Covid-19: Infection Rate
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
We learned today from the BBC that people tested for the virus in England were not asked to provide addresses during the height of the pandemic. Indeed, they were asked to provide postcodes only from 23 April. Even after that, it took until 24 June for Public Health England to share this data with local councils. Could the Government guarantee that local authorities will have the data, power and resources to move speedily to identify those at risk of either having or spreading the virus?
Lord True
My Lords, current guidelines certainly include the requirement to give contact details. I note the noble Baroness’s point, but I repeat that the role of local authorities is fundamental. We have given them a great deal more money, which was recently announced to be £500 million, I believe.
Covid-19: Wedding Venues
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
I too welcome the decision and we wish all the couples well, including of course the young Ms Altmann. Will the Minister do what he can to ensure that all the deposits and costs lost because of cancellations are repaid to the couples, who obviously had no say over the loss of their weddings, an issue highlighted by Which? and the CMA? Secondly, I regret the Minister’s rejection of any thought being given to permitting humanist marriages, which would obviously save the couples having to have a second, civil wedding. I urge him to take time to think again.
UK-EU Negotiations
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we should welcome this rare ministerial Statement —indeed, the first since negotiations began—but while I am delighted, of course, to see the Minister, I am surprised that following the PM’s first direct talks with EU leaders since we left the EU, he did not report to the Commons on these, instead choosing to announce the merger of two Whitehall departments.
The Statement before us rehearses old arguments while being shamefully lacking in detail, with more on process than on content. The Statement quotes the WTO director-general as saying that a deal can be reached in a timely way
“if the political will is there”.
It is a shame that it does not give the full quote, in which the director-general suggests that a no-deal Brexit risks extra trouble for the UK during a recession that could be as deep as the great depression. What Roberto Azevêdo actually said was:
“In these circumstances, the less disruption the better, the less turbulence the better. The less turbulence is the closest to where you were before … if you can maintain the degree of integration and relationship that you had before Brexit, it is a less traumatic situation, of course, than if you have to go to WTO terms”,
which would require adjustments that “can be painful”. He said that
“in my view the less changes the better.”
Can the Minister confirm whether Mr Gove had actually read the whole quote before selecting a small part to repeat? Can he also confirm, for all the bluster about not accepting any ECJ role, that trading on WTO terms means answering to its appellate body?
Our concern is with what deal will emerge from the talks. We want the Government to achieve their manifesto promise: no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions, across all sectors. Can the Minister indicate whether that is still the aim and whether he judges it to be achievable? Even a free trade agreement means that we will move from a highly integrated relationship with the EU to one in which trading becomes significantly more difficult. More worrying is the Government’s assertion that they would be content with an Australia-type deal, completely ignoring the fact that Australia does not have a deal with Brussels, so that must be code for no deal.
Tony Barber suggests in the FT that Ministers are trying to disguise the seriousness of no deal by playing on some positive image of Australia as a prosperous, easy-going country, while an FT editorial opines that even
“a bad … trade deal is better than no deal”
—although any deal struck before December will be so modest as to fall short of the comprehensive accord for which the Government had originally aimed.
Some things are urgent whatever is agreed, such as in manufacturing or food, where the trade associations call for special rules to maximise commerce between the UK and the EU. Similarly, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and rules of origin needs sorting urgently.
It is no good relying on advertising. We have just learned of a £4.5 million “shock and awe” advertising campaign to spur businesses to prepare for the end of the transition. Businesses cannot prepare for the unknown. An advertising blitz without substance is yet more money down the drain—perhaps even worse than on the side of a plane. Until they know what tariffs, rules of origin declarations, certificates and checks are needed, how the new borders will work or even where they will be, businesses simply cannot prepare. The reality is that a hard border for physical goods, involving customs duties and checks, probably cannot be introduced by the end of December—hence the six-month leeway the Government have announced, but without any sense of clarity.
Nowhere is this uncertainty more harmful than over Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell the House what talks are taking place with Northern Ireland businesses and others trading across the Irish Sea?
Finally, the Department for International Trade established a Strategic Trade Advisory Group with trade unions, consumer bodies and trade organisations for other trade negotiations. Even at this late stage, could the Government involve these groups now as we enter the new, intense round of EU negotiations?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to question him on the Statement. The Prime Minister wants a “tiger in the tank” Brexit, which is no doubt better than a no-deal dog’s dinner Brexit, but was described by European Council President Charles Michel as a “pig in a poke”. Given farmers’ fears that they are going to be sold down the Swanee, the use of so many animal metaphors is interesting.
The alarm in the farming community and among consumers ought to cause retreat from the gung-ho, “let them eat chlorinated chicken” approach to the prospect of a US trade deal, which requires the sacrifice of our current EU standards of food safety, environmental protection and animal welfare. Worryingly, however, the Government are reported to want to enforce this by undermining the EU system of protection of specialist local foods—Cornish pasties, Melton Mowbray pork pies and so on—known as geographical indications, presumably to keep the US happy. There is obviously a tussle going on in government about food standards and protections. Can the Minister tell us the exact current state of play?
It is worth noting that Mr Gove used the term “comprehensive” about the deal sought. That, at least, is part-way to the notion in the political declaration, which was “ambitious” and “comprehensive”, and seems to improve on the stance adopted since February of minimalist objectives for a skinny deal. Is there a dawning recognition, even in No. 10, that unless it makes more of an effort there could be no deal, which in a reverse of previous insouciance it now wants to avoid? Also, perhaps it realises that a comprehensive deal is actually easier to negotiate, because it gives room for mutually acceptable trade-offs.
The EU is preoccupied with Covid and its proposed recovery plan. The UK economy shrunk by 20% in April and will be in no condition whatever to cope with a no-deal shock to business and jobs at the end of the year. It finally seems to have begun to scare No. 10 that the potential disruption—to manufacturing supply chains in areas such as cars and aerospace, to produce supply chains in medicines and food, or to Northern Ireland in particular—might make it somewhat unpopular, on top of its bad ratings, not least from Tory MPs and voters, for its handling of the Covid pandemic.
I think it has begun belatedly to realise that the public is unnerved by buccaneering in government, which is why we have seen in the last few days—coinciding intriguingly with the Brexit summit—a series of dead cat distractions such as the abolition of DfID, a new royal yacht and a union jack plane. I love cats, so I somewhat regret that popular phrase. It seems to be trying to disguise a preparedness to make concessions and compromises in the talks with the EU to maintain suitable British access to its market and programmes. Can the Minister comfort me and confirm that this is the case?
All things are relative in Brexit, since nothing can be as good as EU membership—but with that caveat I welcome what I perceive as a shift. Maybe the Government will even realise that if the “sunlit uplands” of Brexit are so great, the fact that a shock and awe media campaign is needed to prepare for it will strike British citizens as pretty odd.
David Frost told our EU Committee:
“As a policy decision, the Government’s view is that the benefits of having regulatory control … outweigh the cost”.
Has this Government’s obsession with sovereignty led them to forget Mrs Thatcher’s understanding, which she enunciated 45 years ago, of the necessity
“to pool significant areas of sovereignty so as to create more effective political units”?
This insight is also true of effectiveness in fighting crime. It would be bizarre if a Government from a party that lauds itself for upholding law and order refused to guarantee continuity in upholding European values of data protection and human rights in order to ensure access to EU crime-fighting databases and effective extradition.
In conclusion, I hope the Minister can give me some hope that developments this week mean that the Government recognise the need to ditch the symbolism of an empty kind of independence in favour of meaningful access to EU markets for British businesses, including farmers, and solidarity with the EU in upholding European values.
Covid-19: Scientific Advice
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True [V]
My Lords, the SAGE meeting on 11 February certainly asked the Foreign Office to secure information from heads of mission around the world. The Government are committed to continuing to fight this ongoing crisis, but again, the situation is evolving, knowledge is evolving and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I believe that we should focus on the task in hand of defeating the virus, learning the best we can as we go and then evaluating performance in peacetime, not in the middle of the war.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have never before heard a Minister refuse to answer a question that was not specifically based on the actual wording of the Oral Question. I hope we do not hear that again. The Government have acted too slowly, too late and with no exit strategy. For example, planning for a phased return should have started from the day schools closed. From those very first deaths, it was clear that extra precautions should have been taken to protect BAME staff. Will the Government not do what they Minister says and wait until this is all over to admit their mistakes, but look at them now so that they can learn the lessons and take the right decisions in future, rather than pretending that nothing went wrong in the past?
Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness in her view that the people of this country distrust our governance and the Government. I remind her that the British people had an opportunity only last December to say what their view was on who should govern them.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister cannot tell us what is already going on but I wonder whether he could use his good offices—we know that he has a lot of influence—to ensure that, if the commission is to restore or enhance public confidence, it is taken forward on a cross-party basis and with a focus on excluded or disenfranchised groups, particularly BME groups, as we have heard, as well as the charity sector and civil society. Unless we all have confidence in the process, we will not have confidence in the outcome. Can the Minister assure us that he will use his influence to put the views he has heard today to those who are drawing up the terms of reference and membership?
Lord True
My Lords, I have the privilege of coming to this Chamber to hear the views of Members from all sides of the House; I do that, of course. We will continue to promote the United Kingdom’s interests and values, including freedom of speech, human rights and the rule of law.
Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True [V]
My Lords, my noble friend refers to important legislation relating to modes of election. We are talking here about the timing of elections. I assure him that the Government remain completely committed to implementing their manifesto proposal on this Act.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
It is a rather misnamed Act—is it not?—because the Fixed-term Parliaments Act actually allows for two unscheduled elections at the time of the Government’s choosing. I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, we can move with some speed on this. Will the Minister ensure that representatives of the regions and the nations—perhaps also of the Opposition—are included on this committee? It is too serious an issue to leave to just a handful of Government-appointed people.
Lord True [V]
My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness says, as always, but I regret that I cannot go further today than to say that we will make detailed announcements on this matter in due course.
EU: Trade and Security Partnership
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress was made in securing a comprehensive trade and security partnership during the last round of negotiations with the European Union
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con) [V]
My Lords, negotiators from the United Kingdom and the European Union held full and constructive discussions last week via video conference. The talks covered trade in goods and services, fisheries, law enforcement and criminal justice, and other issues which both sides engaged in constructively. There was, however, no movement on the most difficult areas where differences of principle are at their most acute, notably fisheries, governance arrangements and the so-called level playing field.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I regret that no Statement has been made here or in the Commons. Thus, we have to drag the Minister here, if you like, to report on even that much. This is not the parliamentary scrutiny promised. This was a vital round of talks, but there has been little sign of movement, as the Minister said, towards agreement. Could he explain why the Government expect only the EU to compromise in order to reach a deal without being willing to do so themselves?
Lord True [V]
My Lords, we are in a negotiation. The Government remain committed to a successful outcome. We believe it would still be straightforward to agree a suite of arrangements with an FTA at its core. Our position needs to be understood: we will not agree to any of the EU’s demands for us to give up our rights as an independent state.
EU: Plans for No Deal
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday’s EU Committee report described the continued uncertainty and lack of time for a deal, combined with the pandemic, as
“a potent threat to economic prosperity and political stability in Northern Ireland.”
Businesses still do not know what to expect by way of customs processes, regulatory checks and exit summary declarations on goods from GB to Northern Ireland. Without a comprehensive free trade agreement, the consequences for Northern Ireland could be seismic. Can the Minister outline plans to advise businesses in Northern Ireland and GB and help them prepare for the future in case such an agreement is not reached by the year end?
Lord True
My Lords, I read with great interest your Lordships’ report on the Northern Ireland protocol. I do not agree with every judgment in it, but it was very valuable and the Government will make a response in due course. I said—I think when I answered the noble Baroness on a previous occasion—that a business engagement forum in Northern Ireland is imminent. A process of engagement with business across the country is of great importance, is ongoing and will be intensified.
Northern Ireland Protocol
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I start by making one correction to what the Minister said yesterday. His allegation was that I was
“always critical of the role of Mr David Frost”.—[Official Report, 20/5/20; col. 1182.]
I was critical of the apparent lack of ministerial sign-off on major statements; of a key letter being signed by a “Sherpa”—as he calls himself—rather than by a Minister; and of the inability of parliamentarians to question our EU negotiator.
Today’s Statement, by contrast, is the long-awaited admission by Ministers that the Northern Ireland arrangements will indeed involve border checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with additional checks, declarations on goods moving from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, and tariffs on goods at risk of entering the EU single market.
Nevertheless, the Command Paper leaves many questions unanswered. We had thought that the EU was expecting the UK to levy duties on all goods going to Northern Ireland, unless it could be established that they were not at risk, with the 70% on goods staying in Northern Ireland then being reclaimed. Can the Minister tell the House whether the EU now accepts the approach in the Government’s paper, that duties would be levied only on goods which pose a “clear and substantial risk” of entering the single market? Can he also explain how
“goods at risk of entering the EU’s Single Market”
will be decided? Perhaps he can reassure us that the paper’s promise to
“produce full guidance to business and third parties before the end of the transition period”
is simply a typo, and that such guidance will be available in time to become operational by 1 January?
With goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, the paper implies a very light touch. However, Welsh ports will be required to have additional infrastructure to make customs and regulatory checks—some “expansion” of infrastructure, in the words of the Statement—but without proper consultation with Wales, and perhaps not with Scotland, about arrangements which would need to be in operation by the end of the year.
Can the Minister also explain how, in practice, there will not be significant flows of goods from the EU single market into Great Britain through the backdoor of Northern Ireland, especially if, under either a deal or no deal, there are tariffs on goods coming from the EU into Great Britain—such as from France and Benelux —but not from Northern Ireland to Great Britain?
Talk, of course, in the paper of “light-touch” checks and the “latest technology”, neither of which exist other than on paper, naturally raises concerns. After all, we do not seem to have been able to create a rather simple track-and-trace app after 10 weeks of the virus, while “light-touch” seems to include an export summary declaration, with 45 entries for every consignment. Therefore, can the Minister outline what discussions have been held with importers and exporters, and tell us what confidence he has that business, and government checkers, will be ready for this in time?
Turning to how the Command Paper was drafted, we have been given to understand that the Northern Ireland Executive were not involved in its preparation. Is that the case? The other devolved authorities were similarly excluded, despite the impact on their ports and points of arrival, and on their hopes for an internal single UK market. As the Minister knows, we do not have a Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland Minister in this House. Does that reflect the low priority given to these areas, even as major policy decisions affecting them greatly are being taken? The absence of territorial Ministers in our House certainly makes scrutiny of their departments somewhat more challenging, even if today’s Statement clearly falls to the Cabinet Office.
For all the effects of Brexit, Ireland is surely the most sensitive and most important issue, not simply for trade but for how the people of Northern Ireland feel about themselves and for the vital importance of retaining all the benefits of the Good Friday agreement. On this, I am sure, the Minister and I will be in total agreement. Therefore, my plea today is for Ministers to talk more to politicians and businesses, and indeed to civil society in Northern Ireland, as well as in Scotland and Wales, to ensure that all parties have confidence in how we move forward with the protocol.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, given the duplicity of the Government, the Northern Ireland protocol has all the semblance of damaged goods. In particular, the repeated denial that it would involve the need for any new UK customs declaration or checks is revealed as the hollow sham that it always was.
In his Statement yesterday, Michael Gove tried to play this down, but the White Paper cannot be gainsaid. It says that
“there will be some limited additional process on goods arriving in Northern Ireland ... There will be no new physical customs infrastructure ... We will however expand some existing entry points for agrifood goods to provide for proportionate additional controls.”
It also says in relation to
“Belfast Port, Belfast International Airport, Belfast City Airport and Warrenpoint Port”
that:
“Expanded infrastructure will be needed at some of these sites for the purpose of agri-food checks and assurance ... we expect to request additional categories of commodities at Belfast Port, and to designate Larne Port for live animal imports ... further designations may also be required at other existing sites.”
This is a clear change of a radical nature. What costs and delays does the Minister expect it to cause? It cannot be done without time being taken to deal with these matters.
The Government choose to refer to the withdrawal agreement as a “deal” when it is no such thing; it is an agreement on the terms of withdrawal. When it suits, they choose to rely on the political declaration, although this is only a declaration of intent and needs to be judged against the backdrop of the Government preparing for a no-deal Brexit and, frankly, blaming the EU for it.
The Government also seek to present the protocol as temporary, dependent only on a vote of the Northern Ireland elected representatives to abandon it after 2024. In reality, it puts Northern Ireland in the unique position of effectively remaining in the EU single market and the UK customs union—a privilege which many businesses in Great Britain would no doubt love to have. Again, the Government seek to downplay the importance of cross-border trade to the Province, yet it is worth over £5 billion and for some businesses may be their chief revenue and profit earner.
If they import components from the UK and process them before exporting to the Republic, they will be liable to tariffs. This will present them with a clear difficulty. It will involve extra bureaucracy and require them to fill out import and export forms and train and possibly recruit extra staff and maybe use agents. All this will add substantial costs. The White Paper says that HMRC will provide help and guidance to businesses, but this is to help deal with a situation they currently do not face. This will come at a cost, so will the Government cover that cost?
The Government make great play of the benefit of lower tariffs that they hope to negotiate at some unspecified future date. Of course, while I appreciate the benefits of free trade, if this comes at the expense of tariff barriers with the EU, the net benefit may be at best limited and possibly negative. It may also be that we accept imported goods of lower standards, such as food products from the United States. This could compromise domestic producers in Northern Ireland. It is not a one-way street.
Depending on what agreement is reached with the EU, the dynamics of trade between the Republic, Northern Ireland and Great Britain could change. This would make issues of customs controls much more live. An incentive for Northern Ireland to become the bridge between the EU single market and the rest of the UK would clearly require more transparent customs controls, especially if there were divergence on tariffs and regulations.
The Government’s refusal in this context to consider an EU presence in Belfast raises questions of trust. Trust will be achieved if there is a comprehensive and mutually beneficial free trade deal. If there is a hard or no-deal Brexit, it is hardly surprising that the EU and the UK will look at each other with suspicion. There are many more questions than answers from this White Paper. As it stands, it does little to build trust with either the EU, the Republic or the business community of Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister can reassure all those bodies that it is being pursued in good faith and is entirely consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the agreement the Government signed with the EU.
EU: Future Relationship
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
While I was grateful to hear the Answer from Mr Gove, it is a shame that we cannot question the actual negotiator, David Frost, who seems to be following something other than the political declaration signed by the Prime Minister in October, and whose unprecedented letter to Michel Barnier yesterday called the EU proposals “unbalanced” and “egregious”, claiming that the EU is treating the UK as unworthy to be a partner in trade talks. Can the Minister confirm that this letter was signed off by a Minister, that it represents the UK’s attitude and that it is the normal way of undertaking delicate talks?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is always critical of the role of Mr David Frost, the Prime Minister’s Sherpa. Mr Frost acts on behalf of the UK Government and, in my view, is doing an outstanding job. I think many noble Lords would agree that his letter was not unreasonable, but reasonable in setting out some of the areas of difference which we hope can be clarified. I believe that it is still very possible, as Mr Frost said, to agree a “modern and high-quality” free trade agreement and other agreements. He has suggested ways to find a rapid and constructive way forward.