(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberI beg to move amendment 6, page 1, line 14, leave out from “that” to second “and” in line 16 and insert
“respects the rights of others”.
This amendment would replace the principle taking account of the sensitivities of those with different national and cultural identities with a principle of respecting the rights of others.
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 15, page 2, line 5, after “means” insert
“the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and”.
This amendment would include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the definition of public authority within the bill.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“‘rights of others’ means Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 and other international human rights standards.”
This amendment defines rights of others in reference to Convention rights and other international human rights standards.
Amendment 28, page 3, line 32 at end insert—
“(4A) The Office must comply with any directions (of a general or specific nature) given by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly as to the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”
This amendment is intended to ensure the bodies established by the provisions of the Bill remain accountable to guidance issued by the First and deputy First Ministers acting jointly in respect of the exercise of their functions.
Amendment 31, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(5) The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly must annually assess and report on the costs arising from the operation of the Office in line with the duties prescribed in Section 10(4).”
Amendment 21, page 3, line 33, leave out subsection 78I.
This amendment would remove the power of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression to establish the Government’s obligation to establish the Castlereagh Foundation (see Clause 8 of the Bill).
Clause stand part.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 4, line 22, leave out “have due regard to” and insert “comply with”.
This amendment would amend the duty on public authorities to one of compliance with best practice Irish language standards from one of due regard.
Amendment 27, page 5, line 18 at end insert—
“(4A) The Commissioner must comply with any directions (of a general or specific nature) given by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly as to the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”
This amendment is intended to ensure the bodies established by the provisions of the Bill remain accountable to guidance issued by the First and deputy First Ministers acting jointly in respect of the exercise of their functions.
Amendment 23, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
“(6) The Commissioner must exercise its functions under this Part in a manner that is reasonable, proportionate and practical, and which serves to promote mutual respect, good relations, understanding and reconciliation.”
This amendment reflects the stated intent under paragraphs 5.10 and 5.17 of the New Decade New Approach agreement for each Commissioner established under the Bill to exercise his or her functions in a way that is reasonable, proportionate, practical and conducive to mutual respect.
Amendment 32, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
“(6) The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly must annually assess and report on the costs arising from the role of the Commissioner in terms of—
(a) the operation of the Commissioner’s Office,
(b) the engagement and compliance of public authorities with the Commissioner, and
(c) any other costs.”
Amendment 9, page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would remove the requirement that best practice Irish language standards produced by the Irish Language Commissioner be subject to the approval of the First and deputy First Ministers.
Amendment 10, page 5, line 31, leave out “approved under subsection (2)” and insert “prepared under subsection (1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 24, page 5, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) ensure requirements placed on public authorities are reasonable, proportionate and practical.”
This amendment reflects the stated intent under paragraphs 5.10 and 5.17 of the New Decade New Approach agreement for each Commissioner established under the Bill to exercise his or her functions in a way that is reasonable, proportionate, practical and conducive to mutual respect.
Amendment 11, page 6, line 20, leave out “have due regard to” and insert “comply with”.
This amendment would amend the duty on public authorities to one of compliance with best practice Irish language standards from one of due regard.
Amendment 16, page 7, line 27, after “means” insert
“the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and”.
This amendment would include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the definition of public authority within the bill.
Amendment 12, page 7, line 29, after “(N.I.))” insert
“and any public authority under the Cabinet Office that provides public services in Northern Ireland”.
This amendment would ensure key UK wide services are included.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 29, in clause 3, page 8, line 27, leave out “arts and literature” and insert “heritage and culture”.
This amendment would revise and expand the functions of the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions provided in the Bill. The Commissioner would be responsible for developing the language, culture and heritage associated with these traditions, reflecting the body of established work and existing human rights law.
Amendment 30, page 9, line 6, leave out from “subsection (3)” to end of line 6 and insert
“so far as affecting Ulster Scots”.
This amendment restores the language used to address this commitment in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. The new wording is taken from the New Decade, New Approach agreement.
Amendment 25, page 9, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must exercise its functions under this Part in a manner that is reasonable, proportionate and practical, and which serves to promote mutual respect, good relations, understanding and reconciliation.”
This amendment reflects the stated intent under paragraphs 5.10 and 5.17 of the New Decade New Approach agreement for each Commissioner established under the Bill to exercise his or her functions in a way that is reasonable, proportionate, practical and conducive to mutual respect.
Amendment 26, page 9, line 25 at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must comply with any directions (of a general or specific nature) given by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly as to the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”
This amendment is intended to ensure the bodies established by the provisions of the Bill remain accountable to guidance issued by the First and deputy First Ministers acting jointly in respect of the exercise of their functions.
Amendment 1, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
“78SA Duty to have regard to published advice or guidance
(1) A public authority must, in providing services to the public or a section of the public in Northern Ireland, have due regard to any advice or guidance published pursuant to section 78S(2).
(2) A public authority must prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with the duty in subsection (1).
(3) A public authority—
(a) may revise and re-publish the plan if the authority considers it necessary or desirable to do so;
(b) must revise and re-publish the plan if relevant revised advice or guidance is published in accordance with section 78S(2).
(4) In preparing or revising a plan under this section, a public authority must consult the Commissioner.”
This amendment would place public authorities under a duty to have regard to advice, support and guidance issued by the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions. It would also require authorities to prepare and publish a plan demonstrating how they will adhere to the duty. This mirrors the duty to have regard provision that applies to the Irish Language Commissioner giving expression to the need for public authorities to give expression to the parity of esteem principle in relation to both Commissioners.
Amendment 33, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
“(9) The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly must annually assess and report on the costs arising from the role of the Commissioner in terms of—
(a) the operation of the Commissioner's Office
(b) the engagement and compliance of public authorities with the Commissioner
(c) any other costs.”
Amendment 2, page 9, line 34, leave out “facilitation”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 3, page 10, line 17, leave out “facilitation”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 4, page 10, line 20, leave out “facilitation”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, page 10, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
“(6) In this section “published guidance” means guidance published under section 78S(2)(b).”
This amendment would extend the grounds on which an individual can submit a complaint to the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Traditions to cover the conduct of public authorities in relation to all the guidance issued by the Ulster Scots Ulster British Commissioner, as is already the case with respect to all the guidance issued by the Irish Language Commissioner. It would thus help restore/achieve the parity of esteem.
Amendment 17, page 10, line 29, after “means” insert
“the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and”.
This amendment would include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the definition of public authority within the bill.
Clause 3 stand part.
Clause 4 stand part.
Clause 5 stand part.
Amendment 13, in clause 6, page 12, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) In the case of the absence of compliance with regard to identity and language functions by a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department, the Secretary of State must—
(a) act to appoint an Irish Language Commissioner within 30 days, in the case of the First Minister and deputy First Minister not acting jointly to appoint an Irish Language Commissioner as laid out in section 78J of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (as inserted by section 2 of this Act) within 30 days of the legislation coming into force or a vacancy arising;
(b) act within 30 days to approve the best practice standards submitted by the Irish Language Commissioner with or without modifications, in the case of the First Minister and deputy First Minister not approving best practice standards submitted under section 78M of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (as inserted by section 2 of this Act) within 30 days.”
These step-in powers for the Secretary of State include a timescale whereby a decision by him or her must be taken. With this amendment the Secretary of State must act within 30 days of progress being restrained.
Amendment 14, page 12, line 16, at end insert—
“(c) a function conferred by or under section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
This amendment seeks to permit the Secretary of State to intervene, reflecting the commitment given in New Decade New Approach. The Irish language strategy is not included under these functions and this amendment would amend the legislation to include the Irish language strategy as a function.
Clause 6 stand part.
Clause 7 stand part.
Amendment 22, in clause 8, page 13, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Government to establish the Castlereagh Foundation.
Amendment 18, page 13, line 21, at end insert–
“(2A) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the establishment or funding of any body or organisation under subsection (1).
(2B) A report published under subsection (2A) must include details of the relevant body or organisation’s—
(a) membership or proposed membership;
(b) funding structure or proposed funding structure;
(c) functions, responsibilities and objectives;
(d) compliance with Article 1(v) of the British-Irish Agreement 1998; and,
(e) compliance with the National and Cultural Identity Principles.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the structure and functioning of the proposed Castlereagh Foundation.
Clause 8 stand part.
Amendment 20, in clause 9, page 14, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Part 1 comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint subject to subsection (3).”
This amendment would remove the concurrent powers and powers of direction granted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under Part 2 from the Bill.
Amendment 34, page 14, line 31, at end insert—
“(2A) Before Part 1 comes into force the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report assessing—
(a) the annual costs to the public purse of–
(i) the establishment and operation of each of the three bodies constituted under this Bill, and
(ii) the relevant public authorities engaging and having regard to the three offices, and
(b) how this spending allocation gives effect to the principle of the parity of esteem between the unionist and nationalist communities.”
The explanatory notes for this Bill only provide costings for the running costs of the three new offices. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to assess the costs to the public purse both from running the three new offices and for meeting the cost of public authorities engaging with and having regard to the three new offices.
Amendment 35, page 14, line 33, at end insert—
“(4) After the Bill comes into effect, the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly must—
(a) publish an annual report comparing the total public monies spent in relation to—
(i) the Irish Language Commissioner under Section 2(6), and
(ii) the Ulster Scots Ulster British Commissioner under Section 3(5), and
(b) assess the costs associated with running the Office of Identity and Expression,
to ensure that the parity of esteem is respected in the spending between the unionist and nationalist communities.”
This amendment requires Ministers to annually compare the total public monies spent in relation to the Irish Language Commissioner and the Ulster Scots Ulster British Commissioner to ensure that parity of esteem is respected in the spending between the unionist and nationalist communities. It also requires them to assess the costs associated with the Office of Identity and Expression on the same basis.
Clause 9 stand part.
Clause 10 stand part.
Clause 11 stand part.
Government amendment 19.
Clause 12 stand part.
New clause 1—Duty in relation to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages—
“A public authority must, in carrying out functions relating to Northern Ireland, act compatibly with its obligations under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.”
This new clause would oblige public authorities to comply with obligations accepted by the United Kingdom under the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Go raibh maith agat, Dame Eleanor. I rise to discuss amendment 6, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for North Down (Stephen Farry), as well as to speak about some of the other amendments we have tabled, including amendment 13, which we might seek your permission to press to a vote later. For the convenience of the Committee, I will comment on amendments tabled by others as well.
Amendments 6 and 7 to clause 1 clarify the issues with the clause and seek to move provisions on to a more rights-based footing. The amendments bring the Bill into line with international human rights standards and the drafted legislation worked on between the parties prior to New Decade, New Approach. The phrase in the Bill as drafted, without amendment, refers to the “sensitivities” of others, but unfortunately in Northern Ireland we know that there are people of various political hues who might be hostile to the cultural expression of others. The amendments seek to place these measures on a rights-based footing, because in the same way as there is no right not to be offended, there is not really a right for anyone not to have other people speak around them a language that they do not support.
Elsewhere in clause 1, the Social Democratic and Labour party also supports the Opposition’s amendment 15, which seeks to include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the definition of a public body. We have concerns about amendments 28 and 31, which locate further powers and duties with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which I shall expand on later. We also do not support amendment 21, which would seek to remove the proposed Castlereagh Foundation from the architecture that we are creating through the Bill and would be a further departure from New Decade, New Approach.
On clause 2, I want to speak in favour of amendments 8 to 12, which we do not seek to push to a Division. Amendments 8 and 11 focus on amending the duty on public authorities to one of compliance with best practice standards rather than just due regard. We think that the duty should flow from the St Andrew’s agreement on language rights based on the experience of Wales, and the amendments would ensure that that was the case.
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Welcome to the first sitting of Westminster Hall under these very unusual and temporary arrangements. I hardly need remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. As I look around, the Room is a picture of perfection—nobody is less than 2 metres away from anyone else. I ask hon. Members to sanitise microphones before using them and to respect the one-way system for moving around the Room. You will find in front of you a diagram that explains by colours where we are—it is self-explanatory.
Only Members who are sitting on the horseshoe may speak. That is because of microphones and so on, but it also helps us to keep the numbers in the Room manageable. Members may speak only if they are on the call lists. That applies even if debates are undersubscribed, although this debate is not. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for the wind-ups, because those in the latter stages of the call list, who will use the seats in the Public Gallery, need to move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. At the moment, you are all perfectly spaced and able to speak from where you are.
I remind hon. Members that there is less of an expectation that they stay for the following two speeches once they have already spoken. That does not mean that they can abuse the system by popping in and out again, which will be frowned upon, but obviously, we have to have that rule if we want to move people around in an oversubscribed debate so that some can leave and others can come in. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech, but they should be aware that doing so may prevent the Members in the Public Gallery from moving to the horseshoe. Does anyone have any reasonable questions about procedure before we properly begin?
Yes, please—it is a one-way anticlockwise system. I call Catherine McKinnell.
I thank those hon. Members who have led on the issue for many months and set out quite a lot of achievable solutions. It is very clear that the pandemic has affected absolutely everyone in society, but new parents are experiencing particularly acute and harsh point-in-time impacts, because of the disruption to their plans and to services that they would have enjoyed, and because of lost opportunities to bond with family and people in the wider community, interruption to their childcare plans, and the financial hardship that many will experience.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and others outlined some of the feeling about the provision and communication of protections for pregnant women in the workplace and on furlough. I certainly endorse the recommendations of the Committee and, indeed, those of Maternity Action. Unfortunately, the negative financial impacts will have extended to self-employed women, many of whom have constructed their career in that way precisely for a better balance of home and work life. Of course, no account was made of lost earnings due to maternity leave in the qualifying period, and that has left a massive hole in the replacement income for many women, and has exacerbated the gender pay gap that already exists in the relevant part of the economy.
The threat of redundancy is, as others have said, an acute issue, and Members will know that working mothers are already deeply exposed to redundancy or job downgrading. The coming economic challenges, alongside the catastrophic effects on childcare, will sharpen the risk. The advocacy group Pregnant Then Screwed, which has been relentless on the issue, reports 11% of pregnant women being made redundant, or expecting to be made redundant, in the period in question. That is more than 20 times the incidence in the general population. More than half of those women believe that their pregnancy was a factor in the decision. The proportion made or expecting to be made redundant rises to 15% for working mothers, and 46% of those cited issues with childcare provision as a factor. That was already a marginal economic activity for providers and a huge cost for families, if they were lucky enough to be able to find a suitable provider. In that context, the period in which women can bring forward employment tribunal claims should be extended.
As Members have said, the most negative impacts may have been felt in the restrictions on attendance by partners at antenatal sessions and deliveries, and in the immediate postpartum period. There is no doubt about the pressures and challenges that healthcare providers are trying to balance, but the regulations are deeply upsetting for many women at an acutely vulnerable time. The Royal College of Midwives has said:
“Having a trusted birth partner present throughout labour and birth is known to make a significant difference to the safety and well-being of women.”
When the coronavirus is heightening anxiety,
“that reassurance is more important than ever.”
In particular, the changes in rules and their variation across trusts are creating even more anxiety. What women can expect when they are expecting can change more than once during a pregnancy. I appreciate that that is because of the ups and downs of pandemic advice in the community, but I believe such a crucial function should be protected as we are protecting the ability of small children to go to school. Restrictions in this regard should be among the very last to be made.
Women who have just had babies need support in many ways, to rest, to establish breastfeeding, in some cases to recover from major abdominal surgery, and of course just to figure out how to look after a newborn baby. Some women need to stay in hospital for care and specific support, and the rules about partners and visitors are forcing some to choose between hospital care and family care. Many will choose the latter and be discharged too soon, which will create long-term impacts. Midwives, health visitors and volunteer groups are, as other Members have outlined, next to angels in that period in the journey as a parent, with the monitoring, advice and reassurance they provide. It is tragic that that support will not have been available for many.
There will be long-term impacts from this year, for many people, and the isolation of new parents will be a big part of that. It will take imagination and resources to put in place the measures we can. We will not be able to do everything, because of the pandemic restrictions, but the Committee has outlined some measures. France, for example, has just doubled paternity leave allowance. We must make sure that we do the things we can within the restrictions.
After the next hon. Member, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes; but, with five minutes, I call Mr Tim Loughton.
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberWe go now to Belfast South and Claire Hanna.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We in the Social Democratic and Labour party have put on record our concerns about the concept of upending the trade environment for businesses, particularly while many are in the fight of their lives against covid, as well as our scepticism about the possibility of negotiating this deal in just seven months, given the social distancing and travel restrictions on us all.
We have another few objections to the content of this Bill. The first concerns democratic oversight and the Bill’s failure to uphold basic principles of scrutiny and oversight, including around delegated powers. When Brexit was fought for on the basis of powers for this Parliament, it seems bizarre that MPs would vote to hand those powers to the Government unchecked to allow them to negotiate and sign, with incomplete scrutiny, trade deals that could have a massive effect on many aspects of our lives. Trade is a reserved matter, and this has particular implications for those of us in devolved regions where the powers may very well cut across devolved matters.
Our second objection relates to the protection of the national health service. The Bill fails to provide cover for that, despite numerous invitations to the Government to do so. The Government may say that the national health service is not for sale, but many people feel that actions in the medium and recent past make that unlikely to be true. Many have pointed out that we had applause for the national health service just last Thursday, but on Monday of this week a Bill was introduced that will seriously hamper the ability to provide health and social care services. Leaked papers from last year make very clear—if they were not already—the US’s interests in a trade deal, namely further access to NHS contracts and data. If the Government want people to believe that that will be off limits, they need to legislate specifically for that.
We also have serious concerns about the environmental ramifications of the approach set out in the Bill, which we do not think is compatible with an acknowledgment of our obligations to address climate change and improve resilience. The Bill should be underpinned by binding high environmental standards and non-regression provisions, but it is not. If done badly, these trade deals risk a race to the bottom on environmental protections and standards, as well as labour protections and standards. The fact that the Government rebuffed attempts to introduce standards via the Agriculture Bill will convince many people that the Government are not serious about such protections.
That leads me on to farming. Farmers in Northern Ireland and, I would imagine, elsewhere were dismayed by the Government’s failure to accept reasonable amendments to the Agriculture Bill. That leaves farming and many other sectors facing an uncertain future. That is particularly true for farmers in Northern Ireland—I am sure it is the same in many other regions—who trade and market on the basis of exceptionally high standards. They now fear that they will face competition from products of low and, indeed, unknown standards.
I want to finish with some questions that I hope the Secretary of State will address in her wind-up. One is about the trade arrangements that we currently enjoy with other territories—I think there are 74. How many of those arrangements have been rolled over to date, given that we require them all to be so within a matter of months? Does she anticipate that any countries that have rolled over, or that have indicated a willingness to do so, will seek to renegotiate in the light of the tariff schedule that was published yesterday? Does she acknowledge that every differential between the UK and the EU tariff schedules adds to the list of goods at risk in the Northern Ireland protocol and offers incentives for smuggling? Does she believe that that is yet another unfortunate consequence that people in Northern Ireland have to deal with, despite having rejected Brexit at every turn?
Finally, the Secretary of State has pointed out in the past that Northern Ireland will have UK tariffs applied—and lower, if that is negotiated with partners—but if any future arrangements require changes to regulatory practices and areas that are covered by the Northern Ireland protocol, will those arrangements have a carve-out for Northern Ireland?
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberI want to echo the many important points that have been made about the enormity of the situation that we are dealing with and our gratitude to those fighting it on all our behalves. Certainly, the crisis has underlined what is important, which is our sense of what it is to be human and a neighbour, and not just GDP, profit or many of the things that we discuss more regularly to measure those things.
I want to focus on some of the particular issues relating to Northern Ireland, which has to manage the challenges and the opportunities of devolution and our constitutional settlement, taking into account the fact that we have two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. I am not sure that that principle of devolution was reflected in the Prime Minister’s statement last night. I understand that his comments were confusing to many in England, but they were certainly so to those in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which have each correctly been choosing their own path through this crisis relating to their own circumstances. I am concerned that the devolved institutions were told about that messaging change last night rather than actively consulted on it, and I hope that the Government will look at how they can use existing structures to ensure that there is proper consultation with the devolved regions before making such a dramatic change.
Members presumably know about the meandering 310 mile border on the island of Ireland and the tens of thousands of people who cross it every day in the course of their life and work. I know that some Members, and certainly the Government, would like to give the impression that the issue of Brexit is done and dusted, but, unfortunately, we are still living with the sword of Damocles hanging over us in the form of either a border in the Irish sea or the spectre of a border on the island of Ireland if the Ireland protocol is not honoured. I am afraid that we see very few signs of good faith in work towards implementation of that, which was scheduled to be in place by next month. I want to remind Members what an enormous breach of good faith it would be if we end up with a border because of a no-deal scenario due to the growing pressures of the pandemic on an already very ambitious negotiating timeframe. I know of no business that wants to choose between its EU market and its market in Britain, but I do know of many who fear that ideological Brexiters in the Cabinet will use the cover of the disruption to the economy from covid to mask the damage of Brexit on the economy, and I am afraid that that would be a fatal blow in Northern Ireland.
I should also say that if we were worried about managing goods and services on the island of Ireland, I am afraid that that will be nothing to the challenge of managing an invisible virus on the island of Ireland, and it will be tragic if we do not put in place data sharing protocols that will allow us to manage that flow of people on that porous border, because we must treat the island as one epidemiological unit, and, certainly, an unresolved frontier between the EU and the UK in eight months will be devastating to that aim.
Members have spoken about the phenomenal effort of communities and many small businesses in the past eight weeks. I am sure that it is not lost on Members, even those on the Government Benches, that it was not the free market that was the saviour and protector of people during this pandemic. I hope that everyone has learned the lessons of the financial crash and know that austerity cannot be the answer as we recover from this. The past eight weeks have also laid out clearly how many people have been living precariously, how threadbare public services have been allowed to become and many of the systemic failures in our welfare system. I know that other Members will be receiving correspondence about those issues.
I just want to finish by saying how—
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her four minutes.