European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Mr Speaker]

Given the length of the Second Reading call list, Members will understand that there will be no time left before 2.30 pm to debate the Bill in Committee. Nevertheless, I should inform Members that under the order of the House of today, notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted until 10.30 am. To maintain social distancing, Members are asked not to bring amendments to the Table in the Chamber but to send them by email to the Public Bill Office. The Public Bill Office will aim to circulate early this afternoon a notice paper of the amendments received by 10.30 am.

I inform the House that I have not selected any of the reasoned amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification. I am just wondering how on earth the Prime Minister can talk about taking back control of waters when Scottish fishermen are going to have less access and less fish to catch as a consequence of his con deal.

[Mr Speaker]

May I just say, first of all, that that is not a point of order? We are very limited on time. Can we please try to keep to a tight agenda to allow everybody the time to contribute?

[The Prime Minister]

Although that was not a valid point of order, I must none the less correct the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, under this deal we have taken back control of our borders. Indeed, Scottish fishermen from the get-go will have access to bigger quotas of all the relevant stocks. From the end of the transition period, as he knows full well—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that this is an important day and it is important that we all get on the record. It is also important that I get to the leader of the SNP. What I would not like to do is run out of time because of the number of times he stands for interventions. If the Prime Minister gives way, he will give way straight away, but please let us try to get the debate under way. At least give yourself time to hear what the Prime Minister has to say before you disagree.

[The Prime Minister]

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I feel I must correct him. Not only will we take back control of our waters, we will increase Scottish fishermen’s share of all the relevant stocks: cod, for instance, going up by 47% to 57%; North sea haddock going up by 70% to 84%. That is just next year, Mr Speaker. In five and a half years’ time, we take control of the entire spectacular marine wealth of Scotland. It is only the Scottish nationalist party that would, with spectacular hypocrisy, hand back control of the waters of this country to the UK.

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you point out to the Prime Minister that the name of my party is the Scottish National party?

[Mr Speaker]

In fairness, I have pointed that out in the past. It is the Scottish National party.

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, I wish the right hon. Gentleman to know that I am using the word “nationalist” with a small “n”. I do not think he would disagree with that, which is semantically justifiable under the circumstances. Yet in spite of that nomenclature, they would hand back control of Scotland’s waters and go back into the common fisheries policy. What the Bill does is take back control—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I feel that I have to point out to the House the historic principle in Scotland, as established by law, is that it is the people of Scotland who are sovereign, and it is the people of Scotland who will determine to take them back into the European Union with independence.

[Mr Speaker]

As the leader of the SNP knows, that is not a point of order. I am desperate to hear what he has to say in his contribution. Rather than use it up now, why does he not save it so that others can get in? Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Of course, it was the people of Scotland who took the sovereign decision, quite rightly, to remain in the UK—a once-in-a-generation decision. I think it highly unlikely that the people of Scotland will take a decision to cast away their new-found freedoms and new-found opportunities, not least over the marine wealth of Scotland.

We will be able to design our own standards and regulations, and the laws that the House of Commons passes will be interpreted—I know that this is a keen interest of hon. and right hon. Members—solely by British judges sitting in British courts. We will have the opportunity to devise new ways to spur and encourage flourishing sectors in which this country leads the world, from green energy and life sciences to synthetic biology.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

Some of us had different views on Brexit, but those debates are now for the history books. Everyone in the House and the country should recognise the benefits of an agreement that goes beyond free trade, from science to energy to security. However, will the Prime Minister capitalise on the excellent news that we have had today on the vaccine by pursuing an industrial strategy that puts science and technology at its heart, so that we can grasp the opportunities that come as the world bounces back from covid during the year ahead?

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just help people and say that those who are high up on the speaking list will understandably get put down if they make continuous interventions? I want to get as many people in as possible, so please—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Including the Prime Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you, Sir Bernard. Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I remember well working with him on his industrial strategy and his ideas for championing green technology and biosciences, and I can tell him that those ideas remain at the heart of this Government’s agenda. We will certainly be using our new-found legislative freedom to drive progress in those sciences and those investments across the whole UK. We will be free of EU state aid rules; we will be able to decide where and how we level up across our country, with new jobs and new hope, including free ports and new green industrial zones of a kind I am sure my right hon. Friend would approve of.

I must make an important point. If, in using our new freedoms, either Britain or the EU believes it is somehow being unfairly undercut, then, subject to independent third-party arbitration, and provided the measures are proportionate, either of us can decide, as sovereign equals, to protect our consumers, but this treaty explicitly envisages that any such action should be infrequent.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to make some progress because many Members want to speak. I have always said that Brexit is not an end but a beginning, and the responsibility now rests with all of us to make the best use of the powers that we have regained and the tools that we have taken back into our hands. We are going to begin by fulfilling our manifesto promise to maintain the highest standards of labour and environmental regulation, because no caricature can be more inaccurate than the idea of some bargain-basement Dickensian Britain, as if enlightened EU regulation has been our only salvation from Dickensian squalor. Our national standards have always been among the very best in the world, and this House can be trusted to use its new freedom to keep them that way without any outside invigilation.

We are going to open a new chapter in our national story, striking free trade deals around the world, adding to the agreements with 63 countries we have already achieved and reasserting global Britain as a liberal, outward-looking force for good. Detaching ourselves from the EU is only a prelude to the greater task of establishing our new role, and this country is contributing more than any other to vaccinate people across the world against covid, leading the way in preventing future pandemics. We will continue to campaign for 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for what he is doing on that. We will continue to lead the drive towards global net zero as we host COP26 in Glasgow next year.

I hope and believe—and I think, actually, the tone this morning has given me encouragement in this belief; the mood in the House this morning seems on the whole to be positive—[Interruption.] In spite of the as-usual synthetic and confected indignation that we hear from some on the Benches opposite, I hope and believe that this agreement will also serve to end some of the rancour and recrimination that we have had in recent years and allow us to come together as a country to leave old arguments—old, desiccated, tired, super-masticated arguments—behind, move on and build a new and great future for our country, because those of us who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU never sought a rupture with our closest neighbours. We never wanted to sever ourselves from our fellow democracies, beneath whose soil lie British war graves in tranquil cemeteries, often tended by local schoolchildren, testament to our shared struggle for freedom and everything we cherish in common. What we wanted was not a rupture but a resolution—a resolution of the old, tired, vexed question of Britain’s political relations with Europe, which has bedevilled our post-war history. First we stood aloof, then we became a half-hearted, sometimes obstructive member of the EU. Now, with this Bill, we are going to become a friendly neighbour—the best friend and ally the EU could have, working hand in glove whenever our values and interests coincide, while fulfilling the sovereign wish of the British people to live under their own laws, made by their own elected Parliament. That is the historic resolution delivered by this Bill. I commend it to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, the House will want to be aware that I have accepted a request from the Government for an additional statement from the Secretary of State for Education on education return in January. This will be the second statement after the covid-19 update and before the business statement. The ballot is already open in Members’ Hub.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is a zero tariff, zero quota deal. He says that he would have negotiated a different and better deal. Perhaps he can tell us whether he would have remained within the customs union and within the single market. Perhaps he will also say a little bit about how he proposes to renegotiate the deal, build on it and take the UK back into the EU, because that remains his agenda.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us get on with the debate.

[Keir Starmer]

Typical deflection. The Prime Minister, at a press conference, told the British public that there will be

“no non-tariff barriers to trade”.

The answer he gave just now is not an answer to that point. It is not true, and the Prime Minister knows what he said was not true. He simply will not stand up and acknowledge it today. That speaks volumes about the sort of Prime Minister we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister says vote against it—vote for no deal. As my wife says to our children, “If you haven’t got anything sensible to say, it’s probably better to say nothing.”

The situation sets out the fundamental dilemma that has always been at the heart of the negotiations. If we stick to the level playing field, there are no tariffs and quotas, but if we do not, British businesses, British workers and British consumers will bear the cost. The Prime Minister has not escaped that dilemma; he has negotiated a treaty that bakes it in. This poses the central question for future Governments and Parliaments: do we build up from this agreement to ensure that the UK has high standards and that our businesses are able to trade as freely as possible in the EU market with minimal disruption; or do we choose to lower standards and slash protections, and in that way put up more barriers for our businesses to trade with our nearest and most important partners?

For Labour, this is clear: we believe in high standards. We see this treaty as a basis to build from, and we want to retain a close economic relationship with the EU that protects jobs and rights, because that is where our national interest lies today and tomorrow. However, I fear that the Prime Minister will take the other route, because he has used up so much time and negotiating capital in doing so. He has put the right to step away from common standards at the heart of the negotiation, so I assume that he wants to make use of that right as soon as possible. If he does, he has to be honest with the British people about the costs and consequences of that choice for businesses, jobs and our economy. If he does not want to exercise that right, he has to explain why he wasted so much time and sacrificed so many priorities for a right that he is not going to exercise.

After four and a half years of debate and division, we finally have a trade deal with the EU. It is imperfect, it is thin and it is the consequence of the Prime Minister’s political choices, but we have only one day before the end of the transition period, and it is the only deal that we have. It is a basis to build on in the years to come. Ultimately, voting to implement the treaty is the only way to ensure that we avoid no deal, so we will vote for the Bill today.

But I do hope that this will be a moment when our country can come together and look to a better future. The UK has left the EU. The leave/remain argument is over—whichever side we were on, the divisions are over. We now have an opportunity to forge a new future: one outside the EU, but working closely with our great partners, friends and allies. We will always be European. We will always have shared values, experiences and history, and we can now also have a shared future. Today’s vote provides the basis for that.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now introducing a four-minute limit for Back Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) wants to remain up there in the Gallery, I am certainly not going to take interventions from there. I think it is better if he remains quiet.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I wish you, Mr Speaker, all staff and Members a good new year when it comes tomorrow evening. May I quickly reflect on the sadness of the events that took place on 2 January 1971 in Glasgow, when 66 predominantly young people lost their lives in the Ibrox disaster, including five from one village in Fife, Markinch? I am sure that the whole House will want to remember those who sadly lost their lives at that moment.

When this bad Brexit deal was published, one of the very first public images that was released showed the Prime Minister raising his arms aloft in celebration. When I saw that image, my thoughts immediately turned to the European nationals who have made their home here. They are certainly not celebrating. During the four years and more of this Brexit mess, the main emotion they have felt is worry: worry about staying here, about their jobs and for their families. In Scotland, these citizens are our friends. They are our family. They are our neighbours. Before this Tory Government force through a deal that rips us out of the European Union, the single market and the customs union, let us get this message out to Scotland’s 234,000 EU citizens: Scotland is your home, you are welcome.

The value we place on European citizenship—that real sense of belonging to the European Union—cuts to the very core of this debate. Scotland is at heart a European nation. It always has been. Forcing our nation out of the EU means losing a precious part of who we are. Scotland did not become European when the United Kingdom joined the EEC 40 years ago. Our relationship with Europe predates the United Kingdom by some way. An independent Scotland has enjoyed centuries of engagement with European nations. Scottish merchants travelled, traded and settled on the continent. We shared citizenship with France and we appealed our nationhood to Rome. Scotland was European before it was British. That European history and heritage goes back to our nation’s place in the Hanseatic League in the 15th century. Scotland was central to a trading alliance that forged connections and commerce with the north Atlantic, the Netherlands, Germany Scandinavia and the Baltic. We were a European trading nation right up until many of our privileges were ended by the Treaty of Union. It was three centuries ago, and here we go again: with Westminster seeking to end our access to those European relationships by removing us from today’s union of nations across our continent; Westminster ending free movement of people and the access to labour that is so crucial to our economic success; and Westminster seeking to end our automatic right to live, work and get an education in 27 member states of the EU—rights that our generation had, which will be taken away from our children and grandchildren. And for what?

It was way back on 11 July 2016 that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, first spoke the infamous words, “Brexit means Brexit.” We all know what followed the use of that foolish phrase: nearly four years of constant chaos and confusion. Today, at least we have some clarity. We now finally know what Brexit means. We have it in black and white. It means the disaster of a deal. It means broken promises. It means economic vandalism. It means an isolated United Kingdom in the middle of a global pandemic. It means the worst of all worlds for Scotland.

This morning’s proceedings are so critical precisely because of that clarity, because with that clarity comes a choice, and it is a fundamental choice for Scotland. It is a choice between a future defined by this disaster of a deal or the future that the SNP is offering to the Scottish people: an independent nation at the heart of the European Union. Today, the contrast between the two futures is clearer than ever, and that choice will not go away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful for this—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sir Iain, you are very early on the call list, and I am sure that you do not want to go down the list.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We will accept your guidance on these things, although I was looking forward to the debate that we were having.

Now that we see the scale of the bad Brexit deal, the question before the Scottish people is clear: which Union does Scotland wish to be part of? Which future will we choose: this broken Brexit Britain or the European Union? If this whole Brexit saga was truly about sovereignty, the Scottish people cannot and will not be denied our sovereign right to that self-determination. No democrat and nobody in this House should stand in the way of that—even boris with a small b. The Tory denial of democracy is a position that cannot and will not hold. Scotland will have the right to choose its own future.

Now that the detail of this deal is finally in front of us, people hope that Brexit fictions are swiftly replaced with Brexit facts. Judging by the Prime Minister’s performance today, his Government are still drowning in delusion or simply just putting on an act, but for those of us who have lived in the real world these past four years, it is long past time that reality finally bursts the Brexit bubble. In recent days we have heard wild celebrations and claims from leading Brexit cheerleaders that this is the largest free trade deal in history. I am sorry to inform them that it is not. The biggest and best free trading bloc in the world is the one that this Tory Government are dragging Scotland out of. It is made up of 27 nations and 500 million citizens. It is called the European Union.

In the middle of a pandemic and economic recession, Scotland has been removed from a market worth £16 billion in exports to Scottish companies and a market which, by population, is seven times the size of the United Kingdom. Leaving the European single market and customs union would be damaging at any time, but in the middle of the current crisis, Prime Minister, it is unforgivable. It is an act of economic vandalism, pure and simple.

As usual with the Tories, it is people who will pay the price. Initial Scottish Government modelling estimates that the deal could cut Scotland’s GDP by around 6.1%—that is £9 billion in 2016 cash terms by 2030. That will leave people in Scotland—the same people who have always opposed Brexit—£1,600 poorer. That is the cost of the Prime Minister’s Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. May I reciprocate and say that I love England and its people? I want us to maximise our opportunity, but this deal limits our opportunity. I want to unleash Scotland’s potential. That potential will be unleashed with an independent Scotland at the heart of Europe.

The Prime Minister’s broken promise on Erasmus has been such a totemic issue in the last few days. He will remember standing in this House and promising us that we will stay in the Erasmus programme. That betrayal denies our young people the opportunities that European citizenship has given us. It denies them the European freedoms that we cherish—living, working and studying abroad. Around 200,000 people have taken part in Erasmus, including around 15,000 UK university students each year. It is also important to say that Erasmus is not solely about university students but about supporting youth workers, adult education, sport, culture and vocational training. That is why the Scottish Government are so committed to exploring every opportunity to keep Erasmus in place for our people.

Even the very name Erasmus signals our long-established European links. That long tradition of connection comes right into the modern day with our own Winnie Ewing, Madame Écosse herself. Winnie, a former mother of the European Parliament, was Chair of the EU Education Committee that brought in the Erasmus scheme. [Interruption.] People at home will be watching this, and we have the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster laughing about the success of the Erasmus scheme. Utterly, utterly, utterly pathetic—utterly pathetic.

All that history between Europe and Scotland, all those links and all these opportunities are now at stake. Scotland’s story is European, and that story does not end today. Our past is European, and our future must be European. As a nation, that is a choice that we made in 2016, and I am confident that it is a choice we make now. We cannot support this legislation because it does not respect that choice and it does not provide for our future. Scotland’s course is now set, and it is a very different course from the decisions being taken in the Westminster Parliament. We know that the only way to regain the huge benefits of EU membership is to become an independent state at the heart of Europe once more. That is the decision that the Scottish people will make. We begin that journey today. There is now an empty seat at the top table in Europe. It will not be empty for long.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Of course, surveys of opinion are always fascinating, but the figures that I am interested in are those which show that the UK Government are spending more per capita in Scotland than they are in other parts of the United Kingdom and that thousands of Scots are now being vaccinated thanks to the efforts of the UK Government. If we look at a map of the world to see which countries are having their citizens vaccinated, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England are ahead of the pack: stronger together.

[Mr Speaker]

Can we have the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

You most certainly can, Mr Speaker, and thank you.

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s answer, and yes, we are grateful for the vaccine, but I did not hear a response as to why he thinks that Scottish independence has now become the settled will of the Scottish people. This is not like him. He is usually quick to give his views about certain things, so why does he think that Scottish independence has sustained majority support, reaching a height of 58%, and is now the settled will of the Scottish people? Why is that the case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Mr Speaker]

We will try to come back to you, Clive.

[Andrew Gwynne [V]]

The National Audit Office’s investigation into Government procurement during the pandemic reflects the chaotic culture of outsourcing across Government. Contracts have been awarded after work has begun without competition and without any meaningful due diligence checks. How can the public have any trust in the Government’s response if the Government are not transparent with them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I am not sure what the implications of extending FOI would be in terms of commercial confidentiality, but I am happy to look into that for the hon. Lady. The Green Paper is there to reassure and to deal with some of the problems we have had during the pandemic, where we have either had a full-fat tender that takes far too long in an emergency situation, or a situation of direct award. I am happy to look into her suggestion.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head back to Norwich South and hope Alan Partridge does not get in the way of me hearing Clive Lewis.

[Clive Lewis [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I can be heard at last. Given that this Government have doled out £10.5 billion of our money without any competition, according to the National Audit Office, and frittered hundreds of millions on consultants and individuals whose main qualification seems to be that they are friends with members of this Government, does the Minister agree that in any other part of the world it would be called corruption, plain and simple?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)]

That is not the real reason at all. This is a very clear process that is rightly outwith the control of Ministers. There is an independent committee that looks at medallic recognition. They have looked at this again and come to the decision that they have. It would be worthwhile funnelling energies into how we look after this special cohort of people. This decision does not diminish their service in any way and, again, I am happy to meet both the hon. Lady and the chairmen of the campaign groups to make sure that we are doing all we can to look after those who have served.

[Mr Speaker]

Matt Vickers—not here. Oh dear, it is not a good day. Dr Rupa Huq—not here. It is definitely not a good day.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

Yesterday, Emma McClarkin, the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, told the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the frustration in her industry at not being privy to data or being involved in the drafting of guidance related to restrictions on hospitality. Seventy million pints were lost in the first lockdown. As brewers and publicans try to understand changing and complex data, will my right hon. Friend consider ways to involve the industry at as early a stage as possible and share as much data as possible so that clear guidance can be issued and the industry can plan ahead?

[Michael Gove]

May I, first, join you, Mr Speaker, in lamenting the absence of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq)? I hope that she is well and—[Interruption.] Anyway, we are all rooting for her.

[Mr Speaker]

Can we root for Matt Vickers as well?

[Michael Gove]

Well, I do actually. Matt is a great guy.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us be consistent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

We will continue to work with charities and civil society organisations, including those that represent Traveller and Roma communities, to ensure that voter ID is inclusive of all eligible voters, but we have no plans to scrap it. It is extremely to protect the integrity of our democracy and I fully support it.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to ensure the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

There is nothing disastrous about a United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that has mutual recognition and non-discrimination at its base, and that protects jobs in Scotland and people’s livelihoods, when 60% of Scotland’s trade is to the rest of the United Kingdom, worth over £50 billion and, as the Fraser of Allander Institute said only last week, providing 554,000 jobs.

[Mr Speaker]

As Mark Fletcher is not here, would the Minister like to give the answer to his substantive question? Then I can bring in shadow Minister Elmore.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

The Secretary of State for Scotland and I have frequent discussions with colleagues on the opportunities for COP26. That includes through the COP26 devolved Administration ministerial group, which brings the COP president, territorial Secretaries of State and devolved Administration Ministers together to ensure effective engagement and collaboration on COP26 and net zero.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid]

It is not for me to say what mixed messages the hon. Gentleman might see in the press or get from political parties. The UK Government and all assemblies across the whole UK work together on a co-ordinated basis to deliver not just what has been delivered up to now; there was the excellent news yesterday of the first vaccines being provided across the whole UK—not in one part of the UK or another but across the UK on the same day. Vaccines are an excellent example of that co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, and the UK Government are procuring vaccines on behalf of the UK as a whole. The prioritisation of the vaccines is a devolved matter—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must go on to the next question.

[Andrew Gwynne [V]]

The news of the vaccine’s approval is incredibly encouraging, but we now face the greatest organisational challenge perhaps since the second world war in distributing it to all who want and need it across the four UK nations. Given the botched roll-out of the flu vaccine in Scotland this year, how is the Minister going to ensure that Scottish Ministers are able to get the delivery of the covid vaccine right?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is wonderful to get to the end of that question. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have already invested £1 billion in getting this country ready for whatever the trading relationship is that we have on 1 January. We have invested £84 million into supporting customs agents across the UK and £200 million into supporting our ports, and they are doing an amazing job. I want to thank business for the incredible job it is doing to get ready. We have all got to get ready, because under any view there is going to be change from 1 January—there will be change in the way we do business and there will be more opportunities for this country around the world. I am delighted by what I take is the increasing signalling from Camden, because the message from Camden seems to be that, given the choice, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would vote for a deal rather than not. Did my Back-Bench colleagues get that impression? I think I did.

[Mr Speaker]

Hopefully, the final question will be a little shorter.

[Keir Starmer]

I take it that the answer is the Prime Minister has no idea whether the 50,000 customs agents will be in place on 1 January. He either does not know or he does not care. The Prime Minister said he had a deal. He did not. He said he would protect jobs. He did not. He said he would prepare for any outcome. He has not. Whatever may happen in the next few days, there is no doubting that his incompetence has held Britain back. Will he end this charade? In that uncertainty, will he get the deal that he promised and allow the country to move on?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his final baffling question. Last week, as I have said, he sphinx-like avoided any pronouncement on how this country was going to fight covid. He refused to support the measures that we have put in place. This week, he remains deafeningly silent on what he really thinks about a Brexit deal. While he puts a cold towel round his head, lost in thought, and tries to work out what his position is, we are getting on—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Bryant! I suggest the Whip has a word with him. We are not having that disgraceful behaviour.

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, you should summon him back—he seems to have vanished.

While the right hon. and learned Gentleman tries to work out what his position is, we are getting on with the work of government. As he says, it is a year since this people’s Government were elected and I am very proud that we are delivering on the people’s priorities: 6,000 of the 20,000 police officers; 14,800 of the 50,000 nurses already; and we are getting on with building every one of the 40 hospitals—it is about 48 hospitals—that we are going to deliver, along with the biggest programme of infrastructure investment in this country for a century. We are uniting and levelling up across the whole of the UK. Whether the outcome is Canada or Australia, we will be taking back control—we have already taken back control—of our money, our borders and our laws and we will seize all the opportunities that Brexit brings.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a big expert in this field and a great campaigner for transport. He is right about the massive impact that these programmes can have on jobs. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Bryant, I think we need to have this conversation later.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his campaign and for everything he does for his constituents. I can tell him that the bid process for the remaining eight hospitals, on top of the 40, is currently being designed. The Department of Health and Social Care is working with a variety of trusts, including the Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Trust, as that work continues.

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently say to the Prime Minister that next week will be the final Prime Minister’s questions before Christmas? Will he update the House on the leak inquiry? It would be helpful.

[The Prime Minister]

I will do my best.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you, Prime Minister.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members who participated in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for a few minutes.

Public Health

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Business of the House motion just agreed to by the House provides for motions 3 and 4 on today’s Order Paper to be debated together, but the question will be put separately on each motion at the end of the debate.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

I beg to move,

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1374), dated 30 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 November, be approved.

[Mr Speaker]

With this we shall take the following motion:

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Local Authority Enforcement Powers) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1375), dated 30 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 November, be approved.

[The Prime Minister]

I want to begin by telling the House that I was hugely encouraged by a visit I paid only yesterday to a vaccine plant in north Wales, where I saw for myself the vials of one of seven vaccines backed by the UK Government that could turn the tide of our struggle against covid, not just in this country but around the world. It is the protection provided by those vaccines that could get our economies moving again and allow us to reclaim our lives. That one plant in Wrexham could produce 300 million doses a year. Yesterday was the momentous day when it began to manufacture the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and it was a very moving moment. I talked to one of the brilliant young scientists there, and she described the extraordinary moment in her life of being part of an enterprise that she thought was truly going to offer humanity a route out of this suffering.

But we have to be realistic, and we have to accept that this vaccine is not here yet—no vaccine is here yet. While all the signs are promising, and almost every scientist I have talked to agrees that the breakthrough will surely come, we do not yet have one that has gained regulatory approval, and we cannot be completely sure when the moment will arrive. Until then, we cannot afford to relax, especially during the cold months of winter. The national measures that are shortly ending in England have eased the burden on the NHS and begun to reverse the advance of the virus. Today the R is back below one, and the Office for National Statistics survey shows signs that the infection rate is levelling off. Imperial College London has found that the number of people with covid has fallen by a third in England since 2 November.

But while the virus has been contained, it has not been eradicated. The latest ONS figures suggest that, out of every 85 people in England, one has coronavirus—far more than in the summer. Between 24 November and yesterday, 3,222 people across the UK lost their lives. Despite the immense progress of the last four weeks, our NHS remains under pressure, with hospitals in three regions—the south-west, the north-east and Yorkshire—all treating more covid patients now than at the peak of the first wave.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

No, I am coming to the end.

In total, our vaccines taskforce has secured more than 350 million doses—more than enough for everyone in the UK, the Crown dependencies and our overseas territories. All we need to do now is to hold our nerve until these vaccines are indeed in our grasp and indeed being injected into our arms. So I say to the House again, let us follow the guidance, let us roll out mass testing, let us work to deliver mass testing to the people of our country, let us work together to control the virus, and it is in that spirit that I commend these regulations to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I will be introducing a four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We have lots of speakers, and interventions from those who are down to speak early is not fair on those later in the list. I do understand that people who are not going to speak might need to intervene, but please let us think about each other.

[Keir Starmer]

I do agree, and I will come on to business support in a minute, but let me make the points in support of the case we make today.

The first point is this: we have been here before. On 10 June, the Prime Minister told us for the first time of his “whack-a-mole” strategy to control local infections. He told us it would be so effective that restrictions would only be for a few weeks or even a few days. That was far from reality; Leicester, for example, has just gone into the 154th day of restrictions, and by the time these regulations run out on 2 February, Leicester will have been in restrictions for 217 days. So that 10 June proposal did not work.

Roll on to 22 September: by now, infections are rising in 19 of the 20 areas then under restrictions. The Prime Minister announced new restrictions, including the rule of six. He told the House that the rule of six would

“curb the number of daily infections and reduce the reproduction rate to 1”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 798.]

That is what he said about the rule of six. So that did not work.

Two weeks later, on 12 October, with the precise opposite happening, the Prime Minister stands up again—for the third time—and introduces a three-tier system. Again, he said that this will work: he told the House that this would deliver the reduction in the R rate locally and regionally that we need. That did not work.

Nineteen days later—the fourth attempt now—in a hurried press conference on a Saturday, the Prime Minister announced that the tier system had failed, the virus was out of control and a national lockdown was now unavoidable.

The reason that this all matters is that there is a pattern here. The Prime Minister has a record of overpromising and underdelivering—short-term decisions that then bump into the harsh reality of the virus.

And then a new plan is conjured up a few weeks later—we are now on at least the fifth plan—with an even bigger promise that never materialises. After eight months, the Prime Minister should not be surprised that we and many of the British people are far less convinced this time around.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

This isn’t hindsight; I am telling you what is going to happen in two weeks. We know where we will be in two weeks. I have no doubt that there will be Government Members getting up and saying, “I thought my area was going to drop a tier just before Christmas.” That is not levelling—that is not being straight —because that is not going to happen. The new tier 1 may slow the rate of infection, but it will not prevent it from increasing, and tier 2 will struggle to hold the rate of infection. I hope that it does. I hope that I am wrong about this, and I think that all Members hope I am wrong about it, but tier 2—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Sambrook, it is continuous; we have had it for a few weeks now. Let us have a rest today.

[Keir Starmer]

Tier 2, crucially, depends on all other factors falling into place at exactly the same time. Although we all welcome the chance to see our loved ones at Christmas, I am not convinced that the Government have a sufficiently robust plan in place to prevent a spike in infections over the new year.

Of course this is difficult, and all systems would have risk, but that brings me to my third point. The risks we face in the decisions we make today are much higher because the Prime Minister has failed to fix the major problems with the now £22 billion track and trace system. Before the Prime Minister simply brushes the point aside again, let me remind him and the House that one of the major reasons that the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies advised a circuit break back in September was that track and trace was only having, in its words,

“a marginal impact on transmission”.

The great thing that was going to control the virus was not working then. If we are to control this virus, that really matters, and the Prime Minister having his head in the sand is not helping.

I know that the Prime Minister will say, “We’ve made advances in testing.” I recognise that, and I genuinely hope that it helps to tackle the virus, but let me quote the chief scientific officer, who said that

“testing is important, but of course it only matters if people isolate as well.”

That is blindingly obvious, but only a fraction of people who should be self-isolating are doing so, and the Prime Minister still has not addressed the reasons for this, including the huge gaps in support.

I know that there has been an announcement about the change for those notified by the app—a ridiculous omission in the first place—but it does not affect basic eligibility. Only one in eight workers qualify for the one-off £500 self-isolation support. Anyone not receiving that has to rely on statutory sick pay, which is the equivalent of £13 a day. That is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. People want to do the right thing, but for many there is a real fear that self-isolation means a huge loss of income that they simply cannot afford.

I think—I cannot prove this—that one of the main reasons that people are not passing on their contacts in the way we want is that they fear that those they pass on contacts for will not be able to afford to self-isolate. That is a real problem, and we cannot carry on ignoring it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing a very good job—it is his job to criticise the Government, and of course mistakes have been made—but a credible Opposition would have a plan of their own. What is the plan of the Labour party?

[Mr Speaker]

Sir Edward, that is your second bite of the cherry; there are other people as well—please.

[Keir Starmer]

I will come to that. I have accepted the case for restrictions—we were very clear about the need for a circuit break; we are clear that we need to go into restrictions—but we need a scheme that works, and I am explaining what the problem is with this scheme as we go through it.

Let me stay with track and trace. We know the claims the Prime Minister made about this at the beginning of the year and in the middle of the year. On tracing, which is crucial, the latest figures show 137,000 close contacts were missed by the system in one week. That is the highest weekly figure yet. This is not a figure that is going down; it is a figure that is going up. Over 500,000 close contacts have been missed by the system in the past month. That is not a statistic. That is half a million people who should have been self-isolating, but instead of self-isolating, they were with their friends, their families and their communities—half a million people in one month. That is a huge gap in the defences. I raise this issue every week, and the Prime Minister pretends it is getting better, but it never does. The Prime Minister has almost given up on it and put mass testing in its place, but again, that is blind optimism, not a plan. The idea that we can go through the next few months and successfully keep the virus under control when 500,000 people a month are wandering round when they should be self-isolating is not a sensible plan going forward.

My fourth point is the level of economic support that is provided. I have to say to the Prime Minister that it is hard to overstate the level of anger about this out there in our communities, many of which have been in restrictions for months on end. Yesterday, I did a virtual visit to local businesses in the north-west. Their emotions range from deep disappointment with the Government to raw anger that the Prime Minister and Chancellor just are not listening and do not get the impact of months of endless restrictions and the impact they have had on local communities. In March, the Chancellor vowed to do whatever it takes to support households and businesses, but there have now been six economic plans in nine months, and the level of support is still insufficient.

For these reasons, and let me spell them out—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister mumbles, but let me spell them out. First, the scheme does not fairly reflect the difficulties faced by businesses across the country. [Interruption.] I would be surprised if Government Members are not picking that up from their constituents and businesses. Let me start with the additional restrictions grant, which gives a flat figure to local areas, regardless of how long they have been in restrictions. That means Greater Manchester, which will be on its 40th day of severe restrictions when it enters tier 3 tomorrow, has received the same one-off support as the Isle of Wight, which went into restrictions far later and will emerge tomorrow into tier 1. That is unfair, and everybody knows it is unfair, and everybody in this House is being told by their constituents and by their businesses that it is unfair, so to pretend it is not just is not real, Prime Minister.

The second aspect—[Interruption.] The second aspect is that the grant does not take account of the number of businesses that need support in each area. Our great cities are being asked to spread the same sum far more thinly, and that is also clearly unfair. Our constituents know it is unfair, our businesses know it is unfair, and nothing has been done about it.

The third aspect—even allowing for today’s announcement on pubs, which is the definition of small beer—is that many businesses are now receiving less support than they did during the first wave. That is a huge strain for businesses, particularly those that have been so long under restrictions, and it makes no economic sense for the Government to allow them to go to the wall.

Putting the grant system to one side, the second major point about the economic support is that millions of self-employed people remain unfairly excluded from the Government support schemes. Again, nothing is being done about that. I have raised it so many times with the Prime Minster, as have others, and every time he chooses to talk about those who are within the scheme, ignoring those who are not in the scheme. It is eight months on, and we are facing another three or four months of this. That will mean 12 months without the support that is needed in those areas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

As we discussed at the Women and Equalities Committee a few weeks ago, this is something that the Government Equalities Office is very much alive to. I am working with equalities Ministers across various Departments to see how the interventions that we are making are not going to impact on those groups who are most vulnerable, and I will continue to update her on that work.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome Charlotte Nichols to her first outing at the Dispatch Box.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

There are over 600,000 people in work who are clinically extremely vulnerable. Current shielding guidance states that if they cannot work from home, they should not go to their usual place of work, but this does not entitle them to be furloughed. This means that many disabled people have had to ask their employer to put them on furlough in order to receive financial support. Where employers have refused to do so, an estimated 22% of disabled employees have had to choose between their lives and their livelihoods. Does the Minister think that this is fair?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

Since the publication of research on pregnancy and maternity discrimination, the Government have worked with ACAS and published updated guidance to ensure that women and employers understand their rights and obligations, consulted on measures to extend redundancy protections and committed to introduce these in an employment Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

We are heading to Basingstoke—but maybe not yet, as we do not have Maria Miller, so I call Kerry McCarthy.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

What recent assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of rail to refuge schemes in providing free travel to victims of domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her support for this scheme. She will know that over 63% of victims of domestic abuse accessing the support have stated that they would not have been able to access a journey at all if the scheme had not been in place. I am pleased that this vital scheme is extended until next March, and we keep all these schemes under review all the time.

[Mr Speaker]

We are now going back to Basingstoke, to Maria Miller with her supplementary question.

[Mrs Miller [V]]

In Germany, women who are pregnant or on maternity leave cannot be made redundant, to avoid any hidden discrimination. With one in four women who are pregnant during the pandemic experiencing discrimination here at home, is it not time for the UK to look carefully at adopting a similar approach to that taken in Germany?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have already told you, Mr Speaker, that as soon as we have any information about anybody leaking, we will bring it to the House. But I may say that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is really concentrating on trivia when what the people of this country want is to see his support, and the support of politicians across the House, for the tough measures that we are putting in to defeat coronavirus. He makes various attacks on, I think, my leadership and handling of the ministerial code. I would take them a lot more seriously, frankly, if the Leader of the Opposition could explain why the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is still a member of the Labour party. Does he support the right hon. Gentleman’s continued membership of the Labour party—yes or no? Why doesn’t he answer that question?

[Mr Speaker]

I think I will just answer that with the fact that it is actually Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.

[The Prime Minister]

It is a perfectly reasonable question, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I think I will make that decision, Prime Minister. Thankfully we have got the sound—we do not want to lose it. [Laughter.]

[Keir Starmer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The difference, of course, is that I am tackling the issues in my party and the Prime Minister is running away from the issues in his. I take it from his answer that he has no idea who is leaking from his Government, so I think we will put that as another one in the “no” column.

Moving on, to perhaps the most serious of the promises under the code: no misuse of taxpayers’ money. For weeks, I have raised concerns about the Government’s spraying taxpayers’ money on contracts that do not deliver. The problem is even worse than we thought. This week, a Cabinet Office response suggests that the Government purchased not 50 million unusable items of protective equipment but 180 million, and a new report this morning by the National Audit Office identifies a further set of orders totalling £240 million for face masks for the NHS that it cannot use. So will the Prime Minister come clean: how many hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on equipment that cannot be used?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is completely right about the need to support local business, particularly in the hospitality sector. He should know that, in addition to the £3,000 grant for businesses that are forced to close, we have another grant of £2,100 a month for businesses that are in the hospitality and accommodation sector. That is on top of the support that we have given via furlough, obviously, and via business rates and the cuts in VAT, which were intended to support the hospitality sector as well. I am keenly aware of how difficult it is for those pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels that will face a tough time in the tiers as we come out next week. We will do our level best to support them. I should say that we are also giving £1.1 billion to local councils to help them support businesses that are facing difficulties.

I just want to say one thing to the House. As we come out of the lockdown, the way forward is not just through the vaccine, which we hope we will be able to start rolling out in the course of the next few weeks and months, but through the prospect of mass community testing. I pay tribute to the people of Liverpool, who have really stepped up in huge numbers. Hundreds of thousands of people in Liverpool have been tested and that seems to have helped to drive the virus down in Liverpool. We want to see that type of collective action—stepping up to squeeze the disease—happening across the country. That, I think, is a real way forward that will enable the hospitality, accommodation and hotel sector to come out of the restrictive measures quicker than has been currently and recently possible. We have two new very important scientific developments—

[Mr Speaker]

I think you have managed to answer the question, Prime Minister. I am very pleased that the House of Commons has been able to help to deliver an improvement to the sound and vision from No. 10 today, but we would like our kit back this afternoon, Prime Minister! [Laughter.]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Covid-19: Winter Plan

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Prime Minister, I point out that British Sign Language interpretation of the statement is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Some of the screens in the Chamber are not working, so we will see how we go. We will take it a bit easy if need be.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s covid winter plan.

For the first time since this wretched virus took hold, we can see a route out of the pandemic. The breakthroughs in treatment, testing and vaccines mean that the scientific cavalry is now in sight, and we know in our hearts that next year we will succeed. By the spring, these advances should reduce the need for the restrictions we have endured in 2020 and make the whole concept of a covid lockdown redundant.

When that moment comes, it will have been made possible by the sacrifices of millions across the UK. I am acutely conscious that no other peacetime Prime Minister has asked so much of the British people, and just as our country has risen to every previous trial, so it has responded this time, and I am deeply grateful.

But the hard truth is that we are not there yet. First, we must get through winter without the virus spreading out of control and squandering our hard-won gains, at exactly the time when the burden on our NHS is always greatest. Our winter plan is designed to carry us safely to spring.

In recent weeks, families and businesses in England have, once again, steadfastly observed nationwide restrictions, and they have managed to slow the growth of new cases and ease the worst pressures on our NHS. I can therefore confirm that national restrictions in England will end on 2 December, and they will not be renewed. From next Wednesday people will be able to leave their home for any purpose and meet others in outdoor public spaces, subject to the rule of six; collective worship, weddings and outdoor sports can resume; and shops, personal care, gyms and the wider leisure sector can reopen.

But without sensible precautions, we would risk the virus escalating into a winter or new year surge. The incidence of the disease is, alas, still widespread in many areas, so we will not replace national measures with a free for all, the status quo ante covid. We are going to go back instead to a regional, tiered approach, applying the toughest measures where covid is most prevalent. While the previous local tiers cut the R number, they were not quite enough to reduce it below 1, so the scientific advice, I am afraid, is that, as we come out, our tiers need to be made tougher.

In particular, in tier 1 people should work from home wherever possible. In tier 2, alcohol may only be served in hospitality settings as part of a substantial meal. In tier 3, indoor entertainment, hotels and other accommodation will have to close, along with all forms of hospitality, except for delivery and takeaways. I am very sorry, obviously, for the unavoidable hardship that this will cause for business owners who have already endured so much disruption this year.

Unlike the previous arrangements, tiers will now be a uniform set of rules—that is to say, we will not have negotiations on additional measures with each region. We have learned from experience that there are some things we can do differently. We are, therefore, going to change the 10 pm closing time for hospitality so that it is last orders at 10, with closing at 11. In tiers 1 or 2, spectator sports and business events will be free to resume inside and outside—with capacity limits and social distancing—providing more consistency with indoor performances in theatres and concert halls. We will also strengthen the enforcement ability of local authorities, including specially trained officers and new powers to close down premises that pose a risk to public health.

Later this week—on Thursday, I hope—we will announce which areas will fall into which tier, based on analysis of cases in all age groups, especially the over-60s; the rate by which cases are rising or falling; the percentage of those tested in a local population who have covid; and the current and projected pressures on the NHS. I am sorry to say that we expect that more regions will fall—at least temporarily—into higher levels than before, but by using these tougher tiers and using rapid turnaround tests on an ever greater scale to drive R below 1 and keep it there, it should be possible for areas to move down the tiering scale to lower levels of restrictions.

By maintaining the pressure on the virus, we can also enable people to see more of their family and friends over Christmas. I cannot say that Christmas will be normal this year, but in a period of adversity, time spent with loved ones is even more precious for people of all faiths and none. We all want some kind of Christmas—we need it and we certainly feel we deserve it—but what we do not want is to throw caution to the winds and allow the virus to flare up once again, forcing us all back into lockdown in January.

So, to allow families to come together, while minimising the risk, we are working with the devolved Administrations on a special, time-limited Christmas dispensation, embracing the whole of the United Kingdom and reflecting the ties of kinship across our islands. The virus will obviously not grant us a Christmas truce—it does not know that it is Christmas—and families will need to make a careful judgment about the risk of visiting elderly relatives. We will be publishing guidance for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable on how to manage the risks in each tier, as well as over Christmas. As we work to suppress the virus with these local tiers, two scientific breakthroughs will ultimately make these restrictions obsolete. As soon as a vaccine is approved, we will dispense it as quickly as possible. But given that that cannot be done immediately, we will simultaneously use rapid-turnaround testing—lateral flow testing—that gives results within 30 minutes, to identify those without symptoms so they can isolate and avoid transmission. We are beginning to deploy these tests in our NHS and in care homes in England, so people will once again be able to hug and hold hands with loved ones instead of waving at them through a window. By the end of the year, this will allow every care home resident to have two visitors, who can be tested twice a week.

Care workers looking after people in their own homes will be offered weekly tests from today. From next month, weekly tests will also be available to staff in prisons and food manufacturing, and those delivering and administering covid vaccines. We are also, as the House knows, using testing to help schools and universities to stay open. Testing will enable students to know they can go home safely for Christmas, and back from home to university.

There is another way of using these rapid tests, and that is to follow the example of Liverpool, where in the last two and a half weeks over 200,000 people have taken part in community testing, contributing to a substantial fall in infections. Together with NHS Test and Trace and our fantastic armed forces, we will now launch a major community testing programme, offering all local authorities in tier 3 areas in England a six-week surge of testing. The system is untried and there are many unknowns, but if it works, we should be able to offer those who test negative the prospect of fewer restrictions—for example, meeting up in certain places with others who have also tested negative. Those towns and regions that engage in community testing will have a much greater chance of easing the tiering rules they currently endure.

We will also use daily testing to ease another restriction that has impinged on many lives. We will seek to end automatic isolation for close contacts of those who are found positive. Beginning in Liverpool later this week, contacts who are tested every day for a week will need to isolate only if they themselves test positive. If successful, this approach will be extended across the health system next month, and to the whole of England from January. Of course, we are working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland also benefit, as they should and will, from these advances in rapid testing.

Clearly, the most hopeful advance of all is how vaccines are now edging ever closer to liberating us from the virus, demonstrating emphatically that this is not a pandemic without end. We can take great heart from today’s news, which has the makings of a wonderful British scientific achievement. The vaccine developed with astonishing speed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca is now one of three capable of delivering a period of immunity. We do not yet know when any will be ready and licensed, but we have ordered 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine and over 350 million in total—more than enough for everyone in the UK, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. The NHS is preparing a nationwide immunisation programme, ready next month, the like of which we have never witnessed.

Mr Speaker, 2020 has been, in many ways, a tragic year when so many have lost loved ones and faced financial ruin, and this will still be a hard winter. Christmas cannot be normal and there is a long road to spring, but we have turned a corner and the escape route is in sight. We must hold out against the virus until testing and vaccines come to our rescue and reduce the need for restrictions. Everyone can help speed up the arrival of that moment by continuing to follow the rules, getting tested and self-isolating when instructed, remembering “hands, face, space”, and pulling together for one final push to the spring, when we have every reason to hope and believe that the achievements of our scientists will finally lift the shadow of this virus.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

The Prime Minister—it was a big statement—ran three minutes over, so the Opposition will have an extra two minutes and the SNP will have an extra minute.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed; I would be delighted to meet my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who have written an excellent letter to me. I hope that he agrees that many of the points in that letter were answered in my statement: about sport, the curfew, non-essential retail, gyms, personal—[Inaudible.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Have you pressed the button, Prime Minister? I think we are going to have to stop for a moment so that we can check the sound, as we lost your answer. Have you pressed the mute button by mistake? It is not our end, Prime Minister; it could well be yours. I wonder whether Mr Hancock would like to take over with the answer. Is one of you going to do it or not? It is no use looking at each other. We are going to suspend the House for three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we get too carried away, until we get the Prime Minister back we will continue with the questions. Is it all right with the Health Secretary to pick up the answer that we lost halfway through?

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In addition to what the Prime Minister said before we lost the audio, although the tier 3 restrictions that have been set out are less stringent than the national lockdown, it is necessary to get the R down under the tiered system in order to avoid a further national lockdown if the cases still go up. As we have set out, we have seen the case rates come down in some areas of the country, and now, thankfully, we are seeing the case rates come down nationally.

The final point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) was about other health and economic impacts. Of course we recognise the economic impacts. On the other health impacts, I simply reiterate what I have said many times before, which is that the health impacts of not locking down on health conditions other than coronavirus and of the spread of the coronavirus going too broad are also bad. The best way to protect the health of the nation both from coronavirus and from all other conditions is to keep the virus under control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, we will publish the statistics that we look at to make the judgments that my hon. Friend refers to. It is not possible to put a specific number on it, though, because there are a number of criteria. We would not want to put an area into lockdown—a higher tier, more accurately—because it triggered numerical criteria if there was a specific reason. For instance, there has been a very significant outbreak at a barracks in the past month, which meant that it looked like that area had a huge spike, but it was entirely—literally—confined to barracks. Therefore, an element of judgment is important in making these decisions, but we will publish the data on which they are taken. My hon. Friend asked about the economic impact assessment, and I will raise that point with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

[Mr Speaker]

We are still hoping to reconnect with the Prime Minister at some point, but in the meantime we will continue with Jonathan Edwards.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Diolch, Mr Speaker. The news of the successful development of three vaccines is to be warmly welcomed because it offers light at the end of the tunnel. However, the Secretary of State will recognise that distribution will be a huge logistical challenge. What guarantee can he give that the Welsh Government will receive any additional resources they require to meet the task at hand?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I can assure my hon. Friend that London will come out at the tier that is necessary and appropriate based on the public health evidence. What matters, as my hon. Friend says, is the case rate and the case rate among the over-60s, as well as the direction of travel in both of those, and then, of course, the percentage of tests testing positive—because if we put more tests in, we do not want to punish an area for having a higher number of positives—and the impact on the NHS. Thankfully, in London, the NHS has performed remarkably in this second peak and has coped with it, despite the pressures, admirably well.

[Mr Speaker]

I am going to suspend the House. We think we are going to get the Prime Minister back, but we just need to check the new line, so I will suspend the House for five minutes while we reconnect. Thanks, everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think what has unquestionably been a disaster is the way in which the Scottish nationalist party has taken and used devolution as a means not to improve the lives of its constituents, not to address their health concerns or to improve education in Scotland, but—I know this point of view is shared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—constantly to campaign for the break-up of our country and to turn devolution, otherwise a sound policy from which I myself personally benefited when I was running London, into a mission to break up the UK. That, in my view, would be a disaster. If he does not think that would be a disaster, perhaps he could say so now.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say that it is the Scottish National party, not the nationalist party; otherwise, the phones will be ringing long and hard.

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, I am so sorry. They are national but not nationalist; I see. Right.

[Mr Speaker]

We can play pedantics another time.

[Keir Starmer]

The single biggest threat to the future of the United Kingdom is the Prime Minister, every time he opens his mouth almost. When the Prime Minister said he wanted to take back control, nobody thought he meant from the Scottish people, but his quote is very clear. He said

“devolution has been a disaster north of the border”.

This is not an isolated incident. Whether it is the internal market Bill or the way the Prime Minister has sidelined the devolved Parliaments over the covid response, he is seriously undermining the fabric of the United Kingdom. Instead of talking down devolution, does he agree that we need far greater devolution of powers and resources across the United Kingdom?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not a ruling; it is a matter of fact.

[Keir Starmer]

Of course I do not want the break-up of the United Kingdom, but if anything is fuelling that break-up, it is the Prime Minister.

Turning now to the Prime Minister’s handling of the pandemic, the Prime Minister is doing the right thing by self-isolating after being notified by track and trace, but does he think he would have been able to do so if, like so many other people across the country, all he had to rely on for the next 14 days was either statutory sick pay, which is £95 a week—that is £13 a day—or a one- off payment of £500, which works out at £35 a day?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman; he is totally wrong. What the UK does as a whole is far bigger, better and more important than what we can do as individual nations and regions. Let us look at the way in which the UK has pulled together during the pandemic: the way in which the armed services have worked to get testing throughout the whole UK; the way in which the furlough scheme has been deployed across the UK; and the billions and billions of pounds that have been found to help people across the whole UK, and businesses in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. The UK has shown its value and will continue to show its value.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about wanting to take Scotland back into the European Union. That seemed to be what he was saying just now. What he and the people of Scotland should understand is that that is a massive surrender of power by the people of Scotland straight back to Brussels, just as this country and the people of Scotland have taken it back again. That is power not just over many aspects of their lives and regulations, but, of course, to control Scottish fisheries as well. All that would be lost under his programme, and I do not believe that it will commend itself to the Scottish people. That programme was decisively rejected in 2014. I believe that it is something that they would almost certainly reject again, but, as he said before—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Graham Brady.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost in aviation, and hundreds of thousands more hang in the balance. Will my right hon. Friend throw the industry a lifeline by ensuring that the Government taskforce reports in time for a testing regime to replace the current quarantine arrangements as we come out of this lockdown on 3 December?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and we are thinking about this issue in government right now. As he knows, in response to the early data that we saw about the impact on black and minority ethnic groups, we brought forward enhanced testing procedures for particularly vulnerable groups—those who are exposed to a heavy viral load, perhaps in the course of their work. There are other factors at play in the prevalence of the disease among black and minority ethnic groups. I am sure that the point he makes will be among the considerations that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation takes into account in the course of deciding how to roll out the vaccine and where it should go first. He makes an important point.

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to put a big thank you on record to the broadcasting team for making today happen.

[The Prime Minister]

Hear, hear.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

I and other Ministers have regular discussions with representatives of the Scottish Government and also other devolved Administrations to ensure that we can be prepared across the United Kingdom for the challenges we face as we end the transition period and the opportunities that will follow.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head into the dark with Kenny MacAskill.

[Kenny MacAskill [V]]

A shared prosperity fund is by its very name inclusive. Why then, given the proximity to the end of transition, are not just Scottish businesses but the Scottish Government excluded from its details?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend’s commitment to opportunity for people from less wealthy backgrounds extends back many years to his tremendous work at the Social Mobility Foundation. We are looking at how we can get a more diverse array of people via the Places for Growth programme, but it is not just limited to places for growth; we are looking at the whole human resources strategy in the civil service so that we look at diversity in a much broader way than previously.

[Mr Speaker]

We now head up to Jonathan Gullis in Stoke-on-Trent. No, he is unavailable, so I call David Simmonds.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

What recent progress he has made on negotiations on the UK's future relationship with the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

Some £175 million of taxpayers’ money has been shelled out so far on covid consultants. There has been £252 million for face masks from a company specialising in currency trading and offshore property—more than half the masks were not even fit for purpose because they had the wrong straps on—£43 million for hand sanitisers from a company that was previously dormant, 11 PPE contracts for a pest control company, and so the sordid list goes on. All aboard the covid Tory gravy train. It is no wonder that across our country, there are accusations of corruption and cronyism, with contracts handed down to Tory firms that have links to Tory chums and donors. Does the Minister think that it is right that consultants should be paid up to £7,000 a day to work on test and trace, which, in itself, is a world-beating failure?

[Mr Speaker]

We are going to have to have shorter questions for other people to get in—it is only fair.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the points he raises. As I mentioned, we wish to reassure the public through the use of external and internal audits on some of the issues that he raises, but when it comes to some of the contracts that have been let, we were advised by Labour that we should be looking into a number of different companies, from people producing costumes to a number of other interesting leads that actually led nowhere. We were trying to procure at speed and I have a good degree of confidence in the PPE contracts that were let during this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

As a number of hon. and right hon. Members have reminded us, there are just 50 days to go before the end of the transition period. That is why I am pleased to be able to discuss with the CBI and other business representative organisations this afternoon exactly how we can ensure that we are all ready for both the challenges and the opportunities that that will bring.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to Scotland with an enlightened Kenny MacAskill.

[Kenny MacAskill [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Even senior Tories are accepting the inevitability of a second referendum. As Parnell once said:

“No man has a right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation.”

Scots have learned, as the Secretary of State will know, from the trickery of 1979 when even the dead were counted against. Does he not then realise that the people of Scotland will not accept political chicanery on the number or the nature of the question to be asked?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I cannot think of anywhere better to put DCMS Ministers than Stoke-on-Trent: a jewel in the heart of Staffordshire, home to industrial innovation for generations and boasting three of the finest Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

[Mr Speaker]

Talking of which, what will you say to Robert Halfon? Let us bring him in.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]]

During the Brexit campaign, my right hon. Friend wrote an article in The Sun stating that we would be able to reduce VAT on energy bills, saving the taxpayer a considerable amount of money per year. Can he set out the progress we are making on that and confirm that we will be able to cut VAT on energy bills, therefore cutting the cost of living for hard-pressed families across the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Listening to some of the questions from the other side of the House, you would think that the only way in which we could ever procure vaccines, testing or personal protective equipment was by having some sort of Gosplan Stalinist approach in which no private sector individual or organisation could ever be involved. I think that most people looking at, for example, the contribution of—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think we need more political broadcasts. We have had a good day today. We are meant to have short, punchy answers to these questions, not rhetoric.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

  Speaking of political broadcasting, I understand that the Government are going to spend £217 million in this financial year promoting adverts, mostly on covid, such as “We’re all in it together” in our local papers and so on. They are very fluffy ads, featuring bakers and so on. How are the Government going to measure the success of that campaign when we are clearly not all in it together, as demonstrated by the north of England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Whenever I see the hon. Gentleman, I am irresistibly reminded of the words of “Bring Me Sunshine”. I do not know whether he is Wise, but he is certainly one of the reasons the Conservatives represent Morecambe.

[Mr Speaker]

I think there was a little blush as well in there.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) [V]]

The Minister will be aware that even with a vaccine coming on stream and passing safety tests quickly, a roll-out will take many months, and we have local and mayoral elections coming next May. What steps is he going to put in place to ensure that vulnerable and older people are still able to vote? Will he consider, in that process, encouraging local authorities to register people to vote by post?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and he has been a consistent and effective advocate for the rights of older and vulnerable citizens in all his time in the House. We must make sure, both through effective voter registration and through the effective roll-out of our vaccination programme, that older and vulnerable voters are in a position to take part in the democratic process, and I will work with the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution to do just that.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you for getting through topicals on time—we have done well. In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

Let me agree with the hon. Lady about the huge importance of the national health service, which benefits Northern Ireland enormously, and the enormous importance of access to supplies of medicines, both through the Republic of Ireland and from the rest of the UK. It is important that Northern Ireland’s position and the supply of goods to Northern Ireland are protected by the protocol and that unfettered access is delivered both in terms of north-south movements and of access to the rest of the United Kingdom, which provides crucial support to Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us now head to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]]

May I wish you a happy first anniversary in the Chair, Mr Speaker?

Criminality, smuggling and modern slavery, as my hon. Friend knows, cannot be the winners in a no-deal Brexit scenario at the end of this year. Can he assure me that the importance of these issues with regard to Northern Ireland are well understood at the heart of government and that he and the Secretary of State are doing all they can to combat them going forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is indeed disappointing, because over 2,500 laptops and tablets and 400 routers were delivered to Leeds City Council for disadvantaged 10-year-old pupils. I will do whatever I can to spring those laptops from the cupboard as fast as I can.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s head up to Manchester to see if they are in the cupboard with Jeff Smith.

Public Health

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No, I will not—I am finishing up.

This year, I and the whole of Government have asked much of the British people: more than any Prime Minister, I believe, has asked of the British people in peacetime. I have to say that the public have responded magnificently and selflessly, putting their lives on hold, bearing any burden, overcoming every obstacle, and tolerating every disruption and inconvenience, no matter how large or small—or inconsistent—so that they could do the right thing by their fellow citizens. I wish that it had been enough to defeat this autumn surge. But while I am more optimistic now about the medium and long-term future than I have been for many months, there can be no doubt that the situation before us today is grave and the need for action acute.

It is absolutely right for this House to have doubts—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, Prime Minister, but Mr Murrison, you cannot read newspapers in the Chamber.

[The Prime Minister]

It is absolutely right for hon. Members to consult relevant documents that may contain information to the advantage and betterment of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

He could have been reading his horoscope —come on!

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) that his future is rosy.

It is right for Members on all sides of this House to have the doubts that have been expressed, to seek answers from me, and to provide scrutiny. That is the purpose and duty of the House of Commons. But while it pains me to call for such restrictions on lives, liberty and business, I have no doubt that these restrictions represent the best and safest path for our country, our people and our economy. So now is the time for us to put our differences aside and focus on the next four weeks in getting this virus back in its box. I know that once again our amazing country will respond to adversity by doing what is right—staying at home, protecting the NHS and saving lives. In that spirit, I commend these regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about my constituency. I gently point out to him that during the period of the most restrictions in Leicester, the number of cases did come down from 160 to 25 per 100,000. That shows that tough controls of the kind that we are about to vote to bring in today do work.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me help people. A few Members have now intervened a couple of times. We want to get everybody in. If they go down the list, I am sure that they will appreciate that.

[Keir Starmer]

I have looked at the Leicester figures frequently; they do go up and down, but Leicester has never come out of the restrictions. It is a point that I have been making, and it is not a party political one. The point is that if an area is in restrictions and does not come out, the restrictions are not working. If an area was in tier 2 restrictions and ends up in tier 3, tier 2 did not work. To go back to that system does not make any sense. For heaven’s sake, we have got to use the next four weeks to come up with something better than that for 2 December, otherwise we will do the usual thing, which is to pretend that something is going to happen on 2 December, and then, when we get there, find out that what we said would happen will not happen. I can predict what is going happen because it has happened so many times in the past seven months: the Prime Minister says, “x won’t happen”; x will happen; it does happen; and we start all over again. It is not fair to the British public to pretend that something is going to happen on 2 December.

[Keir Starmer]

The lower the rate of infection and the lower the admissions, the more chance there is to get the virus under control. That is why you have to go early. If you want to safeguard the economy, go early. How on earth has it helped the British economy to delay and to go into a lockdown for four weeks when, on 21 September, SAGE was saying it could be two to three weeks? How on earth has it helped the British economy to miss the chance to do lockdown over half-term?

All Members will have seen the data about schools. We all want schools to stay open. How on earth did it make sense to miss half-term? Most schools would happily have said, “We’ll get up early—the Thursday before half-term—and we’ll use Monday and Tuesday as inset days,” and we could probably have got the best part of two weeks of schools being closed naturally, because of half-term, and have the lockdown over then. I do not think there can be anybody in this House who does not think that would have been a better period for a circuit break, lockdown—call it what you like.

It has not helped the economy to waste three weeks. If, at the end of those three weeks, the Prime Minister could say, “Well, there we are—the tiered system is now working, and I’m going to stick with it,” that would be one thing, but the Prime Minister is now saying, “I am going to do the lockdown,” which is failure. That is failure.

The next four weeks cannot be wasted—cannot be wasted. We have got to fix test, trace and isolate. The last figures show that, in just one week, 113,000 contacts were missed by the system. Four in 10 people who should be contacted are not being contacted under the system. If you are not contacted, you cannot isolate. It is not just a number; that is 113,000 people walking round our communities when they should have been self-isolating. Hands up if you think that has helped to control the virus.

We have been on about the track, trace and isolate system for months. The promises come by the wheelbarrow, the delivery never. Only 20% of people who should be isolating are doing it. Something is going wrong. Just continually pushing away challenge and pretending the problem does not exist is a huge part of the problem. Those figures have got to turn around, and they have got to turn around in the next four weeks. If we get to 2 December and those problems are still in the system, we will be going round this circuit for many months to come. If this is not fixed in the next four weeks, there are massive problems.

The Government have also got to stop sending constant mixed messages: “Go back to work, even if you can work from home,” or “Civil servants, get to work,” only a week later to say, “Stay at home.” The constant changing of the economic plans is creating even more uncertainty. There have been huge mistakes made in recent weeks during this pandemic. We have been told so many times by the Prime Minister, often on a Wednesday afternoon, that there is a plan to prevent a second wave—it is working. Well, there was not, and it did not.

Now, less than four months after the Prime Minister told us that this would all be over by Christmas, we are being asked to approve emergency regulations to shut the country down. That is a terrible thing for the country to go through, but there is not any excuse for inaction or for allowing the virus to get further out of control, so Labour will act in the national interest, and we will vote for these restrictions—these regulations—tonight.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to Members that we are going to start with a four-minute limit, starting with Theresa May.