacts of production do not necessarily correlate with food safety issues. Neither are apparent on inspection of the final product. Advice needs the coherence of being a meaningful part of reports to Parliament by the Trade and Agriculture Commission, without further pressure being put on the already struggling FSA, which does not have the same transparency and accountability to Parliament.

I therefore wish to press my amendment to a vote.

19:10

Division 4

Ayes: 285

---

Labour: 135
Liberal Democrat: 76
Crossbench: 52
Independent: 14
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Green Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 258

---

Conservative: 213
Crossbench: 34
Independent: 8
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

19:24

Amendments 32 and 33 (as amendments to Amendment 31) not moved.

Amendment 31, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 34

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

34: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Trade and Agriculture Commission: advisory functions
(1) Section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (4), insert—“(4A) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must—(a) request advice from the Trade and Agriculture Commission on the matters referred to in subsection (2) except insofar as they relate to human life or health, and(b) publish the request, together with any associated terms of reference or guidance.(4B) Before laying the report, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any advice received in response to a request under subsection (4A).”(3) In subsection (5)—(a) after “report” insert “or advice received in response to a request under subsection (4A)”;(b) omit “of it”;(c) in paragraph (d) after “report” insert “or advice”.(4) After subsection (6), insert—“(6A) On or before the third anniversary of IP completion day and at least once every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must review the operation of subsections (4A) and (4B) and consider whether to make regulations under subsection (6B).(6B) The Secretary of State may by regulations repeal subsections (4A), (4B) and (6A), and amend subsection (5) to remove reference to advice requested in accordance with subsection (4A).(6C) Regulations under subsection (6B) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and may not come into force before the third anniversary of IP completion day.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to seek advice from the Trade and Agriculture Commission in preparing a report under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 34A (to Amendment 34)

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

34A: After Clause 6, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (4A)(a), leave out “except insofar as they relate to human life or health”

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 34A (as an amendment to Amendment 34) agreed.

Amendment 34, as amended, agreed.

Amendments 35 and 36

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

35: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Trade and Agriculture Commission: further provision
(1) Members of the TAC are not to be regarded as servants or agents of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.(2) The Secretary of State may provide members of the TAC with such staff, accommodation, equipment or other facilities as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate in connection with the preparation of advice requested under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020.(3) The Secretary of State may pay, or make provision for paying, expenses to any member of the TAC in connection with the preparation of advice requested under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020.(4) Schedule (Trade and Agriculture Commission: public authorities legislation) contains provision applying legislation relating to public bodies to the TAC.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make provision about administrative matters relating to the Trade and Agriculture Commission.

36: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Trade and Agriculture Commission: repeal
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument repeal sections (Trade and Agriculture Commission) to (Trade and Agriculture Commission: further provision).(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision, and such provision may modify an Act of Parliament.(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not come into force before regulations under section 42(6B) (as inserted by section (Trade and Agriculture Commission: advisory functions)) of the Agriculture Act 2020.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would empower the Secretary of State to repeal provision relating to the Trade and Agriculture Commission if the Secretary of State’s duty to seek its advice under the Agriculture Act 2020 is repealed.

Amendments 35 and 36 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 36A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 7: Collection of exporter information by HMRC

Amendment 36A

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

36A: Clause 7, page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (4)

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the meat of this short group of amendments is in government Amendments 37 to 42, as listed, which cover the main issues we need to debate.

I am sure that the Minister, when he comes to respond, will not be upset with me if I say that I expect him to say that he would not expect, when considering amendments, ever to be in a situation where people were legislating for a second time on an issue that had already been decided in a different Bill. However, a bit like Groundhog Day, that is what we are doing today, because this part of the Bill has already been put into law and exists as the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act. I am very grateful to the Minister for his letter of 4 January, which answered a number of points that were raised during the very truncated session we had on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill in order that one section of this Bill could be in place from 1 January—although it is intended to be sunsetted as soon as the Trade Bill has received Royal Assent.

Amendment 36A is very limited and I do not expect a very full response to it, because it is not germane to the main issue before us, which is to try to make sure that the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act, as it now is, contains the same wording, effectively, as will be in the Trade Bill when it receives Royal Assent. We should not impede that, because it is important that we get it right and that the sunset clause takes place.

However, during the debate on the then Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, I asked why Clause 7 of the current Bill was not included in the sections relating to disclosure of information which follow Clause 7, particularly those from Clause 8 to Clause 10 in the current Bill. The answer I received was that they dealt with different issues, even though they were also about the disclosure of information required and, indeed, are covered by amendments that follow. The purpose, therefore, of having this amendment at this stage of this Bill is simply to get on the record for response that the Minister made the first time around, in order that we have both parts of the legislation which will end up being in the Trade Bill in sequence and saying the same thing. I beg to move.

19:30

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said, this short debate follows on from the debate that we had in this House on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill on 17 December. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I am most grateful to the Minister for his letter of 4 January.

There are just two things that I want to say following on from that. The first is that I am grateful, but not surprised, that in his letter the Minister said that, although the wording in the amendments that we are now making to the Trade Bill varies slightly from the wording of the clauses in the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act, the legal effect is exactly the same. I do not think we ever thought that the legal effect would be different. What we find somewhat surprising is that, to achieve the same effect at virtually the same time in two pieces of legislation, the wording is not the same. That was a slightly surprising aspect of the drafting that we were presented with when we saw the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill last month.

Secondly, I raised the question of what is meant by, and what is the purpose of, the amendments that put into the Bill the saving provision in Clauses 8 and 9 —that

“nothing in this section authorises the making of a disclosure which … contravenes the data protection legislation”

or aspects of the Investigatory Powers Act. The purpose of the government amendments is to ensure that, when these pieces of legislation and their constraints on disclosure are considered, Ministers can also take into account the powers conferred in this clause.

The Minister’s letter refers to the Supreme Court case of the Christian Institute and others v the Lord Advocate in 2016. I have had the chance to read the judgment and it does indeed refer to the situation where there is in effect, under legislative provisions such as the data protection legislation, a statutory gateway that allows those provisions to be escaped from in circumstances where there are powers for disclosure in other enactments. In the absence of these provisions, the data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act might well make it very difficult for the necessary disclosures to be made in certain specific circumstances. Therefore, it allows for them to be seen together.

Paraphrasing, I think, the language of the Supreme Court, it is necessary for anyone wanting to understand the effect of this clause to have this legislation in one hand and the data protection law—indeed, I would add the Investigatory Powers Act—in the other. It does not tell you how any particular instance would be resolved but it does tell you that both must be considered together, and that is entirely reasonable.

The only issue that one is left with when one reads both the legislation and the Supreme Court judgment is that the clauses we are looking at do not say that the disclosures made by public authorities must be necessary and proportionate. Therefore, I think that it would finally close the gap and make matters very clear if the Minister would confirm that, where these disclosures are made, or indeed where further public authorities have information disclosed to them for their trade functions, the disclosures must be necessary and proportionate to meet those functions.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the government amendments, which are technical in nature but allow proper co-operation between HMRC and the devolved authorities. As I was not able to be in the House in person during debates on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act, I have probably not understood the purpose of Amendment 36A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara—but I have a question that perhaps he or my noble friend the Minister could kindly respond to.

I always worry about the wisdom of giving a power to amend primary legislation by order, particularly on the collection or disclosure of information by HMRC, which seems to be the issue in Clause 7(4). As a former international retailer, I know how commercially sensitive such information is and how onerous ill-thought-out form-filling requirements can be. I want to make sure that the power could not be misused by the Executive—we have seen a certain amount of evasion of scrutiny during Covid. I want an assurance from the Minister, assuming that the power to amend primary legislation is retained in what is now being proposed, that the power would be used sensibly. If it disappears, then that would also meet my concern.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, anybody seeking to follow this Trade Bill, including the Bill that we had before Christmas, will struggle to follow the three elements through a natural progression—but we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his forensic skill. He has been able to assist in the scrutiny of this, and the questions he asks are very valid. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has brought forward his amendment, and I look forward to the response from the Government and the Minister. Like others, I welcome the Minister’s very full letter in response to the debate that we had on that fast-tracked piece of legislation.

There are a couple of areas that are still troubling me, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain those. I am happy with his explanation that it is purely a matter of parliamentary drafting, with the same legal effect. I will use this ad nauseam in my future career in this House, when it comes to any Ministers quibbling over the drafting of any amendments that I bring forward. I will say that it is purely drafting, with the same legal effect—so, speaking personally, I am very happy that that precedent has been set.

I am glad that the amendments to this Bill, which will effectively become the successor to the fast-tracked Bill, reference HMRC sharing information with the devolved Administrations. This goes back to the very first time we discussed these amendments, so I am happy and pleased that the Government have indicated their support for that.

However, I am interested in the language of Amendment 37, which I welcome, when it states:

“facilitating the exercise by a devolved authority of the authority’s functions relating to trade”.

Can the Minister outline what these are? In the previous group, on consulting the devolved Administrations on trade agreements, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, was at pains to stress—and was accurate—that, under the Scotland Act and others, trade, as far as international relations are concerned, is a reserved matter.

However, we all know that there are “functions relating to trade” in the devolved Administrations; we know this for certain because it will be in the Bill. HMRC will facilitate the exercise of those functions by the powers under what will be this Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what those “functions relating to trade” are; it would be helpful to us to know the extent of the Government’s position as regards what responsibilities for trade the devolved Administrations have.

Another thing still niggling me is referenced in the Minister’s letter. I have asked on a number of occasions why it was not more straightforward to put authorities that are linked with the ports and their access routes, in Scotland in particular, under those areas in the Bill. The Government have said that the powers were needed in England primarily, as the Minister’s letter stated, because those authorities were identified as the ones facing the greatest disruption at the end of the transition period, but this legislation is now for the long term and this data will also be shared with the WTO and other international bodies.

The Government have said that if it becomes necessary to add an authority in a devolved Administration country, they can use order-making powers to do it, but in subsection (4) there is a reference to an offence in Scotland for a non-existing authority breaching the disclosing information powers, and it carries a term not exceeding 12 months, so for a body that is not included in the legislation it is a 12-month prison sentence for disclosing information. That happens to be twice the length of time that it will now be in England, under government Amendment 40, which is six months. I do not know why that is the case, so perhaps the Minister can explain. There seems to be a ghost criminal offence created by this legislation that does not impact on anybody and is twice as much as it is in England. I just do not understand why.

I hope that the Minister can respond. I will certainly be supporting these amendments. The letter was very helpful and gave the process for indicating when the sunset clause will kick in for the legislation that we passed before Christmas, and given that this legislation is now for the very long term I hope that the Minister can respond to the points that have been raised.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I am perpetually grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his contribution to the discussion of this Bill. Turning to Amendment 36A, in the noble Lord’s name, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that for the Government to grow and strengthen the UK’s export capability, we need a clear understanding of the UK’s exporters. This would ensure that the work we do is targeted and tailored to the businesses where it will deliver the maximum benefit.

Clause 7 sets out the powers needed for the Government to collect data to establish the number and identity of UK businesses exporting goods and services, particularly the smaller businesses and sole traders that may not be readily identifiable from existing data, and where the Government can provide a helping hand, something of course which the Government enjoy doing, so that they can reach new markets.

Amendment 36A to remove Clause 7(4) would restrict the ability of the Government to fully implement the new voluntary—I stress voluntary—exporter question. A similar amendment was discussed in Committee, when noble Lords raised concerns that secondary legislation should not have the power to change primary legislation. However, to include new questions within the relevant tax return—it is that very specified matter—an affirmative SI will be required to amend the relevant legislation. That is the purpose of Clause 7(4), which provides the necessary powers to do so. I repeat that Clause 7(4) is necessary to ensure that the relevant exporter questions are included, as intended on tax return forms. The practical implementation of this will be a tick box on tax returns which the person filling in the tax return can tick if he wishes to identify himself as an exporter; it is entirely voluntary. On that basis, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

19:45

Coming to the government amendments in this group, we debated some of them during the sixth day in Committee on 15 October, when noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, felt that they could not agree to the changes at that stage. I hope that the confirmation I provided in my letter of 19 October, the debate that we had before Christmas during the passage of the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act, and my response today will provide reassurance to your Lordships.

This group consists of government amendments that are technical in nature but are important to explain, and I will do my best to do so. On Amendment 37, it has always been our intention that the devolved Administrations should be able to access HMRC information to facilitate the exercise of their trade functions through the powers in this Bill. In direct answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, the implementation of trade agreements may of course fall within the delegated powers of the devolved Administrations, but that is of course different from the trade policy. So implementation of a policy may fall within a devolved Administration’s powers whereas the trade policy itself, as a reserved matter, does not.

In discussions with devolved Administration colleagues, they have asked that their ability to receive information is made more explicit in the Bill. Amendment 37 provides that clarity. Amendment 42 is simply a consequence of Amendment 37 and, to aid interpretation, explains what is meant by the term “devolved authority” for the purposes of the Bill.

In Committee my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe expressed concern, and she has repeated some of these points today, that the devolved Administrations would be able to access HMRC data under Clause 8, that they may have different trade objectives, and in particular that they may take a different view on the confidentiality of HMRC data. On the first point, I should stress that the clause allows the sharing of data for devolved functions relating to trade only, such as export promotion, so information could not be used in a way that was incompatible with functions falling under the international trade reservations in the devolution statutes.

On the second issue raised by my noble friend, I stress that the devolved Administrations are responsible Governments and take their legal obligations very seriously. The data protection provisions set out in the Bill apply equally to the devolved Administrations, and any onward disclosure could only occur in compliance with that, as well as requiring the consent of HMRC. I confirm to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that I am sure that these provisions will be used sensibly.

We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the data-sharing gateways in the Bill can also assist them with their devolved functions. In this spirit, the Government have made two further commitments to the devolved Administrations in relation to data sharing in Clause 9 of the Bill in Committee, and in both Houses, during the passage of the equivalent clauses in the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act, and I am happy to repeat those assurances today.

First, the data shared under Clause 9 will be used by the border operations centre and the Cabinet Office to develop strategic insights. The Cabinet Office is committed to sharing strategic analysis related to the flow of trade where it will support the more effective management of flow through those borders. Secondly, the UK Government commit to consulting the devolved Administrations before any devolved authorities are added to, or removed from, the list of specified authorities that can share data under Clause 9.

In Committee and in considering the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act—this has also been mentioned today—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, correctly noted that the list of specified authorities does not currently include devolved bodies. As I noted in my letter following that debate, the public bodies included in the Bill were identified as key sources of information in relation to the immediate requirements of the border operations centre for the end of the transition period, and particularly to monitor flow at the locations where there is the highest risk of disruption to the border. Access to the data held by these authorities is critical for minimising and managing disruption.

The key point is that Clause 9(9) permits a Minister of the Crown to add other public authorities, which include devolved authorities, to the list. Authorities added to the list subsequently are in no way second-class citizens. Once they have been added to the list, they are completely pari passu with those listed in the Bill. It should be noted that, as I mentioned earlier, we are making a commitment to consult the devolved Administrations before any devolved authorities are added to this list.

Government Amendments 38 and 39 are, like Amendment 40, intended to correct a minor drafting error. My noble friend Lord Lansley raised a number of important points in relation to the equivalent clauses when we debated the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act. Following that debate I provided a more detailed response, which noble Lords have referred to today, outlining the effect of these amendments. In short, their effect is the same in both Clauses 8 and 9—to ensure that the additional words in parentheses apply to both paragraphs in the relevant subsections rather than just the first.

I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Lansley that data protection legislation and investigatory powers legislation authorise disclosure in certain circumstances, including when in exercise of a statutory function. The additional wording makes it explicit that the statutory powers in Clauses 8 and 9 are to be taken into account when determining whether disclosure would contravene data protection legislation or would be prohibited under investigatory powers legislation. In direct answer to my noble friend’s question, I can assure him that the powers will be used only when necessary and proportionate.

Using his forensic skills which we in this House admire so much, my noble friend also correctly noted that the specific wording used to achieve the same effect in the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act differs from that included in government Amendments 38 and 39. I can reassure the House that this is a difference in drafting but not in effect. Parliamentary counsel—a profession for which I have great respect—is rightly jealous of its professional independence, and occasionally we find that a parliamentary draftsman will prefer the use of one word to another. I am sure your Lordships would not want to constrain their intellectual ability to do so. I can confirm that the intent of the words is the same. I admire the attention to detail shown by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in this matter. If his career had taken a different turn, no doubt he would have made a great parliamentary counsel.

Amendment 40 corrects a drafting omission relating to Clause 10(4)(b)(i). This, I think, will answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about why there is a difference—between 12 months and six months—between England and Scotland. As I noted in Committee, Clause 10 as currently drafted provides that a person guilty of an offence under the clause is liable on summary conviction in England and Wales to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine, or to both. However, until the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act are commenced, magistrates can only impose a sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment for a single offence in England and Wales. When the relevant sections of the Sentencing Act are commenced, this disparity will disappear.

In other legislation that provides for a maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment on summary conviction, a provision concerning magistrates’ current sentencing powers is included, to provide that that reference to 12 months is to be read as reference to six months until relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act are commenced. That may seem a bit like Alice in Wonderland to noble Lords, but I assure the House that it represents the correct position. This amendment adds a similar provision to this Bill in relation to Clause 10(4)(b)(i). I should also make your Lordships aware that as a consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, the Government will need to make future minor and technical amendments to this at Third Reading.

The House has previously noted the importance of the ongoing work of government to manage our new trading relationship with the European Union and the rest of the world. I hope that my letter and my remarks have addressed any remaining concerns.

To be clear, the minor and technical amendments that we will bring forward at Third Reading relate entirely to the renumbering of certain paragraphs and do not affect the intent or content of the legislation at all.

I hope that I have addressed any remaining concerns held by noble Lords relating to the clauses being debated. On that basis, I will move government Amendments 37 to 40 and Amendment 42 when the time comes.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in this short debate. I started by suggesting that it was Groundhog Day, but we ended up in Alice in Wonderland. We may need to think about another film, play or book to get us through to Third Reading if we are to have even more amendments to this much-amended part of the Bill—and, indeed, two Bills.

I owe the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, an apology for not making it clear what I was at when I tabled Amendment 36A, but I congratulate her on picking up the reason why I picked that particular reference in subsection (4). On the surface it seemed an extraordinary power to take. She might feel, like I do, that the way the Minister responded did not assuage the concern that the Bill takes power to modify an Act of Parliament when all we were told about was making sure that a particular box was ticked in a tax return, for which a statutory instrument would be required. These things did not seem to square up, but given that we will come back at Third Reading I am sure she or I will take this further should we wish to.

The only other person who came out of this discussion badly was my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who I think was inadvertently blamed for making the Minister come back with the amendments on Report that he thought he had put through in Committee. It was a long time ago—indeed, it feels like even longer. We actually started Committee on this Bill a second time around—I mean the Trade Bill, not the other Bill—in a Committee Room. I know that it is a convention that amendments made then do not necessarily go into the Bill at that stage, so I thought it was appropriate for this to be brought back on Report. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Grantchester was in any way to blame, although he might have given expression to the way it happened.

We have more than covered the ground that the amendment would open up. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, with all his forensic skills, must be satisfied that he has most of the answers he wanted. I certainly have, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 36A withdrawn.

Clause 8: Disclosure of information by HMRC

Amendments 37 and 38

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

37: Clause 8, page 5, line 22, after “trade,” insert—
“(ab) facilitating the exercise by a devolved authority of the authority’s functions relating to trade,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that HMRC is able to disclose information to a devolved authority.

38: Clause 8, page 6, line 9, after “2016” insert “(save that the powers conferred by this section are to be taken into account when determining whether a disclosure is prohibited by those provisions)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct a drafting error: the words in parenthesis should limit both paragraphs in subsection (6).

Amendments 37 and 38 agreed.

Clause 9: Disclosure of information by other authorities

Amendment 39

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

39: Clause 9, page 7, line 6, after “2016” insert “(save that the powers conferred by this section are to be taken into account when determining whether a disclosure is prohibited by those provisions)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct a drafting error: the words in parenthesis should limit both paragraphs in subsection (8).

Amendment 39 agreed.

Clause 10: Offence relating to disclosure under section 9

Amendment 40

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

40: Clause 10, page 7, line 46, at end insert—
“(5) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020, the reference in subsection (4)(b)(i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would take account of the fact that magistrates do not have powers to confer a 12 month sentence (because paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 is yet to come into force).

Amendment 40 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to Amendment 41. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 41

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

41: After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“International disputes
In section 32 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (regulations etc), subsection (3), at the end insert—“(d) regulations under section 15 (international disputes etc).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would amend the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 to require that, where the Secretary of State proposes tariff increases in pursuance of an international dispute (not as a trade remedy), such a regulation must be made subject to an affirmative procedure.

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 41 in my name relates to the powers in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, under which Ministers can impose import duties. Section 15 of that Act gives the power to impose tariffs in furtherance of an international dispute. Amendment 41 would require that a statutory instrument made under Section 15 of that Act be subject to the “made affirmative” procedure.

We had a debate on this in Committee. When the original Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act went through, Section 15 was wrapped together with a number of others in the argument made by the Government—and, indeed, set out in the Explanatory Memorandum—that there would be frequent changes of detailed tariffs. While that is generally true in other sections of that Act, it carries no weight in relation to tariffs applied in international disputes, which are and should be few in number.

20:00

The Government should therefore not rest on the fact that the Delegated Powers Committee did not raise this as an issue back then, not least because it passed through as a money Bill at that time and we did not have substantive debate at length in this House. Indeed, in my view the Government made assertions in the Explanatory Memorandum about the powers in Section 15 that would not prove to be true.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for subsequent correspondence, but I do not think the Treasury armed him with a more credible case. To be fair to him, he has made an effort to justify the negative rather than the affirmative procedure on grounds different from those presented when the original legislation went through—that these are diplomatic negotiations in an international dispute and that the choice of products to which tariffs are to be applied is a sensitive matter. I do not doubt that it is, but these are also important matters deserving scrutiny in this House.

We do not really need to speculate too much about the nature of such disputes. On 1 January we took on responsibility for our external tariff. This includes the consequences of the disputes between the European Union and the US over, for example, Airbus and Boeing. When these amendments were first tabled, we did not know what the Secretary of State’s approach to that international dispute would be. As it happens, she has chosen not to impose tariffs on US products in the way the European Union announced in November that it had chosen to do. No tariffs, so no statutory instrument.

I hope the Secretary of State’s choice and the intention that it de-escalate the dispute between the European Union and the US will work. It has not yet. Last Wednesday the US trade representative announced additional tariffs on EU products from 12 January, although of course that does not apply to UK products. In so far as we have taken up a position, I hope it works to some resolution, but if it does not and if at any future time we were to reimpose tariffs on US products as a matter of necessity, such a strategic decision should be a matter for affirmative debate in this House and the other place, to give not only scrutiny but backing to any decision the Government made.

Indeed, that is not the only potential such dispute. Steel and aluminium duties in the United States, imposed by the Trump Administration nearly two years ago on national security grounds, have been the subject of a dispute with the WTO. They have been referred to a panel, which was expected to report by the end of 2020 and has not yet done so. If it were necessary for us to take countervailing measures, in that respect too the importance of the issue would and should require that they be the subject of an affirmative debate on the statutory instrument in both Houses.

Just to finish, in the recent past, we have had a number of occasions when matters of urgency have bypassed the normal scrutiny of this House. I hope we do not arrive at the point where matters that are sensitive should also escape scrutiny in this House. Matters which are important and, indeed, matters which are sensitive seem to me to deserve proper scrutiny. I beg to move Amendment 41.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to have to say to my noble friend Lord Lansley that I believe that your Lordships’ House should have nothing to do with this amendment. When the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 was brought to this House, it arrived as a Supply Bill. There was much huffing and puffing by noble Lords on the Benches opposite at the time, but, of course, the House accepted it. The effect was that there was no Committee stage of the Bill and no opportunity to make any amendments. While the Companion is silent on the subject, it seems to me that if we were unable to amend a Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House, that should also extend to any amendments to the resulting Act, as its nature relating to supply cannot have changed simply as the result of Royal Assent. I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Lansley will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am less squeamish that the noble Baroness about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I am grateful to him for bringing it forward. As our discussion about the Trade Remedies Authority demonstrated, the framework for how the UK, now outside the European Union, will approach trade remedies on disputes where we believe that another country is acting beyond WTO standards and principles, is much more to do with public debate and full, wide parliamentary scrutiny than whether the parent legislation involved financial privilege. Our debates about the Trade Remedies Authority lead naturally to asking what is going to provide a framework of accountability for any decisions taken as a result of its recommendations.

I have only one issue to raise with the Minister. I was not satisfied with the response in Committee to a matter I raised. One of the justifications for not supporting the amendment was that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, the Minister said that there is sensitivity to some of these aspects. Of course there is sensitivity: that is true by definition. In any trade dispute, there will be sensitive aspects; I do not think that is denied. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely right: we were discussing a previous version of this Bill on Report when the WTO authorised the United States to impose $7.5 billion-worth of tariffs on the EU. The WTO subsequently authorised the EU to impose countermeasures of $4 billion and, as the noble Lord said, from the United States’ point of view, the question whether to make a recalculation for the EU 27 is now being reviewed.

The most important element, to my mind, is that the WTO authorised it. I do not think anybody on any side of this House is proposing that the UK should act illegally in a trade dispute in which we are then seeking to be on the right side, inasmuch as we would not use WTO procedures. The WTO procedures are quite clear: you cannot put forward countermeasures which will include tariffs unless they have gone through the due process in the WTO.

Therefore, the notification of the WTO, with the tariff measures as part of the countermeasures, will be in the public domain. It will be debated. It is therefore nonsense to think that there will be scrutiny, transparency and a public debate regarding our measures to the WTO, but not in Parliament. Many sectors will be involved, as we saw with the US measures. I do not need to go into the detail, but be it whisky, textiles or the metal industry, these measures and potential countermeasures have an impact domestically on certain sectors, regions and nations of the UK. Therefore, it is right that, if we are to make a measured and targeted response to a third country that we believe has acted against its obligations, we ensure that we are not acting in self-defeating self-interest, and a degree of accountability is thus required.

I simply cannot understand why the Government believe that measures that have been made public cannot then be approved by Parliament. I continuously support the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in this regard.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a very interesting question. We need to think a bit harder about it than we did when we first looked at this in Committee.

The issue is not so much with the powers split between the Commons and Lords in relation to financial matters, which I think was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is more to do with—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was trying to get us on to—the reality of the grounds on which we have to consider more widely and the relationship between a pure measure, such as tariffs, and the way in which it might be used in any trade dispute, or any day-to-day consideration of our trading relationships. Out of that comes a consideration about whether this is an executive issue or there are also parliamentary concerns.

Taking it from the other end, the fact that the powers enshrined in the original legislation are for a negative instrument suggests that the Government have taken the view that this needs the very lowest level of parliamentary scrutiny. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out very well, this cannot be right. These areas often deal with very important and quite meaty issues to do with industrial policy, employment and the whole economy. There seems to be a distortion being built up between the particular issue in hand, the remedies available and the role of Parliament in considering it.

Surely it would be wrong if we ended up in a situation where the only parliamentary process was consideration of a negative statutory instrument when, in truth, the effects it was trying to ameliorate were causing concern on quite a large scale in the country. I do not have a solution to this. I do not think this Bill is going to provide us with an outlet. I wonder whether the Minister might consider taking this away. Perhaps a more considered review is needed in a couple of years’ time, when we have had experience of how it works in practice.

Without wishing to put words in his mouth or ask him to commit to something he cannot commit to, can he give an assurance that this is something the Government will keep a close eye on? Should issues arise during the next year or so, an appropriate way forward would be to take this as an issue and see whether, as a result of the scale of the penalties, the style of the approach being taken through Parliament and the impact this is having on the economy more widely, it might be best dealt with through a review process.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I turn to Amendment 41 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, which seeks to ensure that regulations made under Section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 will be made under the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I remind noble Lords that that section allows the Secretary of State to vary the rate of import duty—that is, increase or decrease tariffs—in the context of an international trade dispute.

First, I begin by thanking my noble friend for his commitment to this issue, alongside the correspondence and meetings that we have had on the matter. I hope my noble friend found them at least partly as useful as I did.

Noble Lords may recall that I explained in Committee why I believe that it is imperative that HMG are able to enforce, swiftly and confidently, the UK’s rights under international trade agreements. I explained to the House that the conduct of state-to-state trade disputes is a matter of foreign diplomacy and is covered by the royal prerogative. I also reminded the House that international litigation, including launching and defending international trade disputes, can be extremely sensitive, with far-reaching geopolitical implications. I shall not attempt to justify sensitivity in itself, of course, as a reason for avoiding scrutiny. However, when that sensitivity may give rise to matters that are extremely prejudicial to the UK’s position, it must be absolutely right to take it into account.

20:15

Noble Lords may be relieved to hear that I do not intend to repeat those points at length today. However, it is important that the House fully understands the Government’s reasoning for resisting this amendment so, with the indulgence of the House, I shall explain two scenarios in which the UK may use this power. I hope that it will help the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Purvis, to understand better the Government’s position on this important matter.

The first scenario that I want to illustrate is where another country launches a successful dispute against the UK and the UK does not bring itself into compliance within the required period. This could be for the simple reason that legislation is needed to make the change and it is not possible to do that quickly. In this instance, the UK may offer compensation, which may be in the form of lower import duty on certain products. The UK would then use its Section 15 power to vary the rate of import duty on those products. This amendment could mean that the UK’s proposal to lower the rate of import duty on select products was voted down by Parliament. It would leave the UK in breach of its international trade commitments and subject to retaliation measures being implemented by the other country.

A second scenario could be where one of the UK’s trading partners implemented a measure which caused serious harm to UK businesses and the UK launched a successful dispute against that country. If the other party did not bring themselves into compliance within a reasonable period, the UK would assess how it could best exercise its right to retaliate. This would likely involve extensive technical analysis to select a list of products which the UK thought would have the best possible chance of conducing the other country to comply with their obligations and relieve the pressure on UK businesses. These products would be chosen carefully to ensure that their value was within the limits of the retaliation award, or equivalent to the harm caused by the other country’s incompliant measures.

The UK may wish to target certain products for strategic and often sensitive reasons. For example, it may wish to increase tariffs on a product because the lobby group of those stakeholders has a strong political influence in a third country, or because a product has a strong symbolic or personal connection to the Government in question. This amendment would require the Government to argue and justify in an open forum why they had chosen one product line over another and, in turn, could expose the UK’s strategic decisions and negotiating positions to our trading partners. For instance, the Government may be obliged to justify the inclusion or exclusion of certain products to Parliament. This could create the risk that certain trade dependencies are publicly exposed, which could be exploited by our trading partners. This would undoubtedly cause harm to the UK’s interests, leverage and international reputation.

The Government of course recognise that these tariffs may have an impact on UK stakeholders. I reassure noble Lords that the Department for International Trade will carry out comprehensive engagement with businesses concerned and mitigate the effects where it is possible to do so.

I know that my noble friend recognises that Section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act is an important tool available for the UK to defend itself when other countries bring disputes against us.

My noble friend also raised the Government’s approach to the Airbus and Boeing trade disputes, and I will comment briefly on that. I reassure him that the Government are serious about de-escalating these long-running disputes. As a gesture of our determination to unlock a deal, we have suspended retaliatory tariffs resulting from the Boeing dispute. This reflects the UK’s continued focus on achieving a swift and balanced settlement, to the benefit of all parties involved. If this is achieved, there will of course be no need to implement retaliatory tariffs. However, we reserve the right to apply independent retaliatory tariffs if sufficient progress is not made in negotiations, and we will not hesitate to exercise our WTO rights in the interests of defending British businesses and industry in all parts of the UK.

I hope that my remarks have provided some solace to my noble friend. The Government recognise that international trade disputes serve different functions and can have wide-ranging impacts. Naturally—I absolutely take this point—some of these impacts will be of interest to Parliament. In recognition of this, the Government will address, I hope as part of the way forward that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was seeking, important considerations around trade disputes within a report that the Department for International Trade will lay before Parliament. On this basis, I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw this amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

I have received a request to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord to ask a short question of elucidation.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House; I know the hour is late. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining those examples. He gave the impression that Parliament should not necessarily have the ability to approve any of these measures, but that this should be Government to Government, prerogative to prerogative. However, the legislation provides for parliamentary approval if it is through a negative procedure. So Parliament could still annul this, which would bring about all the issues he warns against. He seems to be making the case that Parliament should not even have the ability to annul some of these measures. If Parliament ultimately has the ability to approve or not to approve, we are in a different realm. I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated, the Government could at least reflect on this debate and the points that have been made on the benefit of having a wider degree of scrutiny, or at least public debate, of some of these aspects.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. The Government will of course reflect on this debate. I perfectly understand the requirement for the annulment power, but I believe that both Houses of Parliament would wish to use that annulment power sensibly and sensitively, in light of the circumstances which might underlie it.

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who contributed to this short debate. It demonstrated the value, even at this late hour, of some of the additional issues brought out in the context of the scenarios and specific instances that my noble friend put in his response to the debate.

I think I have been inadvertently responsible for misleading the House. I intended to talk about parliamentary approval, but in doing so got carried away and talked about this House. Of course, this House would have no role. The regulations made under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, if “made affirmative”, would be subject to the approval only of the House of Commons.

Therefore, in response to my noble friend Lady Noakes, I make two points. First, we are accustomed, from time to time, to making amendments to Bills that run the risk of being declined by the other place on grounds of financial privilege. However, that does not mean that we never make such amendments and invite the Commons to think again. The second point that I should make to her is that, in this instance, the effect of the amendment would be to give the House of Commons—but not our House—the right to consider regulations made under this power.

That said, I do not resile from the view that sensitive matters can, none the less, be debated in Parliament, and it is not beyond the wit of Ministers and civil servants to ensure that, in explaining the choices that have been made in the regulation, they do not disclose information of value to those who would do us harm. That happens on many occasions and, in fact—even in the scenarios to which my noble friend refers—the choices we have made and why we have made them would very often not have been lost upon other parties in trade disputes. I do not resile from the view that because something is sensitive and important it should be debated in Parliament—in this instance, because it relates to what are effectively attacks, only in the other place.

None the less, the helpful response from my noble friend —who genuinely tried to explain why the Government took the approach they did, rather than what was set out originally in the Explanatory Memorandum—took us some way towards thinking about this matter in a way described by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. We may yet come back to this matter, but not during the passage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 41 withdrawn.

Clause 11: Interpretation

Amendment 42

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

42: Clause 11, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
““devolved authority” has the meaning given in section 4(1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government’s amendment to clause 8, page 5, line 22.

Amendment 42 agreed.

Amendments 43 to 45 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 46. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once. Short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Schedule 2: Regulations under Part 1

Amendment 46

Moved by

[Lord Lennie]

46: Schedule 2, page 13, line 26, leave out from “1(1)” to end of line 27 and insert “may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]]

I will be brief. Framing this debate has proved to be difficult because, quite rightly, the Government and the Opposition are focused on dealing with the pandemic, and therefore less attention has been paid to Britain’s post-Brexit trading arrangements. That said, the Government’s intentions are to achieve the best possible trading position and, as regards the amendment, the best possible public procurement arrangements. The intentions are clear and agreed. How to do so is not.

The Labour Party, along with many others, including the TUC and good, solid companies, are of the view that the Government must introduce measures that protect the best from being undercut by the less good. A race to the bottom should not be entertained. The Government have made several previous commitments: there was to be a Green Paper on this subject; there would be a review of the relevant EU law, post Brexit; we were told that there would not be any risk of a race to the bottom. However, that fear persists.

Can the Minister answer some questions, even at this late stage of the Bill’s passage? Will the Government seek to protect and enhance workers’ rights, living standards and our climate change position post Brexit? Will they implement International Labour Organization —ILO—standards as a form of protection, especially against modern slavery? What is the Government’s position regarding what was known as EU retained law in the area of public contracts? Do they intend to legislate to make good any shortcomings in this area? Unless the Government commit to those aims, it is hard to see how protection and standards will be maintained, let alone enhanced, in the years to come.

20:30

This amendment is therefore intended to keep the Government honest in their approach to the GPA by ensuring that each House has the opportunity to examine, debate and vote on measures proposed by the Government. An affirmative resolution of each House would be required before proceeding to introduce proposals to the GPA. This would allow each House to carry out its proper function. In the case of this House, that would be scrutiny of the proposals to consider whether, if taken to the GPA, they will fulfil the Government’s ambitions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for tabling Amendment 46, to which I was pleased to attach my name. I also thank the noble Lord for setting out some very clear and important questions that have not been answered, even at this very late stage of the debate on this Bill.

I note the thinness of this part of the debate. It is very clear that, despite the hard work of the Minister and noble Lords still engaged in this debate, at this late hour, the ability of this House to scrutinise the Bill line by line has been greatly damaged by the disjointed manner in which it has been progressed. We can only do our best.

The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, set it out clearly: we find ourselves saying essentially the same things, again and again. Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House want statutory protections for hard-won environmental standards, workers’ rights, food standards and public health standards. We keep hearing from the Government, again and again, “Oh yes, we want to keep these things”, but we encounter thumping resistance to any attempt to put that in writing so that they can be held to account in the courts for their promises—in the way in which the Government have so often been held to account in recent years. Empty words and hot air cannot be taken to court.

It is late, so I will be brief. I have three bullet points to conclude, outlining the reasons why this amendment should be included in the Bill: sovereignty, democracy and taking back control. For the benefit of Hansard, there is an implied question mark at the end of that last bullet point. It seems that, day by day, in your Lordships’ House, in Parliament and in the country, we are losing control, handing it over to executive authority and all too often to the vagaries of the market. We are seeing a society run for the benefit of the few, not the many.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for allowing us to conclude at the place where we started: procurement. It is perhaps a sign—I agree with the noble Baroness—that there has been a creeping increase in executive power during this process. At least the scrutiny that this House has afforded the Bill has been thorough, even if the Government may think it has been too long. Nevertheless, we started discussions on this Bill with procurement. And then the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill was introduced, scrutinised and passed before we came to the conclusion of this.

Of interest, the question that I asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill was how the regulations on procurement would interact with those that will come through our obligations under international procurement. Could the Minister give us a timeframe for when we expect to see the implementation of many of the Government’s policies on procurement that will now be authorised through our membership of the global arrangements? That interaction is going to be very important.

I have sympathy with the amendment on the basis that the extent of procurement goes far beyond what many people may think, which is simply about the Government purchasing goods. So much of our NHS, in both primary and mental health, is provided by contractors through procurement. The extent is really quite extensive—it is a considerable part of the UK economy—so this is not something that we should be shy about discussing in brief. It is of major importance to the UK economy, and indeed it will be a key part of our international relations.

So I ask the Minister to outline a little more detail. If he cannot give me that information today, I will be happy for him to write to me, because we will be needing to debate in full the Government’s procurement policies going forward, preferably through resolutions in both Houses. We wish to see the details of the Government’s intentions.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I will now address Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, which seeks to apply the affirmative procedure for any regulations made using the powers under Clause 1.

Perhaps understandably, because this is the last amendment that we will be addressing on Report, noble Lords wished to get certain matters off their chest at the commencement of debate on this amendment, so perhaps they will understand if I do not respond specifically to those points but restrict my comments to the amendment. I will of course commit to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I will write to him with details of the exact timetable, which I do not have available to me at the moment.

Turning to this amendment and, as I say, restricting my comments to the amendment, given the late hour, I first remind noble Lords that the UK will accede to the GPA on the basis of continuity. This means that the “coverage schedules” referenced by noble Lords today and in Committee will remain broadly the same as those that the UK has had under EU membership. I know that noble Lords have suspicious minds and I say “broadly” because the UK’s independent GPA schedules incorporate technical changes to reflect the fact that the UK is no longer an EU member state, and there are now successor government entities other than those listed in Annexes 1 to 3. I have provided more details of these changes in a written response to a question asked on this issue in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which I am happy to outline to the House.

The UK’s independent coverage schedules were shared with the International Trade Committee in 2018, along with the text of the GPA and the schedules of other GPA parties. They were then laid before Parliament for scrutiny, in line with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, and were concluded without objection in 2019. Since then, Switzerland has agreed to implement the GPA, as revised in 2012. As such, to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and transparency, the new Swiss schedules were laid before Parliament in October 2020. So I hope noble Lords will agree that there has been ample opportunity to scrutinise the terms of the UK’s GPA accession.

With regard to the scrutiny of our future participation in the GPA as an independent party, I again reassure noble Lords that provisions under Clause 1 are limited to a very specific set of scenarios in the GPA. I stress that this does not include any broader renegotiation of the GPA or of the UK’s market access offer to the GPA.

In the short term, the powers are required to implement an update to the list of central government entities in Annexe 1 of the UK’s GPA schedule. The update will reflect the fact that many entities have merged, moved or changed name since the list was originally written. Given the limited nature of such changes, I believe it is not appropriate to apply the affirmative procedure to Clause 1. Moreover, it is important that these necessary regulations be made swiftly because, as I often find myself saying, if there are delays, the UK could be in breach of its obligations under international law. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House has twice considered the power in this clause and on neither occasion saw the need to comment on the use of the negative procedure.

As we are now reaching the end of Report, I will make some concluding remarks. I think that anybody who has witnessed the way our House has dealt with this Report stage can only admire the scrutiny noble Lords have given. That scrutiny has illustrated various aspects of the Bill which were not necessarily fully visible to people at the beginning, and it has drawn people’s attention to how important trade policy now is to the United Kingdom. The fact that the United Kingdom now has full control of its trade policy will lead in the years to come to some very positive developments, as we have already seen with the free trade agreements we are negotiating.

I very much thank noble Lords for the way they have approached Report stage. This is the first Bill that I have had the pleasure of taking through the House, other than our “son of Bill”, which we did before Christmas. I thank noble Lords for the way that they have assisted me and dealt with my inadequacies from time to time, no doubt, in the way that I have presented this Bill.

I thank your Lordships for the attention you have given to this Bill and I look forward to Third Reading. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for their support for this amendment. I also thank the Minister for his honesty in pointing out our shortcomings in failing to take up these issues when we previously had the opportunity to do so; but that is another matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46 withdrawn.

Schedule 4: The Trade Remedies Authority

Amendments 47 and 48 not moved.

Amendment 49

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

49: After Schedule 5, insert the following new Schedule—
“TRADE AND AGRICULTURE COMMISSION: PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LEGISLATIONPublic records
1_ In Part 2 of the Table in paragraph 3 in Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.”Investigations by the Parliamentary Commissioner
2_ In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments subject to investigation), at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.”House of Commons disqualification
3_ In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which members are disqualified), at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.”Northern Ireland Assembly disqualification
4_ In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which members are disqualified), at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.”Freedom of information
5_ In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities to which this Act applies), at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.”Public sector equality duty
6_ In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to the public sector equality duty), in the group of entries under the heading “Industry, Business, Finance, etc”, at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide the Schedule introduced by the amendment adding a new clause called “Trade and Agriculture Commission: further provision”.

Amendment 49 agreed.

In the Title

Amendment 50

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

50: In the Title, line 2, after “it;” insert “to make provision about the Trade and Agriculture Commission;”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would amend the long title to reflect new provision about the Trade and Agriculture Commission.

Amendment 50 agreed.

Title, as amended, agreed.

House adjourned at 8.43 pm.