Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Debate between Lord Spellar and Anthony Mangnall

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar]

Do we not have to be careful on public procurement and recognise the world as it is, notwithstanding agreements? Even when we were a member of the EU, we found that other countries gave considerable preference to their own producers within procurement. Our civil service and Treasury resolutely, adamantly and stubbornly refuse to support British industry, including small and medium-sized enterprises, and so when they go into the world market, they hear, “If you are not good enough for the British Government, why are you good enough for us?” They are being constantly undermined, even now, on small modular reactors.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. We have accepted in many instances the terms of the World Trade Organisation and the carve-out measures within them, so we are very compliant in many areas where we can be, for example, in this instance, a little more protectionist in respect of some of the key technologies we are developing in this country. There is a bit of give and take on that point. We do recognise it in some areas, although perhaps not to the extent that he would want to see.

As I was saying, I do not disagree with this Lords amendment, which is a perfectly simple one. There is always a lot in a word, but this will give us the opportunity to take full advantage in our trade deals and through procurement.

Covid-19

Debate between Lord Spellar and Anthony Mangnall

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

With all the delays that are built into the various stages of the statement, I think it is very unfortunate that the Prime Minister has not learned from the magnificent work undertaken by Kate Bingham and the vaccine taskforce about how to move safely and at pace.

The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) rightly drew our attention to the plight of the aviation industry and, quite frankly, got a fairly limp response in reply. Our economy needs that traffic moving again, and a key enabler would be a vaccine certificate—a vaccine passport, if you like. The Government response in the paper shows no sense of urgency. We will not even get an answer until some time in June. It is not just for aviation; a vaccine passport could assist with the safe reopening of hospitality, sporting and leisure venues. Many of these are on the brink, and they need every help in getting back on their feet, while their workers want their jobs back. It also matters for their customers. The Government’s own survey in the document shows that half of adults are reporting boredom, loneliness, anxiety or stress. Unemployment kills; loneliness kills as well.

Why not have a vaccine passport? Huge advances in technology over the past decades mean that it should be a relatively straightforward process. The NHS keeps records of everyone who has had the jab—I have my own card here—and this information could be stored on a plastic card produced in a secure environment or possibly on a mobile phone app, and carried around in a pocket ready to be presented on entry at any commercial venue. Let us be clear that the NHS already issues yellow fever cards as the proof of vaccination that some countries require before people can visit.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Does the right hon. Member not realise the damage having a vaccination certificate would do for anyone under the age of 35, who will not be at the frontline of getting a vaccination and will have to remain behind locked doors, with their freedoms curbed, for not having the vaccine? It is a terrible idea.

[John Spellar]

I fail to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman that says he would rather the places stayed closed. I think it would be a rather good idea if venues were actually open, and people could then visit. Perhaps we ought also to be speeding up the vaccine. We are already down to the over-50s, and moving it further down should be part of the Government’s ambition.

I have to say that the omens are not encouraging. Last year, we saw that while many venues had spent considerable sums on making their premises covid-safe, that was just ignored and disregarded, and they were closed down just the same in the face of precious little evidence that they had played any significant role in spreading the disease. Sometimes one does wonder whether this is driven by the Victorian hangover in the British Government psyche that distrusts the public actually enjoying themselves, but at stake are businesses and jobs, and our economy and society, because leave this too long and, as I was just saying, there will be no venues to go back to. That would be a human and economic disaster, and it would also change our country.

One of the attractions of visiting, living and working here is our rich cultural life. Music and theatre, pubs and clubs, sporting events, hotels and restaurants make life worth living here, but they also make us stand out in the world. The Government are putting this outstanding ecosystem at risk, so I urge the Prime Minister, and the Paymaster General here, to shift back from risk avoidance to risk management, to ramp up vaccination to the maximum, to bring forward the great reopening—and, incidentally, then to help the rest of the world with vaccines—and to get Britain back to work and play.