Coronavirus

Debate between Chris Green and Mark Harper

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend reminds us all how we can have different roles in this House. It is worth noting that, as a former Government Chief Whip, I do not find not supporting the Government a particularly comfortable place to be. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, sometimes we have to put what we believe to be the interests of our country first, and that is what I feel I am doing.

I want to draw attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said, because he is right. There are documents with Government—I am not saying that these have been agreed by Ministers, but certainly this advice is being given to Ministers—that Government should aim to have a very low prevalence of covid. That is not zero covid, but it is not a great distance away. If Ministers were to agree to that strategy, it would mean restrictions going on for the foreseeable future, and that is one of the things that we are very concerned about.

I note, at this point, what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said: the Labour Benches are somewhat empty—the Back Benches are completely empty— and it is colleagues on the Government side of the House who are holding the Government to account. I accept that the Government may occasionally find that uncomfortable, but it is our role as Members of Parliament.

I always find it helpful to draw attention to the documents actually before us. For those who do not know, we have an explanatory memorandum, which explains what it is we are voting on today. It has been prepared by the Department of Health and Social Care and it will have been approved by a Minister of the Crown. It is very clear, and it is worth reading. Paragraph 7.3, bullet two, makes it clear that the Government will

“likely be able to offer a first dose”

of vaccine

“to all adults…by July, but the vaccinations”

themselves will probably not take place until August “due to supply constraints.” We know that it takes two or three weeks until those vaccinations are effective, so those adults will not actually be protected until later in August, so that means that this delay is therefore pointless, or alternatively, that we are not going to cease these restrictions on 19 July if vaccinating all adults is the goal.

If we then turn to the review dates and whether this is indeed a terminus, paragraphs 7.4 to 7.7 are very interesting. There is a review required by the Secretary of State every 35 days. The first review, according to this, is not due until Monday 19 July. There is no mention here of an earlier review after two weeks—

“the first review due by Monday 19th July 2021.”

It says that

“England will remain at Step 3 for a further 4 weeks (subject to further review).”

It also says that the primary purpose of extending these regulations is

“to gather more evidence that the…tests can be met”—

not that these rules will expire after four weeks never to be reintroduced, but to gather evidence for tests to be met and then for a decision to be taken about whether these restrictions are to continue. The second reason given is to

“allow more people to receive vaccinations…further reducing these risks”,

as Ministers have said, but as I just pointed out, the first doses are not going to be delivered until August, so that makes no sense. Something does not add up here, and we are concerned that these regulations are not going to end on 19 July.

[Chris Green]

In the context of timetables and how things are going to pan out in the near future, it is now the Government’s intention to ensure the vaccination of a very large number of care workers. That is presumably going to take legislation and a period of time for them to have a vaccination, and perhaps a second vaccination, and to deal with all the other problems. If this is a requirement for the Government to be able to deliver an exit from lockdown, how long will that take?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it is part of the reason why we are concerned. If this was genuinely going to be the end of it, that would be one thing. I have listened carefully to the Members who have spoken and a number have said that they will support the Government on this occasion, but this is it. I am afraid that we have heard that before and it has turned out not to be true, and I am afraid, just from reading the documents in front of us, that that is why I have some scepticism.

The final thing I will say—I hope the Minister who will be winding up the debate, who I have a great deal of respect for, can clarify this—is that I am not quite sure what is going to happen at the end. The review of the evidence that has been gathered about whether the tests are met is not due to be done until 19 July, so I am not clear about when Ministers are going to come to Parliament to set out whether those four tests have been met. Is it going to be on 19 July, or is it going to be before 19 July? I am not clear whether they are going to give that one week’s notice—all the way through the road map so far, we have had four weeks, then a week’s notice. I am not quite clear about the timetable, and this is important, because, as has been said, people’s lives will now be reoriented around that new date, including weddings, family events and people’s plans. It is important that our constituents know what to expect. When can they expect a decision? When can they expect to know what their life will look like? It is because of concerns about whether the regulations really are the end that I will, I am afraid, vote against them this evening.

My final point is on the motion about proceedings in this House. It is my strong view that, although it has been welcome that we have been able to have Parliament meet through a pandemic, and thanks should go to all the parliamentary staff who have made that possible, it is, I think, indisputable that this Parliament, in its current form, is not as effective in holding the Government to account and enabling us to do our job as Parliament should be. I think that we should get back to as normal as possible in this House as fast as we can. For that reason I will also vote against the motion to continue these proceedings effectively until we return in September.

UK-Israel Trade

Debate between Chris Green and Mark Harper

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Green]

I did not quite catch all of the hon. Gentleman’s question. However, I would not want, in this room, to set in stone anything that will evolve over time.

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

We have to recognise that strengthening businesses, businesspeople and the economies on both sides—in Israel and the occupied territories—is how we will achieve a viable two-state solution. Doing as the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement wants, which is to discriminate against businesses in Israel without distinguishing where they are, will damage the economy and the interests of not only Israelis, but Palestinians seeking to earn a living.

[Chris Green]

Absolutely. The impoverishment of people, whether in the Palestinian territories or in Israel, is one of the drivers of violence. People who do not believe that they have a future sometimes turn to violence. We ought to ensure that, so far as possible, the whole region becomes increasingly economically successful.

Voter ID Pilot Schemes

Debate between Chris Green and Mark Harper

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) for securing this debate. It is really important that the House has the opportunity to discuss voter ID.

Some Members may be aware that I laid a ten-minute rule Bill to discuss voter ID before the House. Since I presented that Bill, many constituents and others from around the country have raised the subject with me, expressing their enthusiasm for the scheme. Many people find it incredible that they do not have to show ID when they go to a polling station. They have to show ID when they collect a package from Royal Mail, and in so many other parts of life—it is a common and accepted thing. Why, when engaging in such an important matter as democracy, is the threshold for participation so low? A minimum threshold of proving who you are to engage in democracy is quite reasonable.

[Mr Harper]

As my hon. Friend says, it is important for someone to be able to show their identity. Does he welcome the fact that a range of different mechanisms were tried in the different pilot areas? Is he also aware of the fact that in Northern Ireland, where they have had this system in place for many years—a system that was legislated for by a Labour Government—any voter can have an ID card free of charge to use specifically to prove their identity in an election, and that that does not seem to have caused particular problems?

[Chris Green]

That is of great importance, and I agree entirely. A range of forms of identification were checked in these schemes, and a variety of options could be used. Northern Ireland, where there is excellent participation, is a role model for how the scheme can be implemented in the rest of the country.