Australia and New Zealand Trade Deals

Debate between Anthony Mangnall and Nick Thomas-Symonds

Monday 14th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a better way to do that, as he eloquently sets out.

On the theme of scrutiny, Lord Grimstone said in May 2020 that the Government do not envisage

“a new FTA proceeding to ratification without a debate first having taken place on it”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 February 2021; Vol. 810, c. 724.]

Clearly, that has not happened, and that is why this debate is in such odd circumstances. There are crucial elements to both these deals that deserve wider debate and scrutiny.

I want to highlight the real challenge in the Committee for the Bill that the Minister referred to, which was not a Bill about giving effect to a whole range but a specific, narrow Bill on public procurement provisions. The nature of the Bill meant that, under the entirely appropriate rules of this House, finding areas of debate in Committee was very difficult. It was prohibitively narrow: climate change, workers’ rights, consultation with devolved Administrations and animal welfare were not within the scope of the Bill. The agreements were signed before they came before Parliament, so the scope for meaningful debate was fatally curtailed. There has been no scrutiny worthy of the name.

The International Trade Committee rightly criticised the process on the Australia deal and the Government’s premature triggering of the 21-day process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 without the full Select Committee consideration being available to Members. When pressed, the Government refused to extend the process. All the while, in a number of urgent questions, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), swerved I think eight invitations—I will be corrected if I am wrong—to attend the International Trade Committee. I wonder whether the Government’s reticence to open themselves up to scrutiny is because, ultimately, they know they are falling short.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point about scrutiny, and it is not one I can escape now that I have some level of collective responsibility as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I hasten to add. Does he agree that there is a wider conversation to be had about the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, which was introduced under a Labour Government, and about whether a more effective system could be put in place? It seems that we are out of kilter with our Commonwealth friends.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman makes the perfectly reasonable point that we need to look at the whole scrutiny process to make it effective and to update so that it is fit for the current situation.

I have indicated that the current Prime Minister thinks the Australia deal is one-sided. Frankly, that is just one of many criticisms that Conservative Ministers and MPs have levelled at their own Department for International Trade and their own Ministers. The former Exports Minister, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), rightly said that the trade access programme is underfunded. He said of it:

“We support too few shows, we don’t send enough business, our pavilions are often decent but overshadowed by bigger and better ones from our competitors.”

That could be due to the fact that the budget for our trade show access programme began to fall sharply.

I looked carefully at when in the past 12 years the trade show access programme started to be cut in the last 12 years—I have the figures here for every year. It seems to have happened in the middle of the last decade when a new Chief Secretary to the Treasury was appointed, so I wondered who that was. The Minister has been in post for only a short period on this occasion, but we have had a number of robust exchanges previously, which I have always enjoyed, and this is not a subject that he has ever sought to debate me on before. When I checked who that confident, new, shining Chief Secretary to the Treasury was who started the cuts to the tradeshow access programme, however, I found that it was none other than the current Minister for Trade Policy.

Ministers for Trade Policy have a chequered history under recent Conservative Governments. We have just seen the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), in her new role. She was criticised for her attentiveness and availability as Trade Minister, not by me or any Opposition Member, but by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who said:

“There have been a number of times when she hasn’t been available, which would have been useful, and other ministers have picked up the pieces”.

Meanwhile, if we read the remarkable coverage of the tenure of the most recent former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk, at the Department for International Trade, it is amazing that there was even limited progress, given that the main aim appears to have been securing photographs for Instagram. I will say this for her time as International Trade Secretary, however: although her requests when travelling in Australia were for sauvignon blanc and fancy coffee, they are nothing compared with the Australian delicacies that I understand the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) has sampled when out there.

All hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that a trade deal offers our friends in Australia a fantastic array of British exports, but I fear that they will want to reconsider their options when the first expensive import that arrives is a tariff-free version of the right hon. Member for West Suffolk. I will leave that subject there, aside from the passionate plea that I always make when important elections are under way, such as the bushtucker trial: it is important for people to continue to make their voices heard, and I am sure that people across the country, especially in West Suffolk, will be keen to continue exercising their vote on a daily basis.

The disorder and chaos that we have seen across Government in recent months, and specifically at the Department for International Trade, speak of a Government who lack focus and direction. I speak to huge numbers of businesses every week and they continually express how damaging the instability is; it has real consequences in damaging our exporting opportunities. The utter chaos of financial instability, the tanking of the pound and the damage to our country’s standing are extraordinarily serious.

That instability and lack of clarity are why we have ended up in a situation where promises have been broken and vital progress has slipped. The trade deal with the USA has not been delivered. The trade deal with India done by Diwali has not been delivered. The promise that 80% of UK trade would be under FTAs by the end of 2022 has not been delivered and will not be delivered. It does not have to be that way.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I think we may have been here before, so I apologise for reiterating what I have said previously. The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying that we are not delivering and that we are taking too long, but also that deals are being signed too quickly. The Labour party seems to be at odds with itself. Whether it is our desire to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership; our desire to do trade deals with Japan, which we have achieved; the Australia and New Zealand trade deal; or the UK-US state trade deal, those deals are being signed and we are joining new groups. It is not fair or accurate to say that we are not delivering the trade deals that we set out to achieve.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

What the hon. Gentleman omits is that I am judging the Government not against a standard I am putting forward that is impossible to reach but against their own 2019 manifesto. There is no inconsistency between being in favour of free trade deals and hoping that the Government will agree decent ones at the negotiating table.

[Anthony Mangnall]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As I am finishing in a moment, I will not take another intervention.

The Government’s central trade strategy is a litany of broken promises. We are debating these two trade deals in strange circumstances long after they were signed, sealed and delivered. Access to British markets is not, however, a bauble to be traded away easily, as the Government repeatedly do. The Government must stop selling the UK short, and come forward with a core trade strategy that will allow our world-leading businesses to thrive and deliver for communities across the country. Quite simply, it is time for strong government with a sense of purpose, which the Conservative party is in no position to provide.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Debate between Anthony Mangnall and Nick Thomas-Symonds

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I completely support what the Chair of the Select Committee says. It is a cross-party Committee, so this is not a partisan point. Whatever has been negotiated by Ministers, they should be willing to open themselves up to scrutiny from this House.

As I said, this is also a breach of the Government’s own promise. Lord Grimstone wrote in May 2020:

“The Government does not envisage a new FTA proceeding to ratification without a debate first having taken place on it.”

But that is precisely what has happened, and I think we are entitled to ask why.

Why are the Government so worried about being held to account on their own trade policy? Could it be because the 2019 Conservative manifesto promised that 80% of UK trade will be covered by free trade agreements by the end of this year when the reality is far short of that mark? Could it be because that same manifesto promised a comprehensive trade deal with the United States by the end of this year and it is nowhere in sight?

Or is it because Ministers have been letting down farmers? Members need not just take my word for that; the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), the former Chancellor—and, as of yesterday at least, a Tory Leadership candidate—made exactly the same point over the summer. No wonder the now Prime Minister failed to attend a hustings with the National Farmers Union last month; as the former Chancellor put it, that

“raises questions about her willingness to listen to the needs of farmers and the wider food industry.”

I agree entirely with the former Chancellor; I could not have put it better myself.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his book, which was a page-turner. Will he not take comfort, as I do, from what was said by the Prime Minister a few days ago to the National Farmers Union about wanting to see an improved scrutiny process?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the hon. Member for his congratulations on my biography of Harold Wilson; that is greatly appreciated. On scrutiny, if only the Prime Minister had held the trade brief in the past and been able to do something about it then.

Is not the truth perhaps that the Government are running away from scrutiny because they are failing to support exporters properly? The Opposition have been arguing that the Government are not doing enough to support exporters, and over the summer that became clear. The former Minister for exports, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer)—he intervened on the Secretary of State but is no longer in his place—appears to agree. He argued that the trade access programme is underfunded and said of it:

“We support too few shows, we don’t send enough business, our pavilions are often decent but overshadowed by bigger and better ones from our competitors.”

Perhaps it is therefore no surprise that there has been failure in the Department for International Trade.

We then have what the Secretary of State said about her own Minister for Trade Policy, who I think is still the Minister for Trade Policy today. She said:

“There have been a number of times when she hasn’t been available, which would have been useful, and other Ministers have picked up the pieces.”

The former Chancellor says that Conservative trade policy is letting down farmers, the former Minister for Exports says that the Government are not supporting exporters as they should be, and the Secretary of State is criticising the performance of one of her own Ministers. This is not the good ship Britannia delivering trade for global Britain; it is more like “Pirates of the Caribbean”, with a ghost ship manned by a zombie Government beset by infighting, mutiny and dishonesty. The calamity might have been mildly amusing were it not so serious a matter for our country’s future, with people across our nation needing a trade policy that delivers for them.

In other negotiations and future negotiations, countries will look at what was conceded in these negotiations and take that as a starting point. We already have a UK-Japan trade deal that benefits Japanese exporters five times as much as UK exporters. On the Australia deal, the Government’s impact assessment shows a £94 million hit to our farming, forestry and fishing sectors and a £225 million hit to our semi-processed food industry. On the New Zealand deal, the Government’s impact assessment states that

“part of the gains results from a reallocation of resources away from agriculture, forestry, and fishing”,

which will take a £48 million hit, “and semi-processed foods”, a £97 million hit.

The Opposition will press four issues in Committee: farming and animal welfare; climate change; labour standards and workers’ rights; and, as has been raised in interventions, the role of the devolved Administrations in the process of negotiation and ratification, and the protection of geographical indicators. Let me deal first with farming and animal welfare. Labour is proud of our farmers and the high standards that they uphold, and we are confident in British produce to be popular in new markets, but we also recognise the need for a level playing field for our farmers.

The Government claim that they are trying to mitigate the impact of the two deals with tariff-free access being phased in. In the New Zealand deal, there are tariff rate quotas and product-specific safeguards that last 15 years. Similarly, in the Australia deal, the phasing-in period on beef and sheepmeat is 15 years, but the quotas set by the Government for imports from Australia are far higher than current imports. As I have previously pointed out in the House, on beef imports, when Japan negotiated a trade deal with Australia, it limited the tariff-free increase in the first year to 10% on the previous year. South Korea achieved something similar in negotiations and limited the increase to 7%. But the Government have negotiated a first year tariff-free allowance with a 6,000% increase on the amount of beef that the UK currently imports from Australia. On sheepmeat, they have conceded a 67% increase in the first year of the deal.

It is not as if other countries have not done significantly better—they have—so why did our trade Ministers not achieve the same as Japan’s and South Korea’s? Why have our Ministers failed to ensure that Australian agricultural corporations are not held to the same high standards as our farmers?

The Government have agreed to a non-regression clause on animal welfare. To be clear, that does not mean equality of standards across the two countries—it is not fair competition. What will actually happen is that meat produced to far lower animal welfare standards will get tariff-free access to the UK market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes two very good points: first, we should ensure that our British firms have the support that they need to compete in the procurement process; and secondly, this should not be some sort of cloak beneath which there is a race to the bottom on workers’ rights. Both those things are important.

The concerns that have been raised about these two deals and the process of scrutiny amount to a problem with the Government’s approach to trade policy. There is no core trade policy and no clear strategy or direction. That criticism has been echoed by the International Trade Committee.

There has been a lot of talk from the Conservative party, but the delivery on trade agreements has been noticeable by its absence. There is no US trade deal in sight, and we await the India deal—as promised by the now previous Prime Minister—and the meeting of the target of 80% of UK trade being covered by FTAs.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Does the right hon. Member recognise that we have started negotiations on the CPTPP and with the Gulf Co-operation Council, and that we have started negotiations and to look into the Canada agreement? It is not technically that fair to say that we are not ploughing ahead with signing as many trade deals as we can.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am holding the Conservative Members to the standard that they promised in their manifesto. It is not the standard that I have set, but the standard that they set when they went to the electorate in 2019.

Is not the problem that, for too long, Britain has been led by a directionless and, frankly, distracted Conservative party? Conservative Members spent months propping up a discredited Prime Minister. They decided to leave him in office over the summer while they fought among themselves, leaving people up and down the country facing economic devastation.

A dynamic trade policy that aligns with a clear industrial strategy is vital to boosting our appalling levels of growth and averting recession, yet we find that the Australia deal does not even mention the specific target on climate change, despite that being one of the great challenges of our generation.

As an Opposition, we will of course not vote down this short Bill. However, if we were to attempt to change the deals that have already been agreed, or if anyone went back on their word on them, that would further sully our international reputation, which, frankly, has already been badly damaged by the conduct of the Conservative party. However, we will push a number of amendments in Committee to support our farmers and to ensure that exporters have the support they need. The Government must urgently learn lessons from where things have gone wrong in these negotiations.

Safe Streets for All

Debate between Anthony Mangnall and Nick Thomas-Symonds

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to open this debate for the Opposition at a critical moment for our country.

First, I would like to reiterate what I said during the urgent question earlier and to condemn absolutely the vile, antisemitic, sickening, misogynistic abuse we saw on the streets of London. That behaviour is never acceptable, and I hope that a strong message goes out from right across this House that we abhor it. I send best wishes for a swift recovery to the six police officers who were injured. I would also like to say that the thoughts of those on the Labour Benches are with the family of PCSO Julia James. I commend Kent police for the work that they have done on that investigation.

I give thanks, on behalf of all Labour Members, for the remarkable service that those on the frontline have given during this crisis. Our police officers, firefighters, emergency services, health and social care workers, shop workers, transport workers and local government workers—indeed, all those on the frontline—have shown incredible bravery and dedication in the face of a deadly virus. It has been sobering and it has been inspiring. I pay tribute, too, to all those who lost their lives to this awful virus in carrying out their duties. It is a devastating loss for so many families for whom life will never quite be the same again. Those who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe are the best of us, and we thank them for their service.

We all rightly stood and clapped frontline workers, but the sound of applause does not pay bills. It is wrong —totally wrong—that this Government have time and again praised the work of frontline workers but refused to give them the fair pay rise that they deserve. This has been a time of national sacrifice and none has risked their life more than those who serve on our frontline. I have visited police stations and heard about our frontline officers putting themselves at risk to help others, not knowing who or what they will encounter when they are out on the beat. I have spoken to firefighters and heard about the sacrifices they have made, delivering food parcels and personal protective equipment, driving covid patients to hospitals, and, very sadly, moving bodies. Yet they face a threat to the collective bargaining body that protects firefighters’ rights. Again, Labour Members call on the Government to think again: to reward our key workers and, as a first step, revisit the deeply unfair pay freeze for those who have served so bravely during the pandemic.

As we consider the measures in this Queen’s Speech, it is clear that yet again, under this Conservative Government, there is no shortage of rhetoric but a clear commitment to action is missing. Talking tough and failing to act has been a trademark of this Government’s 11 years in office. Under this Government, victims have been failed and the public has been failed. Rape convictions have fallen to a record low, with just one in every 100 reported rapes even getting to a court. Fraud has rocketed, with 4.4 million victims in the last year. Hundreds of thousands of police records have been lost, and we still have no idea if they will all be recovered. Antisocial behaviour reports have soared by 5 million over the past decade. Assaults on police officers went up 40% during the lockdown, and court delays are now so bad that criminals are not facing justice in the way they should be. It is a litany of failure.

At the same time, the services that are so vital to preventing so many of these appalling acts from happening in the first place have been cut to the bone over the past 11 years. There has been a £1.4 billion cut in youth services, 750 youth centres have closed, and more than 4,500 youth workers have been lost. Mental health services are so stretched that people desperately in need of support are left abandoned, at risk to themselves and others. The Government’s total mess on probation services means that probation officers have one hand tied behind their backs and are doing their best to carry on the vital job of tackling reoffending. It is a shameful record.

The tough talk continued in this Queen’s Speech, but the reality is, frankly, different. In reality, this Government are soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. The truth is that under this Government, criminals have never had it so good, and it is little wonder that the statistics are so dire with the huge cuts the Government have made to policing. We have seen police numbers plummet since 2010, with 21,000 officers lost across the country and police staff lost as well. We have had a Conservative Government for over a decade who were content to sit back and see violence rise and police numbers fall while the Home Office’s own research was showing them that the police cuts were linked to levels of crime. Of course, I welcome more police on our streets, but the Government uplift programme will not even replace the officers lost since 2010, and what about the police staff lost as well, who play such a vital role?

The harsh reality is that this Government’s failure has had a devastating impact on people’s lives. Rocketing antisocial behaviour, with millions more instances recorded, mean that lives, often of the most vulnerable in our communities, are made a misery. The violence on our streets and in homes, soaring right across the country, has had devastating consequences, taking and ruining far too many lives and causing unimaginable heartache for families. Let us be under no illusion: while rising crime affects everyone in society, it is often those who are struggling most in our communities who are hardest hit, with our poorest neighbourhoods disproportionately impacted on by crime. That is the record of this Government.

What we see in this Queen’s Speech is a warped sense of priorities. This is a Government who are more interested in preventing people from voting than they are in preventing crime. This Queen’s Speech should have focused on addressing rising crime, bringing perpetrators to justice and keeping people safe, but, sadly, what I see is a raft of proposed measures in this Queen’s Speech that, I fear, are about sounding tough but fail to rise to the scale of the challenge.

Let me turn to the measures that have been announced. On fire safety, we will, of course, look carefully at the role of the proposed building safety regulator, but the reality is that thousands of people continue to live in dangerous buildings nearly four years after the tragedy of Grenfell. Before Parliament prorogued, the Government, on four separate occasions, whipped their MPs to vote against amendments that would have ensured that remediation costs would not be passed on to leaseholders. Instead of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), the Government chose to look the other way. I have met those who are still living in those buildings with dangerous cladding—very moving it was as well—and I can tell Ministers that what they want is action, not more words.

Let me turn to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, carried over from the last Session. Of course, there are some elements of that Bill that the Labour party not only supports but campaigned for. My hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) introduced “protect the protectors” legislation to increase the maximum sentence for assaults on emergency service workers. The Home Secretary boasted at the Dispatch Box about increasing that to two years. The Government could have done that three years ago; when they were asked to do so by my hon. Friends, they would not do it. Indeed, we believe that the Government should now look at protecting the pandemic heroes and extend protections to shop workers as well as other vital frontline workers and social care staff.

We are also glad to see long overdue work on the police covenant. I put on the record my praise for the work of John Apter and the Police Federation, campaigning hard to deliver this much-needed change. However, we will be pushing hard to ensure that this is not a paper exercise but a real step forward for police that helps to protect their health and, vitally, their mental health and wellbeing.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Clearly the right hon. Gentleman was asleep during the local elections, when we won 10 more police and crime commissioners, showing that the general public view us as tough on crime. If he is going to stand there and say that we are not supporting our frontline workers when we said that we would be tougher on sentences, why did his party vote against that? Why did it not say that it would take the Bill to Committee and reform it, or at least come up with a sensible idea rather than carping from the side?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, just like I will listen to voters in parts of England, I hope that he will listen to the voters in Wales, where we won three of the four police and crime commissioners and a Labour Government achieved the best result in elections since the advent of devolution, showing that Labour in power actually works. [Interruption.] He scoffs at the voters of Wales. I think he should seriously look at the message that they are sending to him.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Government Members know perfectly well that they could have had a Bill that found consensus across this House. Instead, they chose to introduce divisive elements on protest and on discrimination against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities that made that impossible. He knows that, and Ministers know it too.

Indeed, there are measures in the Bill on death by dangerous driving, for example, championed by my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who worked on a cross-party basis with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). There is the part of the Bill on positions of trust, where we extend the scope of protections against those who perpetrate sexual relationships with young people under 18. Again, that had a cross-party genesis, with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) working with the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). That too could be widened, to include driving instructors and music tutors. I credit my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for securing changes to the Disclosure and Barring Service.

There are some long overdue parts of the Bill that deal with disproportionality, such as the use of problem-solving courts, recognising remand of children as a last resort, and reform of the criminal records disclosure regime, but the reality is that those things go nowhere near far enough. I was challenged about what Labour would do. The Lammy review, which sets out 35 recommendations, has sat on the Government’s shelf since 2017. They need to implement it. [Interruption.] The Lord Chancellor knows very well that they are not implementing the 35 recommendations. I would be quite happy to go through all 35 with him.

On the Government’s proposed legislation on race and ethnic disparity, I am deeply concerned, since it now seems to be their position that structural racism does not even exist. With that view, we cannot trust this Government to bring forward measures so desperately needed to tackle structural racism. That lack of trust is shown in the way the Home Office has so badly mishandled the Windrush compensation scheme. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary shouts “Rubbish”, but I have spoken to the victims who have been treated so badly. I have spoken to people who have waited years for payments, forced to fight back against insulting offers, and people whose family members have passed away before compensation was received.

Now, the Home Secretary says “Rubbish”; these are her statistics. She promised to speed up the process. On 21 April, 1,417 cases were being processed. Five hundred of them had been ongoing for over a year, and others had been in the system for over two years. Those are the Home Secretary’s own statistics. That slow progress piles injustice upon injustice.

Let me come to the crackdown on protest. Where our existing laws are sufficient, it is wrong-headed and dangerous. The right to protest is a precious part of our democracy that should be treasured, not trashed. At the same time, the measures against unauthorised encampments would further discriminate against our Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities, in breach of the Human Rights Act and of the Equality Act.

Another area in which the Government’s poor record is matched by their lack of ambition is addressing violence against women and girls, which remains a stain on our society. The tragic death of Sarah Everard drew attention in the starkest terms to the desperate need for change that so many of us have long been calling for. As a society, and as men in particular, we must do better by listening to the outpouring of powerful testimonies, but—more importantly—by acting. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was rightly exposed for the shameful way in which it overlooked reforms that people have been crying out for, and I pay tribute to all those who have spoken up so powerfully: my colleagues my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon Central and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and all those across these Benches and the House who have said, “Enough is enough”.

There is deep anger and frustration about the scale of the challenge and the glacial speed of action. We have had several strategies announced in the past by the Government, and in the Queen’s Speech we have had the announcement of the violence against women and girls strategy, but with no timescale or proposed action. Today, Labour is proposing action, and we published our proposals this morning: a rape survivors plan, with support needed from start to finish; cases of rape and serious sexual violence fast-tracked through the system and a Minister tasked with the responsibility of driving change through; tougher sentences for rape, stalking and domestic homicide, including reviewing sentences for all domestic abuse; and a new law on street harassment. We need to ensure that all police forces have specialist teams of rape and serious sexual assault officers in place to support victims and drive up conviction rates; to remove the legal barriers that prevent any victim of domestic abuse getting the help they need, such as barriers to legal aid and no recourse to public funds; and a victims Bill with the victim at the heart of the system, supported through the process and afterwards. Let us see no more strategies and limited pilot schemes: let us see the action that is long overdue.

On the counter-state threats Bill, the warnings for action could not have been clearer: citizens poisoned on our own streets, attempts to subvert our democracy, and London becoming a laundromat for dirty money. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia could hardly have delivered a more damning indictment of deep, systemic failings in the Government’s approach to the security threat posed by Russia, finding that the Government had “badly underestimated” the Russian threat and the response it required.

We thank our security services for the work they do, but they need more support. The Russia report concluded that previous changes in resourcing to counter Russian hostile state activity are not, or not only, due to a continuing escalation of the threat, but appear to be an indicator of “playing catch up”. We cannot keep playing catch-up, which is why we have long called for the recommendations of the Russia report to be implemented. It is why we have consistently criticised the actions of the Government of China against the Uyghur and on the security law in Hong Kong. We will look at this long-delayed legislation closely, and seek to work constructively to bring about the changes needed to guard against not just the threats of today, but the fast-emerging global threats to our democracy.

As we look at the UK’s role in the world, I want to turn to the new plan for immigration. I do not disagree that the asylum system is too slow: the reason for that is the Conservative party, which has run the immigration system for the past 11 years. The share of asylum applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 87% in 2014 to 20% in 2019. That is the Conservative record, and we have seen an approach from Ministers that lacks both competence and compassion. There has been a huge surge in the number of dangerous crossings in small boats from France, but where is the comprehensive deal with France to deal with it? The Department for International Development, which was the very Department that addressed the causes of people being displaced from their homes in the first place, has been abolished. Safe routes such as the Dubs scheme have closed down; the Dubs scheme closed after just a few hundred children, when everyone expected it to help 3,000. That is not the way to tackle the issue or the heinous crime of people trafficking.

At the same time, we have seen people housed in overcrowded accommodation that represented a fundamental failure of leadership and planning at the Home Office, leading to a dangerous covid outbreak and putting vulnerable people, staff and neighbouring communities at risk.

From what we have seen of the plans so far, they will do next to nothing to stop people making crossings. They risk withdrawing support from vulnerable people, including victims of human trafficking. Nor do this Government show any sign of delivering the international agreements they require for their measures. Yet again, Conservative failure will be hard-wired into the system.

On the issue of borders, the lax measures against covid have been frankly negligent. The Government were late to introduce formal quarantining, they failed to have an effective home quarantining system, and they were late to introduce border testing and hotel quarantining —and even then, only 1% of arrivals actually stayed in hotels.

Like everyone across the House, I am deeply worried by the sharp increase in the covid variant cases in Bolton, Blackburn, Darwen and other parts of the country. Cases have almost doubled in the past four days. If there is one thing we have learned from this awful virus, it is its ability to spread rapidly.

We should never have been in this position. We have been warning the Government for months of the reckless risks they have been taking with their half-baked border measures. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary shakes her head, but she has been on video making clear her disagreement with the Government’s approach to the borders. We called a vote in this House in February on comprehensive hotel quarantining, but the Conservative party refused to back our plans, which would have given us the best chance of stopping strains reaching the UK. Instead, the variants first discovered in India, Brazil and South Africa have all reached the UK, with outbreaks occurring.

India was added to the red list only after cases had already been detected in the UK back in February. By 5 April, India was reporting more than 100,000 new covid cases a day, and neighbouring countries Pakistan and Bangladesh were added to the red list on 9 April. As cases rocketed in India, No. 10 kept saying that the planned visit by the Prime Minister, which was scheduled for 25 April, would go ahead. It was not until 19 April that No. 10 cancelled the trip to India—the same day that the Health Secretary announced that India would be added to the red list. That measure came into force on 23 April.

It has been reported that during that time of dither and delay, more than 20,000 travellers from India entered the country. The Prime Minister has serious questions to answer about the suggestions that he delayed adding India to the red list because of the planned visit.

Ministers must learn the lessons, act more cautiously now on the reopening of international travel, and make their border protections effective. Yet again, it is the same theme: Ministers talk tough but fail to take action to keep people safe. Sadly, that is the story of this Government: tough rhetoric; little effective action. At the same time, violence has been on the rise, affecting all our communities; neighbourhood policing has been cut to the bone; our democracy has been left vulnerable to hostile state action; and we have an immigration system devoid of compassion and competence.

What we needed was a bold vision for security in our country and safety on our streets. Instead, the legislative agenda set out in this Queen’s Speech merely repeats a pattern of failure, and it is the British people who are left to pay the price.