Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Haskel and Viscount Trenchard

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to speak in connection with Northern Ireland matters and have tended to leave these matters to those with more experience of the Province. Like many noble Lords, I regret that the Northern Ireland protocol introduces uncertainties into the status of the Province as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Amendment 17 is fair enough, except that it is unnecessary in a trade Bill. It is not necessary to complicate the Bill in this way because it is incumbent on the Government to comply with the requirements of the protocol. This includes, as noble Lords are aware, an affirmation of the place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom customs territory. Furthermore, the Government would not be able to enact any FTA not consistent with our international obligations. I believe that there is a strong case for saying that entering into the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol breached Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. As the noble Lord, Lord of Kerr of Kinlochard, knows well, because he drafted it, the treaty clearly states that the terms of withdrawal of a member state shall be agreed against the background of that state’s future relationship with the European Union. The EU, in my view, wrongly decided to cajole us into negotiating and agreeing the terms of withdrawal separately, and ahead of, agreeing what our future relationship should be. I trust that the Joint Committee will continue to make progress in mitigating the damage the protocol may do to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Amendment 18 covers only north-south trade. It does not mention east-west trade. Amendment 26 covers east-west trade, but not in precisely the same terms. I believe that neither amendment is relevant or necessary in this Bill, although it is most important that facilitations should be agreed which minimise damage to both north-south and east-west trade.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. He is not there, so we will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020

Debate between Lord Haskel and Viscount Trenchard

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I do not envy my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for having to decide where the balance should lie between saving jobs and the economy or saving lives. When I watched his press conference on Saturday, however, I felt immediately sceptical about the data we were shown by his advisers. Part of the reason for the much higher incidence of infections in this second wave is that very many more people are being tested. Therefore, many more people with only mild symptoms, or no symptoms, are appearing in the statistics than was the case in March and April. The proportions of infected people who are dying, and of those who are hospitalised, are also very much lower than was the case in the first phase. In particular, the graph showing scenarios for expected winter deaths—not predictions or forecasts—produced by several modelling groups looked suspicious, as did the graph with an enormous shaded area projecting possible hospital admissions.

I find the arguments put forward by Professor Carl Heneghan and Ross Clark persuasive, and they have not been given enough weight, particularly when there is some evidence that the regional measures were actually working in the areas where they had been introduced and no likelihood whatever that hospital capacity may be threatened in the rest of the country.

It has been argued that immunity provided by antibodies may not last long, and statistics have been presented showing a declining proportion of people possessing antibodies. Having had the virus, without realising it at the time, in late March, I tested positive for antibodies both in early May and at the end of September. I am not aware of anyone who had tested positive for antibodies who has subsequently tested negative. Could the Minister tell the House if he knows what data exists in this area? Without specific data it is clearly misleading to argue definitively that the possession of antibodies offers little mitigation of the risk of being hospitalised or dying as a result of contracting Covid for a second time.

I am no epidemiologist but, based on the evidence I have seen, I do not believe that the state is justified in intervening to deprive citizens of their freedoms in the way that it is doing, particularly if it is using powers granted by an Act of Parliament which was never intended to restrict the activities of healthy people, as was so convincingly argued by Lord Sumption.

I have attended in two cases, and been prevented from attending in one case, the funerals of three close relatives during the period since the pandemic struck. It is welcome that the number who may attend funerals—which had been increased from nine to 30—remains 30 under this current lockdown. However, I think it is most regrettable that the Government have now banned marriages altogether. I have another close relative whose wedding has already been postponed for several months by Covid-induced travel restrictions. He had planned to marry this month, albeit with only 15 people in attendance, but that is not now possible.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.