Contingent Liability: Ventilator Capacity

Michael Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Written Statements

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

During the course of the coronavirus outbreak, the Government’s strategy to increase ventilator capacity has focused on procuring more devices from existing manufacturers overseas, scaling up production of existing ventilator suppliers, and working with industry to design and manufacture new devices.

The ventilator challenge was launched in March. At present, two devices from the ventilator challenge are ready for use in hospitals, with the Penlon ESO2 device becoming the first newly adapted device to receive approval for use during the pandemic from the regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). A number of other devices are currently undergoing tests for regulatory approval.

Given the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic, Cabinet Office has given indemnities both against IP infringement, in respect of the designs, and against product liability claims against the manufacturers of rapidly manufactured ventilator system (RMVS) products.

It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present to Parliament a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

Unfortunately, due to the urgent need to finalise the deal and the confidential commercial nature of the negotiations, it was not possible to notify Parliament of the particulars of the liability and allow the required 14 days’ notice prior to the liabilities going live. A delay would have resulted in an unacceptable delay in lifesaving equipment being provided to the NHS.

The precise commercial terms which have been negotiated for each supplier are, and will remain, commercially confidential. While it is difficult to estimate the potential liability exposure, it could exceed £300,000. For this reason, I am informing Parliament of these arrangements.

On this basis, I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute setting out what these indemnities are.

The Treasury approved these liabilities before they were activated. However, if any Member of Parliament has concerns, he/she may write to me and I will be happy to examine their concerns and provide a response.

The Departmental Minute (Departmental Minute-Notification of Contingent Liability.pdf) can be viewed online at: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications /written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-04-29/HCWS216/.

[HCWS216]

EU-UK Future Relationship

Michael Gove Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2020 Written Statements

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

Negotiators from the UK and the EU held discussions through video conferencing on 20-24 April 2020 for the second round of negotiations on the UK-EU future relationship.

Prior to the round both sides shared legal texts, on the basis of which there were some clarificatory discussions in order to ensure that the round was as well prepared as possible. The UK has shared the following texts: a full draft free trade agreement, and separate draft agreements on energy, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation, air transport, air safety, civil nuclear, and social security co-ordination. In accordance with normal negotiating practice, the Government have not made these texts public, but keeps this issue under close review and would be ready to do so at a moment when it helped the negotiating dynamics.

This was a full and constructive negotiating round, with both sides adapting positively to the new remote ways of working. The round was opened by the UK’s Chief Negotiator, David Frost, and by the European Commission’s Chief Negotiator, Michel Barnier, in a plenary session on 20 April. There were then discussions across all the issues and the session closed with a further plenary on 24 April.

Discussions covered all workstreams including:

Trade in good—Market access and rules of origin, trade remedies, customs, technical barriers to trade and SPS.

Trade in services—Cross-border trade in services, investment, temporary entry for business purposes, professional qualifications, professional and business services, financial services and digital.

Fisheries—Discussion on control and enforcement, conservation and sustainable exploitation, and scientific evidence.

Transport—Aviation and aviation safety, road haulage and passenger transport.

Energy—Civil nuclear co-operation, gas and electricity trading, climate change and carbon pricing.

Mobility and social security co-ordination—Including the UK’s legal text on social security co-ordination.

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice—UK presentation of the UK Law Enforcement Treaty with detailed discussions on operational capabilities.

Thematic co-operation—Covering health security; asylum and illegal migration; cyber security; and security of information.

Participation in union programmes—General terms for UK participation in programmes, including provisions for financial contribution.

So called “level playing field “—Including subsidies, competition policy, and trade and sustainable development.

Horizontal issues—Governance arrangements, territorial scope.

Discussions showed that there was some promising convergence in the core areas of a free trade agreement, but there remain some areas where we have significant differences of principle—notably fisheries, the so-called “level playing field”, and governance and dispute settlement. Progress in these areas will require the EU to engage with the political realities of the UK as an independent state.

This Government remain committed to a deal with a free trade agreement at its core. We look forward to negotiating constructively in the next round beginning 11 May.

[HCWS209]

Public Services

Michael Gove Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the work the Government have undertaken over recent weeks to support and steer our critical public services through the coronavirus pandemic. First, I thank all those on the frontline of our public services for the spirit of selflessness and commitment to others that they have demonstrated in dealing with this pandemic—nurses, doctors, porters, cleaners, paramedics, pharmacists, care home staff, prison and police officers, teachers, social workers and those preparing and delivering food, collecting our refuse and administering the welfare system. They deserve our gratitude; they need our support. They are in all our minds. They are the very best of us. I am sure that everyone in the House observed that one-minute silence at 11 o’clock today, as we reflected on the sacrifices being made by so many on our behalf.

This pandemic has claimed more than 20,000 lives and has left every community across the country grieving. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those who have suffered loss, in the humble knowledge that every life is precious. As the Prime Minister said on his welcome return to work yesterday, we are dealing with

“the biggest single challenge this country has faced since the war”.

Like him, I thank the British people for their forbearance and solidarity as we have all had to abide by the guidance on social distancing, which restricts cherished liberties but protects precious lives.

The challenges that the pandemic confronts us with require an unprecedented response from Government. For that reason, as the House will know, on 17 March, we established four ministerial implementation groups to lead the Government’s response to this pandemic. The Health Secretary chairs one group, co-ordinating work on the NHS and social care; the Chancellor chairs the group considering how to support business and the economy; and the Foreign Secretary chairs the group co-ordinating our international response. I chair the general public sector group, which looks at how we support the delivery of public services beyond the NHS and social care, working with colleagues from across the UK Government and Ministers from the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive. I am very grateful to colleagues from the devolved Administrations for their participation and their constructive contributions to all our discussions. Those discussions have helped us to understand how the virus has affected every part of our United Kingdom, enabling us to take action that meets the needs of people across all our nations.

The ministerial implementation group has now met 30 times, and we have considered the impact of the pandemic on: schools and children’s services; the police; the Prison and Probation Service; the courts; the food supply chain; the welfare system; charities; and support for the most vulnerable. With my colleague the Environment Secretary, we have been working to address the shortfall in the agricultural workforce, in order to protect our domestic food supply, working closely with the industry to launch the “Pick for Britain” campaign. Working with the Education Secretary, we have established the free school meal voucher scheme, to make sure that children who need it can continue to access food, despite school closures. That scheme has seen 15,500 schools place orders for vouchers, of which £29 million has been redeemed. We were able to ensure that more than 60% of schools were open every day over the Easter holidays to provide places for the children of critical workers and vulnerable children. In addition, we have launched the Oak National Academy, providing 180 video lessons each week. We have committed £100 million to ensure that remote education is accessible for all, including by providing laptops, tablets and routers to disadvantaged children. Since the end of March, 90% of rough sleepers known to councils have been made an offer of accommodation, ensuring that some of the most vulnerable people in our society can stay safe during this pandemic.

Of course, we recognise that this is not just a national crisis; it is also a local one, in communities across the country. We have deployed dedicated military planning support to every local resilience forum. There are 156 military planners embedded across the country, helping the LRFs to co-ordinate and protect local services and supplies, with additional support from senior Whitehall officials and named resilience advisers in regional knowledge hubs. Of course, this crisis has put existing services under huge strain. To bolster them, we have worked with the Ministry of Defence to mobilise a covid support force of 19,060 strong, of whom 2,948 personnel are now committed, supporting a total of 79 military assistants to the civil authority tasks nationwide.

Our police have been working hard to keep people safe, while enforcing the new measures the Prime Minister put in place just over a month ago. They have issued 3,203 fines between 27 March and 13 April to those who have flouted social distancing rules, and this number will have increased considerably since then—this is all dedicated to helping to save lives and protect the NHS. We have tested more than 150,000 key workers and their families for coronavirus, allowing those who do not have it to go back to work and protecting those who do have it. We have also made sure that the civil service and the wider public sector are resourced to operate under the considerable new pressures imposed by this virus. We have worked to fill about 1,300 covid-19 roles through civil service redeployments, with more than 400 civil servants now moving to the Department of Health and Social Care.

We also recognise that there are people who have developed new needs as a result of coronavirus, as well as individuals whose pre-existing needs are now more acute or more complex. The Government are undertaking a programme of work to support those who have not been identified as shielded but who are still vulnerable. We know that many local community organisations have stepped forward to help their friends and neighbours at this time. The Government want to support that activity, and we welcome the important role that volunteers, charities and local authorities are playing throughout this crisis. More than 750,000 people have signed up to the NHS volunteer responders programme, and more than 600,000 have had their ID verified, to start helping with tasks such as collecting shopping, providing telephone support, transporting patients and helping with supplies for the NHS. To support this effort, and to make sure that people know where to turn, we have been working to signpost people to existing and available support, whether local, national or voluntary, through the website address www.gov.uk/find-coronavirus-support. This service has supported more than 35,000 people since its launch on 10 April. In addition, we are working with supermarkets to ensure that a greater number of online delivery slots are made available explicitly to those most in need. We have also been working to understand and identify where there are gaps in provision, and what government, working with local and voluntary partners, can do to address that. A notable example of that is the Home Office’s announcement of an initial £2 million of funding to immediately bolster domestic abuse helplines and online support for those at risk.

There will, of course, be further challenges ahead, and I do not shirk from acknowledging that we as a Government will not have got every judgment right. Indeed, many people, including the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) have asked fair questions about the Government’s response in a constructive spirit. I and my colleagues will do our best at all times to respond to those questions and challenges, because we owe it to our public sector workers to work collaboratively, and to harness all available resources in the fight against this virus. In that light, it is important to recognise just how much we all owe to the stoicism and steadfastness, hard work and heroism, compassion and commitment of those working on the front line of public service. We owe them so much, and we in Government will do everything we can to support them. It is in that spirit that I commend this statement to the House.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his good words about the constructive approach taken by the Opposition, which is very much our approach, and for an advance copy of his statement.

This year is the 72nd anniversary of our national health service, and perhaps never in its history have we appreciated it as much as we do today. To all our public sector workers, in all our public services, let me say this: we are all hugely grateful for everything you do. You are the foundation stone of our communities and our society.

Let me start by asking the Minister about social care. Unlike our national health service, social care is hugely fragmented but no less vital. At the weekend, Ministers said that deaths in care homes were declining in the same way as they are in hospitals. However, the most up-to-date statistics tell a different story. Weekly figures published today by the Office for National Statistics show that 4,316 deaths outside hospitals that involved covid-19 were registered in England and Wales up to 19 April. Of those, 3,096 took place in care homes—almost treble the number of deaths recorded the previous week. The number of overall deaths in care homes has trebled in three weeks. Will the Minister now correct the Government’s claims that deaths in care homes are falling? Without accurate and up-to-date information, it is difficult to know how this awful virus is progressing. Will the Minister commit to working with the Care Quality Commission and the Office for National Statistics to publish data on a daily basis, just as we do for our hospitals?

It is over a month since the Government introduced the lockdown measures, which the Opposition support. We all recognise that there will be no rapid return to the world we knew before, but what might the journey out of lockdown look like? Lockdown comes with its own risks. Refuge has reported a 25% spike in calls to the National Domestic Abuse Helpline, and the number of deaths associated with domestic violence have more than doubled. Will the Minister support our calls for £75 million to be made available to domestic violence charities to support those who are struggling? What assessment have the Government made of current PPE provisions, and other protections that the police will need going forward?

One of the most concerning aspects of the lockdown has been the impact on vulnerable children who risk falling behind their peers, despite the best efforts of our teachers and social workers. The Government must give advice to schools that is based on scientific advice, but will the Minister confirm that they are working on plans to reopen schools with school leaders, education unions and parents? One million children lack access to electronic devices on the internet, which are essential for home learning. Will the Government consider expanding their scheme to provide free devices to children who are in need of them? Will the Minister update the House on efforts to ensure that our most vulnerable children are safe during lockdown?

Let me turn to personal protective equipment and face masks, because the Cabinet Office is responsible for Government procurement. An increasing number of countries are advising the wearing of face masks when out in public. Face masks are now mandatory in shops or on public transport in many German states, and the Japanese Government have sent free face masks to 50 million households. To prepare for that possibility and to learn from the mistakes that the Government made in not stockpiling or sourcing sufficient levels of PPE for NHS and care staff, will the Minister say how many face masks the Government have stockpiled? How many would we need on a monthly basis if they became mandatory out in public? Where has the stockpile been sourced from, and where are additional face masks being produced? What preparations have been made to ensure their effective and fair distribution?

Members across the House will be aware of shortages in PPE in hospitals, care homes, and for other frontline workers in their constituencies. A survey by the Royal College of Physicians has shown that 27% of doctors are still being forced to reuse single-use protective equipment, more than 30% do not have access to protective gowns, and just 50% have access to protective goggles. Does the Minister accept that those statistics from the Royal College of Physicians show the reality for too many doctors?

Following last night’s “Panorama”, how can the Government claim to have delivered 1 billion items of PPE, when that number included counting individual gloves and paper towels? Will the Minister provide the House with a breakdown of those 1 billion PPE items by type, and place a copy in the House of Commons Library today? With huge PPE shortages in care homes, will the Minister say when the so-called “clipper” service will be up and running for local councils to access PPE, with reports that it will not be available for another three weeks?

Is he confident about the standards of PPE in care homes, given that our advice falls below that of the World Health Organisation standard?

We came to the lockdown too late, with inadequate PPE and testing too late, so we want the Government to get the decisions right this time to help people to plan, to ensure that the Government take the right action to prevent infection rates rising again, and to build and maintain the confidence of the public. Will the Government commit to holding talks with teachers, trade unions, businesses and local authorities about how a strategy can be developed in the best interests of public health and the economy? Will the Minister commit to publishing the Government’s next steps?

We stand ready to support the Government. It is in our national interest that we defeat this virus, and the questions posed today are to help the Government and all of us get the answers to these difficult questions right. I hope that, as we come through this, we will build a national recovery plan to help our NHS, public services, businesses, workers, families and communities to recover, to be more resilient, to end austerity and to value, cherish and reward what really matters to all of us, now and in the future.

[Michael Gove]

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) back to the Front Bench? She demonstrated, in the detailed and thoughtful questions she asked, what an asset she will be to the Opposition in the months to come. I congratulate her on her elevation to the shadow Cabinet—it is richly deserved.

The hon. Lady rightly points out that this is the 72nd year in which the national health service has existed, and she rightly reminds us all that if ever there was an occasion, a moment or a crisis that reminds us how much we need and cherish our national health service, this is it. I underline my thanks to all those who work in the NHS, just as she did.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about social care, and she cited the figures from the Office for National Statistics that have just been produced. Those figures relate to deaths in the week up to 17 April, and they are indeed deeply concerning. The coronavirus pandemic has affected our communities. We have had outbreaks in hospitals and particularly distressing outbreaks in care homes.

The way in which we record deaths in the NHS depends on each NHS trust reporting daily on deaths. Care home deaths are recorded differently through a model that the Office for National Statistics has used that provides us with a weekly update on deaths overall. We will, of course, look at all ways in which we can ensure that we have the most accurate information, but the method that we have used is the one that the national statistician has underpinned as robust and reliable. While we all want information as rapidly as possible, we also need reliable information to ensure that our response is appropriate and adequate. The hon. Lady suggested that we work with the Care Quality Commission and the Office for National Statistics to see if we can improve the collection of data, and we will of course at all times look to ensure that we have data that is both timely and accurate to make sure that we have the right response.

The hon. Lady also mentioned domestic violence, and it is sadly the case that the number of reported incidents, or the number of calls to domestic violence helplines, have shown that there is an increased risk and danger for many under our lockdown stipulations. She rightly drew attention to the fact that as well as the £2 million that we have devoted to charities, the Government have made available an additional £750 million to them. I know that the Minister for safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is talking to the Treasury now about how we can ensure that a proportion of that £750 million can go to those who are at risk of domestic violence.

The hon. Member for Leeds West also asked about vulnerable children. It is absolutely the case that we ensured that schools would remain open so that not just the children of key workers but vulnerable children could attend. However, the proportion of vulnerable children who have been attending school is lower than many of us would want. Detailed work is going on with schools and local authorities to make sure that we can encourage and support more families to ensure that vulnerable children are in school, where they can receive the education and support they need. The Education Secretary will be saying more about that in due course.

It is also the case, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, that because of the lockdown measures, there is a risk of increasing educational inequality. Children in homes with access to technology and with parents capable of providing support will find it easier to keep up their learning than those without, which is why we have instituted the virtual academy that I referred to in my statement. It is also why we need to work even harder to ensure that children have the resources they need, and that poorer children and vulnerable children are in school as quickly as possible.

The hon. Lady asked if we would talk to teaching unions and others in education. We will do just that, because part of our effort to ensure that we can have a safe exit from some of the restrictions that we face at the moment will be dialogue with employers, trade unions and others, and her question gives me the opportunity to say how much I appreciated the chance to talk to trade unions in forums organised by Frances O’Grady. In particular, I appreciated the conversation I had with my friend and colleague Len McCluskey, in which he made a number of valuable suggestions about how we as a country could respond more effectively.

The hon. Lady mentioned face masks as part of a broader effort to ensure that we have the right personal protective equipment. As she knows, there is a difference between the high-spec surgical face masks that will be required in NHS and other healthcare settings, and the sorts of face coverings that can ensure that we limit the droplets that each of us might be responsible for producing in particular settings. I can confirm that Lord Agnew, the joint Cabinet Office and Treasury Minister, has launched a domestic effort to ensure that we produce just such masks, and that is part of the broader effort that Lord Deighton is leading on to ensure that we can bolster the production of personal protective equipment.

The hon. Lady asked about the detailed figures on personal protective equipment. The figures that the Government have produced refer to the fact that we have distributed, in the course of this crisis, 143 million masks, 163 million aprons, 1.8 million gowns and 547 million gloves. Depending on the surgical setting, gloves are sometimes delivered in pairs, groups of four, or different consignments. On 26 April, we had delivered over 90 million items of PPE across the health and social care system, and the figure specifically on that day included 1.6 million masks, 5.8 million aprons, 46,000 gowns and 10.5 million gloves.

Of course, it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that we do everything we can to support those on the frontline, and it is in that spirit that I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and look forward to working with her and other colleagues to put our frontline public sector workers first.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the wonderful volunteers and staff at McNair Shirts in Slaithwaite for the PPE gowns that they have produced for local hospitals in Huddersfield and Halifax? Will he also tell me what the Government are doing to improve the local procurement of protective equipment so that local companies and volunteers who are making their own PPE can get it to our frontline staff and carers—the ones who actually need it?

[Michael Gove]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and commend the work of those in his constituency. We have seen a great national effort to support those on the frontline. There has been the establishment of scrub hubs, as individuals have deliberately set out to use their own time, energy and resources to provide additional material for those on the frontline of our NHS. The Government have received over 10,000 offers of support and help with respect to the provision, supply and distribution of personal protective equipment, and we are responding to them all.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go over to Pete Wishart, who has two minutes.

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

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for prior sight of his statement, albeit at the last possible moment, and gently encourage him to do more to engage with all Opposition parties throughout this pandemic? We have had no communication with him for weeks.

May I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those who work in our public services? They go way above and beyond in their duty of care for all nations. I also, of course, welcome the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) to her new place on the Labour Front Bench. I, too, look forward very much to working with her.

Those in our public services should expect our full support and to be given the very best equipment to carry out their heroic and difficult tasks. Last night the nation watched with horror the BBC’s “Panorama” report on a timetable of inaction and unpreparedness. It reported that those working in public services were being sent out to the frontline without the necessary protection, and that the Government were told years ago to stockpile certain PPE to cope with a pandemic but failed to do so.

May I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman some gentle questions? First, why were we so unprepared? Why were gowns, visors, swabs and body bags left out of the stockpile when it was set up in 2009? Surely cleaning products are not counted as PPE, and there should be no question at all that individual gloves are counted as single PPE items. I also want the right hon. Gentleman to convince me that paper towels are not counted as PPE. The Royal College of Physicians has found that 27% of doctors are reusing, or have used, their PPE. Why are they having to reuse PPE?

The Health Secretary said that 11 million PPE items had been sent to Scotland, which is our responsibility, from the UK pandemic stockpile, but that has now been downgraded to only “committed”. How many items from that 11 million have actually been delivered?

We all want to get behind this Government and to cheer them on when they are doing their best, but we also want them to admit when mistakes are made and to acknowledge shortcomings. Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now prepared to acknowledge his shortcomings and admit to some of those mistakes?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On the subject of communication between the Government and parties, in nearly all of the 30 meetings that my ministerial implementation group has held, there have been representatives of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. I have had the opportunity to discuss how we can co-ordinate our response with Scottish Government Ministers including Mike Russell, Aileen Campbell and John Swinney, and it has been a pleasure to do so. They have operated in a collaborative fashion, as have the Labour members of the Welsh Government, and the Democratic Unionist party, Sinn Féin, Ulster Unionist party, Alliance, and Social Democratic and Labour party Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive.

Indeed, I noted that on Radio 4’s “Westminster Hour” just the other night, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), the deputy leader of the SNP group in Westminster, paid tribute to the extent of collaborative work. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) does not agree with the deputy leader of his parliamentary delegation and has such little faith in Scottish Government Ministers making sure that priorities are addressed in the daily meetings we have.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the stockpile of personal protective equipment. The stockpile that we had before this pandemic was explicitly designed in accordance with advice from the Government’s scientific advisers on the new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory group, and of course it was explicitly for a flu pandemic. The nature of coronavirus is different from that of a flu pandemic, as we all know, and we, like every Government across the world, have had to respond to this new virus by ensuring, not just with personal protective equipment but in every respect, that we are in a position to retool, refit and upgrade our response.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the support that the UK Government are giving to Scotland. I am pleased to confirm that the UK pandemic stockpile has been responsible for transferring millions of items to the NHS in Scotland. It is also the case that the new testing centres in Scotland have been set up with the assistance of the British Army, and that our RAF has been responsible for supporting the Scottish national health service in making sure that individuals in remote island communities can receive the care they need. And, of course, it is the strength of the UK Exchequer that has allowed business support to be provided to Scottish businesses.

One of the truly impressive things about the response across these islands has been the way in which people have put aside their ideological and political differences to work in the interests of one United Kingdom. Even at a time of test and trial for our nations, we should take pride in the efforts of the Northern Ireland, Scottish, Welsh and English people.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]]

May I wholeheartedly join my right hon. Friend in the tribute he paid to NHS staff and all the key workers throughout the four nations of our kingdom? As we draw close to the summer, the agricultural sector’s need for labour is increasing. With reduced access to foreign labour, what steps are the Government taking to support the agricultural sector?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the steps that the Environment Secretary has taken, which I referred to briefly in my statement, is to work with the farming industry in order to ensure that more UK workers can support our farmers to produce the food we need. Whether it is picking asparagus or soft fruit or helping in other ways, thousands of people have stepped up to help our farming sector. It is vital work, and I commend all those who are doing it.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) [V]]

We have seen Wales move ahead of the UK Government in many areas throughout this crisis, but in an effort to ensure greater collaboration, with decisions coming out of the lockdown made equally, the First Minister of Wales has called for a new weekly framework of decision making between the four nations. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to that proposal, under which officials meet during the first part of the week and Ministers then meet before a final meeting at Cobra?

[Michael Gove]

It is not necessarily appropriate to have a full Cobra meeting every week. When those meetings do occur, we will of course ensure that all representatives—First Ministers or Deputy First Ministers—of the devolved Administrations are invited. I enjoy regular conversations with Mark Drakeford and his colleagues, and I am always happy to discuss with him in any forum the steps that we should take together.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]]

The additional capacity for testing careworkers and their families if they have symptoms of covid-19 is welcome news, but what plans are there to extend that to all careworkers who have been in contact with residents or staff who have covid-19 and to those who work outside the NHS in other care sectors?

[Michael Gove]

The number of tests capable of being administered and being administered has increased significantly in recent days, as we move towards our 100,000 target. My hon. Friend is right: careworkers are at the front of the queue. We now have across the United Kingdom 48 testing centres, each of which will have two military units assigned to them, in order to be able to do mobile testing, and care homes are our first priority.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]]

I want to press the Minister further on what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) about deaths in care homes. He said that “every life is precious”. We know from the CQC that 4,343 people died in care homes between 10 April and 24 April, and that is just up to four days ago. We now know that one in three people are dying from covid in care homes. Why are the Government not doing a better job of valuing every tragic loss and informing policy better by making it a real priority to have up-to-date figures on all deaths from covid-19?

[Michael Gove]

We do value every life. Every life is precious, and the deaths of those in care homes, in our hospitals and in the community are a source of grief, sadness and loss to us all. The figures that we produce are the figures that the Office for National Statistics validates. It is vital that Government figures are supported by the ONS, so that they are robust and detailed, but we will work with everyone constructively to ensure that we have the appropriate data and our response is tailored in accordance with those facts and with the science.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) [V]]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the “Pick for Britain” initiative, but why are the employers being so picky, with many people being told that their services are not required? What assessment has been made of the potential impact of mandatory quarantine on air travellers, which will certainly devastate business travel?

[Michael Gove]

I would hope that all employers will make use of the willing hands available. I am not the most dextrous of Members of this House, but even I was able to help with the tattie howking when I was younger, so all willing hands can help in our fields at this time. On the question of quarantine and how we deal with international travel, it is important that we ensure that we depress the infection curve here, but of course we are keeping under review our approach towards international travellers.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]]

Hundreds of thousands of people working legally in the UK have no recourse to public funds, so stopping work means many have been left with no income at all. Will the Government lift the no recourse to public funds restriction for the duration of this crisis, to give those hard-working families a chance?

[Michael Gove]

This matter has been discussed at the Ministry with the implementation group and it is under review.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent work that he and his colleagues are doing, and particularly the team behind the gov.uk website, which is world-leading in how rapidly updated and comprehensive it is. That is a significant achievement. May I press him, though, and ask that when the time is right—I hope that will be soon—outdoor economy and garden centres, including those in West Sussex, will be in the first wave of modifications? They are important to the emerging mental health crisis, but they are also—if I can put it this way—economically wilting with every day of the peak growing season that they remain closed.

[Michael Gove]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about the Government Digital Service and gov.uk. The civil servant who leads the work on gov.uk, Jen Allum, been doing a wonderful job in making sure that we can provide people with accurate, timely and comprehensive information. My hon. Friend also makes a valid point about garden centres. One of the things we know about this disease is that it spreads more easily inside than outside and, as the Government reflect on how to lift the current restrictions, that will be an important factor.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]]

On 11 March, I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care whether he would be providing protective equipment for care workers. I was told that the Government were taking that into account. Given the right hon. Gentleman’s Department’s responsibility for procurement, will he please confirm when a full assessment was made of the protective equipment needs of social care providers, when that equipment started to be distributed, and when Clipper, the long-promised central distribution service for local resilience forums, will finally be operational?

[Michael Gove]

New guidance was issued and approved on the appropriate use of personal protective equipment in health and also in social care settings some fortnight ago, and the Clipper service will be there to ensure that all local resilience forums and local service providers can have access to additional personal protective equipment.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) [V]]

Will my right hon. Friend explain how he is working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that all four nations of the UK have the best possible advice in a timely manner to ensure that they are able to deal with this pandemic?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that working together across the United Kingdom is the right way to deal with this pandemic. The chief medical officers of all four parts of the United Kingdom meet regularly and scientific advice is shared across the United Kingdom. We want to ensure, as we ease any restrictions, that we do so in as united a way as possible, because consistency of messaging is critical to ensuring that all of us see some of our cherished liberties restored while at the same time protecting precious lives.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]]

Today, on International Workers’ Memorial Day, our key workers and public sector workers are even more at the forefront of our minds. A decade of Tory-led austerity has hugely cut apart our public services, which play a crucial part in protecting us from covid-19. Scottish public services have lost out on over £13.9 billion in real terms. Does the Secretary of State agree that the current crisis shows that we need more support for public services, not less?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is right that we are all reminded of how much we rely on public services, but it is the case that the Scottish Government operate a deficit. The UK Government support the Scottish Government in making sure that public services can be protected. Per capita spending on public services—health and education—is higher in Scotland as a result of the resources that the UK Exchequer provides. This crisis reminds us all that when we work together, while recognising the distinctive nature of each of the four parts of the United Kingdom, we are stronger.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]]

The tourism, leisure and hospitality sector is very important in the Waveney area, and business owners and their staff face serious challenges both while the lockdown is ongoing and once it has been lifted. Notwithstanding the Government’s welcome support packages, some businesses do not qualify, and seasonal workers, who could not be furloughed, face a worrying immediate future. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is working in a co-ordinated way with other Departments, the devolved Administrations, local government and industry on a sustained recovery strategy?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; in Lowestoft, Beccles and so many other coastal and near-coastal communities, hospitality and other seasonal sectors will be particularly badly affected by the pandemic. That is very much in the minds of the Chancellor and the Business Secretary, and we will be saying more in due course.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]]

Does the Minister accept that one of the lessons of this crisis is that the Government should collect much more data on a routine basis so that they have a much more informed picture of the reality of life in our care homes?

[Michael Gove]

I think we should collect more data of every kind, make that data open and transparent, and allow people to use that data in a smart way, in order to ensure that we tailor the delivery of public services to those who need them most. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) [V]]

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to our amazing frontline public sector workers. Does he agree that anyone who is convicted of spitting or coughing at those key workers, or of threatening them with covid, should receive an immediate custodial sentence?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. My view is that it is up to the police and the criminal justice system to decide the appropriate response in such situations. It is often the case that non-custodial sentences are as effective as custodial sentences for certain offences, and we also need to ensure that our prison estate is kept as free of infection as possible. An appropriate balance needs to be struck, but my hon. Friend presents a fair challenge, and I will share it with the Justice Secretary.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) [V]]

My question is straightforward. Can the Minister tell me—no generalities, no kicking the can down the road—on what specific date all care workers can expect to receive PPE?

[Michael Gove]

I hope it will be the case that all care workers are currently receiving PPE. If there are specific examples of specific care homes where PPE has not been provided, I will be grateful to the hon. Lady for letting me know.

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

Across Bolsover we have seen many individuals and groups step up and really go above and beyond their duty at this time of national crisis. Will my right hon. Friend’s committee look into the possibility of creating a special honours list for individuals and organisations that have made such a valuable contribution? May I go further and pass on the suggestion of Brian Kirkland, a constituent of mine in Morton, that we should have an annual day to celebrate the work of our NHS staff?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Brian Kirkland’s suggestion is a noble one and I will pass it on to the Prime Minister. Of course, honours are a matter for the Crown, but I am sure that the sentiment my hon. Friend expresses will be well understood across the country.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]]

Recent reports have stated that the contract for the NHS tracking app, which will handle huge amounts of personal and confidential data, is going to be given to the brother of a No.10 data scientist and former vote leave employee and a friend of Dominic Cummings. If this app is to be effective, we need the buy-in from the overwhelming majority of the public. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that trust in this app can be established and maintained?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. It seems to me that whether someone voted leave or remain is irrelevant to the question of their participation in helping us to resolve this crisis. It is my understanding that the app is being developed by NHSX, which is the arm of the NHS responsible for technological innovation under the leadership of the inspirational public servant, Matthew Gould.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]]

I join others in thanking all our key workers, especially those across Chatham and Aylesford, including the many teachers and nursery workers who have worked non-stop, including through the Easter holidays, to keep vulnerable children and children of key workers in schools during this crisis. Will my right hon. Friend join me in also thanking our postmen and women up and down the country, many of whom are trying to work safely in unusual conditions while continuing to provide a service that my own postie describes as similar to the levels at Christmas?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very, very important point. Postal workers and those who work in the Royal Mail are doing so much to ensure that individuals can keep in touch and that we can all get the goods that we need at this critical time. I am happy to join her in praising postal workers, workers in the Royal Mail, and members of the Communication Workers Union for everything they are doing at this time.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) [V]]

PPE is essential for frontline NHS workers and care staff. May I ask how the Government responded to the offer of the British Chambers of Commerce in March to help co-ordinate spare PPE for businesses and get it to the frontline?

[Michael Gove]

As I mentioned earlier, we have had 10,256 offers overall for support with supply, manufacture and distribution of PPE. We have had 192 specific offers of support for the manufacture of PPE, 30 of which are now being taken forward in order to ensure that the equipment that people want to manufacture will be suitably safe for distribution.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]]

I also want to join the chorus of thanks to our public sector workers for their extraordinary response. In conversation with many of them, I have heard concerns about the changes to the lockdown—[inaudible]. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that conversations with unions will continue and that those unions will be involved in any changes to the lockdown that take place?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an absolutely spot-on point. We will engage with the unions that serve so many public sector workers so well and, as well as engaging with Frances O’Grady and Len McCluskey, we are also grateful for the work of so many other trade union leaders. We will make sure that we work with them in order to ensure that there are safe workplaces for all.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC) [V]]

Global experience indicates that widespread community testing is vital in tackling coronavirus. The Welsh Government had secured a deal with Roche to do 5,000 tests a day, which would have put Wales on a similar level of testing per head of some of the best-performing countries in the world only for Wales to be seemingly gazumped by the British Government. The UK Government are building mega labs in England and Scotland. Will they also commit to building a mega lab in Wales?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. Testing is something that needs to be done in a co-ordinated way across the United Kingdom. It is the case that the incidence of test take-up in some parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland, has been less than existing capacity. None the less, I am sure that Welsh scientists and Welsh medics will play a role in ensuring that we can test many more in the future.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]]

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster join me in thanking the Devon and Cornwall police for their proactive approach in preventing people travelling to Cornwall for non-essential purposes, including to visit their second homes and for a holiday? One of the biggest concerns for people in Cornwall is that, as we start to ease the lockdown, we will see an influx of people coming to Cornwall and risk another wave. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that as the Government consider lifting the restrictions, they will come with clear and enforceable travel restrictions to prevent that from happening?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right. Cornwall is beautiful and visiting it is a pleasure, but at the moment, and for some time to come, don’t.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a question about child sexual abuse and exploitation, and online platform management. Over the weekend, the Internet Watch Foundation reported that there had been an 89% reduction in the number of URLs that were taken down in the past month compared to the previous month, the comparison being 496 in the past month and 14,947 the month before. One of the concerns of the IWF and the industry more widely is the pressure on police in being able to take down indecent images and videos. In his deliberations in the Cabinet Office, will he ensure that the police have enough resources to ensure that children are protected from this form of paedophilia?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. The Home Secretary has updated my ministerial implementation group on some of the increased risks of child abuse during the pandemic. I will report back to our group and to her the very important point he makes.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. As he mentioned, one of the real positives to come out of the past few weeks has been the collaboration and close working between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, which has avoided confusion and delivered clear, uniform messages and allowed those fighting the virus on the frontline, such as our amazing staff at NHS Grampian, to know that all levels of government are working for them. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that collaborative approach will continue and that it is imperative that all our Governments continue to work closely together, demonstrating that the Union is still working?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Of course, we recognise the competence of the devolved Administrations in their respective areas, but in dealing with the pandemic I have been impressed, cheered and reassured by the way in which Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive have recognised that we are all in this together. As we seek to ease the restrictions there at the moment, the closer we can work together the better.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

Local authorities like Salford City Council are on the frontline of fighting covid-19, from supporting our social care services to providing food for vulnerable people and supporting local businesses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government will do whatever it takes to defeat covid-19, but councils are now facing the prospect of not having all their additional costs covered. It is imperative that the Government fully fund the cost of this vital local response. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will do that for Salford City Council?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has been in touch regularly with local authority leaders and chief executives to make sure they have the resources they need and that some of the administrative burdens that are not necessary at this time are lifted. I will pass on to him the particular concerns the hon. Lady expresses on behalf of the citizens of Salford.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend referred to the work of the Army in his statement and the support that has been provided to local resilience forums. It is fantastic to see them playing their part, as they always do when our country finds itself in need. Will he outline what strategic role they will play moving forward, in particular whether, given their expertise at running operations in the field, they will be utilised to support mobile testing and getting tests to the places we need them?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in thanking our military for all the support they are giving at the moment. It is the case that we have 48 regional test centres up and running. Each has two teams of military capable of dispensing and administering tests at a distance. One thing we are keeping under review is how we can expand that capacity even further in the future. The role of the military has been absolutely vital. I commend, in particular, Alex Cooper, one of the ex-servicemen who has been absolutely critical to making sure that the Department of Health and Social Care can do everything possible to deliver testing.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]]

The Health Secretary promised me nearly two weeks ago that the Government would publish the scientific evidence behind the decision not to self-isolate people arriving at ports and airports, but he has not yet done so. If we look on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies website, there has been no update, it appears, in the publication of the scientific advice and evidence to the Government since 16 March, which is six weeks ago. It is inconceivable that the Government have not received more scientific advice and evidence since then. Given that transparency and trust should be at the heart of what the Government do and that getting these decisions right is crucial, why are the Government still not publishing the scientific evidence and advice?

[Michael Gove]

The first thing to say about flights into this country is that many of them are carrying people who are being repatriated and many of them are carrying the personal protective equipment and other goods that we need here, but, as I mentioned earlier, the prospect of changing our approach is something that we are reviewing at the moment. She makes a broader point about the publication of scientific advice, and it is not for me to dictate what SAGE, NERVTAG—the new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory group—or any of our independent scientific committees should or should not do, but I know that our chief scientific adviser has spoken about the importance of building confidence, and more will I am sure be said in due course.

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

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will know how important it will be, as we move into the next phase of dealing with coronavirus, to maintain the high levels of public trust that the Government currently have. To avoid any unnecessary confusion, can he set out for the House, for the purposes of the 100,000 testing target, how the Government define a completed test?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and there has been some confusion over capacity and tests administered. The target is tests administered, and the figure for the number of tests administered on Thursday, which is the day we have set for the target, will be published on Saturday.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]]

Our public health departments were once the envy of the world, so will the Minister give the country hope that the Government will reinstate them to their former glory by resourcing them properly and giving them and local authorities immediate access to the SAGE and Cobra planning assumptions, as well as to the NHSX covid-19 data warehouse? No one answer fits all: all local areas are reacting and are at different stages. Can the Minister give assurances?

[Michael Gove]

Those are very good points, which I will consider and discuss with the Health Secretary.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that, as well as treating patients for covid-19, our NHS is very much there for people needing urgent access to healthcare, and will my right hon. Friend confirm that the NHS is open for business for everybody who needs it? Anybody who is suffering a stroke, a heart attack or other life-threatening conditions should not be deterred from seeking that important medical help.

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. We must do everything we can to encourage people, particularly those with serious conditions such as cancer, to seek support from the NHS. The effective response that the NHS has mounted to the pandemic so far enables us to treat them as well.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) [V]]

Before Parliament rose before the lockdown, I told the Government that the Soapworks company in my constituency was quite happy to provide soap, which we know is hugely important in this pandemic, but Soapworks has not been contacted by the Government. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster please ensure that urgent contact is established with this company in my constituency that wants to play a part in this national effort?

[Michael Gove]

Yes.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

What contingency plans does my right hon. Friend have in place to ensure that our prisons, such as the Mount in my own patch, remain functional, given the increase in staff absences?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Lord Chancellor has ensured that we have a system in prisons where we effectively segment and isolate those who may have the virus. It is also the case that we have ensured that additional capacity has been sourced. There has also been a very targeted early release programme in order to ensure that we manage the estate appropriately.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Community testing and contact tracing will be crucial to keep infection as low as possible in the months ahead. We need an effective system with local understanding of capacity. I am therefore very concerned that the Government’s plans for contact tracing seem to rely on a phone-based system with 18,000 staff who will all be recruited nationally. I learned last week that local authority staff in Ealing and elsewhere have not yet been asked to play a part. So will the Minister confirm today whether they will be asked to play a part in contact tracing, and if so, what role and by when?

[Michael Gove]

Contact tracing is vitally important. It should be done both through the new NHS app that is being developed and through those who are working at Public Health England, and others. But I will consider with the Health Secretary what additional steps may be required.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]]

Across our country we are seeing some incredible displays of community spirit and selflessness. So will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the incredible work of Bishop Auckland’s first unsung hero, Kim Clark, in cooking and delivering over 6,000 meals to the elderly and vulnerable from her very own kitchen?

[Michael Gove]

That is a fantastic example of community spirit, and just what I would expect from the people of County Durham and Bishop Auckland in particular.

[Mr Speaker]

Imran Hussain has withdrawn, so I go to James Cartlidge.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) [V]]

My constituents have of late been spending more of their time than usual on gardening, with nowhere to dispose of significant waste because of the closure of household waste recycling centres. Will my right hon. Friend consider reopening such centres fairly soon, because they would appear to offer a low risk of infection but considerable amenity to our constituents?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point that I will take into account as we consider how we relax restrictions.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]]

It has been reported that the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—SAGE—includes not one molecular virologist, not one intensive care expert, not one nursing lead or immunologist, and only one member from an ethnic minority. So will the Government publish the criteria and selection process used to identify and appoint members of the SAGE group dealing with covid-19?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning that. I read precisely that statement in The Guardian earlier today, and it is useful for the House to be reminded of it. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is composed of some of the finest minds in our scientific community, and the criterion for membership is a commitment to doing everything possible to save others’ lives. It seems to me that it does not matter what colour someone’s skin is if they are committed to saving the lives of others.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) [V]]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely imperative to maintain the support of the public and that the best way to do that is, when deciding the next steps, to implement them on a UK-wide basis?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. The more that the four parts of the United Kingdom can co-ordinate the response, the easier it will be for all our citizens to follow the guidance, which is in all our interests.

Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee

Michael Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Written Statements

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

The first meeting of the withdrawal agreement joint committee will take place on 30 March 2020 by remote means.

The meeting will be co-chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and Vice-President of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič .

The agenda will include four items:

Introduction and opening remarks from co-chairs

UK/EU updates on implementation of the withdrawal agreement

Tasks and responsibilities of the specialised committees

AOB

The UK delegation will include:

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

The Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt)

[HCWS190]

European (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks

Michael Gove Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Written Statements

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

I am today laying before Parliament a report, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 September 2019 to 25 December 2019”. I am laying this report because it is a legal requirement under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for quarterly reports to be made to Parliament on the progress of the work to develop common frameworks. The report is available on gov.uk and details the progress made between the UK Government and devolved Administrations regarding the development of common frameworks. This report details progress made during the sixth three-month reporting period, and sets out that no “freezing” regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. A copy of the “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 September 2019 to 25 December 2019” report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.

[HCWS171]

UK's Future Relationship with the EU: Negotiations

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Written Statements

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

Negotiators from the UK and the EU met in Brussels on 2 to 5 March 2020 for the first round of negotiations on the UK-EU future relationship.

The negotiations were formally launched by the UK’s chief negotiator, David Frost, and by the European Commission’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, in a plenary session on 2 March.

The substantive discussions then took place within 11 separate negotiating groups, as agreed between the parties and as set out in the terms of reference. The session closed with a further plenary on 5 March.

Both sides presented their positions as set out in the EU mandate and in the document “The Future Relationship with the EU—The UK’s Approach to Negotiations” (CP211). The UK’s team made clear that on 1 January 2021 the UK would regain its economic and political independence in full, and that the future relationship would need to reflect that reality.

Discussions in some areas identified a degree of common understanding of the ground that future talks could cover. In other areas, notably fisheries, governance and dispute settlement, and the so-called “level playing field”, there were, as expected, significant differences.

The next negotiating round will take place on 18 to 20 March in London. The UK expects to table a number of legal texts, including a draft FTA, beforehand.

[HCWS153]

Ministerial Code

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent apparent breaches of the ministerial code and whether he intends to refer the matter to the Cabinet Office for further investigation.

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

On Saturday 29 February, the Cabinet Secretary and head of the civil service received and accepted the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam as permanent secretary at the Home Office. On the same day, the Cabinet Secretary announced that Shona Dunn—then the second permanent secretary at the Home Office, responsible for borders, immigration and citizenship—would become acting permanent secretary with immediate effect.

Allegations have been made that the Home Secretary has breached the ministerial code. The Home Secretary absolutely rejects those allegations. The Prime Minister has expressed his full confidence in her, and having worked closely with the Home Secretary over a number of years, I have the highest regard for her. She is a superb Minister doing a great job.

This Government always take any complaints relating to the ministerial code seriously, and in line with the process set out in the ministerial code, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts. As is usual, the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Alex Allan, is available to provide advice to the Prime Minister.

It is long-standing Government policy not to comment on individual personnel matters, in order to protect the rights of all involved. What I can and will say is that I know that the dedicated ministerial team at the Home Office and their superb civil servants will continue their critical work on the public’s behalf, keeping our country protected from the terror threat, bearing down on criminals who seek to do our communities and our country harm, and delivering a fair, firm immigration system that works in the interests of the British people. The Home Office works tirelessly to keep our citizens safe and our country secure, and we all stand behind the team leading that vital work.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but my question was to the Prime Minister. Could we have an answer as to where the Prime Minister is this afternoon? When an urgent question to the Prime Minister is granted, one would expect the Prime Minister to come to this House to answer the question that has been put to him.

It is the Prime Minister’s job to oversee the ministerial code. If the serious allegations raised by the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Sir Philip Rutnam, about the Home Secretary’s conduct are true—including

“shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands”—

that would clearly constitute a breach of the ministerial code.

The Prime Minister himself, in his foreword to the code, said there must be

“no bullying and no harassment”.

Those are his words in his foreword to the ministerial code, so why, without a proper investigation, has the Prime Minister defended the Home Secretary, calling her “fantastic” and saying he “absolutely” has confidence in her?

It is not enough just to refer this to the Cabinet Office. The Government must now call in an external lawyer, as has quite rightly been suggested by the union of senior civil servants, the First Division Association. A Minister in breach of the ministerial code cannot remain in office and should be dismissed.

These are just the latest in a series of allegations that suggest an unacceptable pattern of behaviour. According to reports in our media, a number of the Home Office clashes have involved demands from the Home Secretary some of which were considered illegal by officials—illegal by officials. Most disturbingly, the Home Secretary reportedly asked officials to reverse a court ruling halting the deportation of 25 individuals to Jamaica last month. If that is the case, was the Home Secretary not trying to push officials into breaching a ruling by the Court of Appeal?

Is it now this Government’s policy to bully officials into flouting court rulings? Is it not the truth that this is a Government led by bullies, presided over by a part-time Prime Minister, who not only cannot be bothered to turn up, but simply will not take the vital action required when the very integrity and credibility of the Government are on the line?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his questions. The Prime Minister is of course in Downing Street, leading our response to the coronavirus, implementing the people’s priorities and making sure that the manifesto promises at the general election are delivered. He is governing in the national interest, delivering for the British people. As the Minister responsible for the civil service, I am pleased to be here in order to be able to uphold the ministerial code and to underline our thanks to our superb civil service for the work it does every day, implementing the manifesto commitments on which we were elected.

The Leader of the Opposition asks if this investigation is robust and fit for purpose. Of course it is. The ministerial code is absolutely clear, and the Cabinet Secretary, who polices it alongside the Prime Minister, also has access to Sir Alex Allan to ensure that every part of the ministerial code is adhered to. One of the things that is clear about this Government is that we believe that Ministers, special advisers and civil servants need to work together with confidence, with clarity and in a co-ordinated fashion to ensure that our priorities are delivered.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to media reports. I would have thought that he of all people would be wary of believing what he reads in the newspaper. We make no apology for having strong Ministers in place to ensure the effective delivery of public priorities. There is a stark contrast between the actions that the Home Secretary and her colleagues are taking to keep this country safe, and the danger in which our country would have been placed if he had won the general election and his approach towards national security had been followed.

The final thing that many will reflect on is that it is vitally important that all of us in this House uphold the highest standards of civility and respect for others. However, many people will look at the Opposition Front Bench and reflect on the fact that Labour MPs required armed police protection at their own party conference, and that the shadow Chancellor spoke of lynching Members of this House, and they will draw the conclusion that all of us need to reflect on the importance of restoring civility to public life before we throw around allegations like that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am someone who strongly supports the work that the Home Secretary is doing to make sure we are secure and to have a new borders policy. Can the Government guarantee that this will be a quick process, so that we can get to an early answer and she can get on with the job?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend speaks for many in the country. The Home Secretary is doing a superb job. The new points-based immigration system is in line with what this country wants, and we want to make sure that this process is expedited in a fair way.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The circumstances surrounding the resignation at the weekend were unprecedented, although the Government seem to thrive on unprecedented circumstances. It seems that the Home Secretary may be trying to create a hostile environment inside the Home Office, as well as outside it. We in the House are all managers of staff, and every Member understands the rewards and challenges that brings. There is a world of difference between robust management and bullying, however, and only an independent investigation can establish which of the two has gone on. That is what the FDA union has called for, so why will the Government not agree to an independent investigation? What are they afraid of?

On the whereabouts of the Prime Minister, we know that in the past he was so afraid of the scrutiny of the House that he tried—unlawfully—to shut it down. Is he still afraid of the scrutiny of the House of Commons, or is he in hiding because we are about to lose another Cabinet Minister from one of the great offices of state?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her question, and she knows that I have enormous respect and affection for the work she does. She is right to say that, as we are all managers of staff and public servants, we must be properly robust and exacting in ensuring that we do everything we can to deliver for those who put us here. All my ministerial colleagues know that their first responsibility is to the British people, and to delivering the manifesto on which we were elected.

The hon and learned Lady rightly said that it is important that any investigation is thorough, rapid, independent, and authoritative. The Cabinet Secretary will be leading the work in accordance with the ministerial code, and with access to the independent adviser, Sir Alex Allan, and that will ensure a proper and fair inquiry. On the presence of the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister is determined to ensure that across Government we fulfil our manifesto pledges, and it is right for him to lead that work. As the Minister responsible for the civil service, it is appropriate that I am here answering these questions.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

How does my right hon. Friend think that Margaret Thatcher would have got on if she had been subjected to the same smears and sexism as have been used against the current iron lady in the Home Office?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are all aware that progress in the past has depended on strong Ministers, and indeed strong Prime Ministers, setting exacting terms, but it has also depended on having a brilliant and able civil service that can act with confidence and provide candid advice. Those two important pillars of our constitution are at the heart of this Government’s operation.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Sir Philip Rutnam’s statement said that he received allegations about the Home Secretary’s behaviour from other civil servants. Will the Minister say how many allegations there have been, from both within and without the Home Office, and will every one be investigated as part of this inquiry?

[Michael Gove]

As the right hon. Lady will appreciate, it would be improper for me to go into individual personnel cases, but every legitimately raised complaint will, of course, be investigated.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Anyone who has watched “Yes Minister” will know that profoundly felt differences of opinion can exist between civil servants on the one hand, and Ministers on the other. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when a Minister or Secretary of State is implementing Government policy, that must prevail? Civil servants are crown servants and, as I am sure they would agree, they really do have to carry out the will of the people.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right, and as I and my ministerial colleagues know, when implementing our manifesto commitments it is important that we are robust and clear about what is required, to ensure that we deliver for the British people. It is also true that the effective delivery of Government policy depends on candid advice from civil servants, and that relationship must therefore be one in which both sides respect each other’s particular responsibilities, as I know is the case across Government.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that it has now been almost two years since the Windrush scandal. Do the allegations made in relation to the Home Secretary relate to the publication of that long-overdue report? Will this debacle, and the loss of the permanent secretary, mean that that report will now be delayed even longer?

[Michael Gove]

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has been a formidable and effective advocate on behalf of the Windrush generation, but it is important for me to state that I have no evidence that any of the allegations that may or may not have been made relate to the report. The report is being conducted entirely independently. I understand his anxiety, and the anxiety of many across the House, to see that report published as soon as possible. I know that that is the Government’s wish as well.

[Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend take a small piece of advice from me and my family, who have given over 150 years’ work to the civil service of our great country? Civil servants give advice, and Ministers and Secretaries of State enact Government policy. The two should not get mixed up, so will he please give our support to our present Home Secretary?

[Michael Gove]

I am very, very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a superb Minister. Of course, she is absolutely right. The ethos of public service that she characterises is at the heart of our effective constitution.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

In all my many years in this House, eight of them as a Minister in the Government, I do not think I have ever seen such a resignation announcement from a permanent secretary: actively calling his Secretary of State a liar, accusing her of bullying in the most gross terms, and feeling he had no option but to do so publicly. Clearly, something here has gone extremely wrong and it surely threatens the independence of the civil service if this rot is allowed to continue. What is the Minister, who has responsibility for the civil service, going to do to protect the integrity of the civil service from these kinds of ad hominem political attacks?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady was herself a distinguished Minister and I know how high was the regard in which she was held by her civil servants. I completely agree with her that it is vital that all of us seek to uphold the independence of the civil service. It is absolutely vital that the civil service is able to offer candid advice to Ministers. I know myself, having worked with the Home Secretary and others, that we have benefited from that candid advice in seeking to implement Government policy. However, I think it is also important to acknowledge that Sir Philip, a distinguished public servant, has indicated that he may initiate legal proceedings against the Government, so it would be inappropriate for me to say more about the particular statements he made on Saturday.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I believe we have an excellent and dynamic Home Secretary who deserves our unwavering support. Does the Chancellor recall, just a few months ago, Labour MP after Labour MP going on the record publicly telling us about vicious bullying and antisemitism in the Labour party? Should not the Leader of the Opposition therefore remove the plank from his own eye?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, the Home Secretary is doing an outstanding job. Secondly, while the Labour party remains under investigation from the Equality and Human Rights Commission for some of the practices that have occurred under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is important that there is an appropriate sense of proportion and humility in his comments.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

If what the Minister has told us today is correct, then Philip Rutnam is being either severely misleading or widely mistaken. Which of those two is it?

[Michael Gove]

The first point I would make is that because Sir Philip has made a particular statement as a prequel to potential legal proceedings, it would be wrong for me to provide a commentary on his words. What I will say is that he is a distinguished public servant and I thank him for his service. It is also important for me to place on record my knowledge that the Home Secretary is an outstanding Home Secretary who deserves our support.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

What plans does my right hon. Friend have to reform the civil service to promote greater accountability?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is vital that we first acknowledge that the civil service does an outstanding job. If one looks over recent months at, for example, how the Department for Transport dealt with the collapse of Thomas Cook or the response of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency to recent flooding, we see people going above and beyond to serve the public. But all of us can do better in every area. I look forward to working with the Cabinet Secretary and other leaders of the civil service to ensure that we can support the civil service to do even better in the future.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The allegations of bullying on the part of a Cabinet Minister are incredibly serious. We all saw the breakdown of that relationship at the weekend and that requires an immediate investigation. However, the ministerial code also states that Ministers have

“a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants”.

There are now reports of an alleged hitlist of senior civil servants whom No. 10 is seeking to replace for political reasons—a list that reportedly included Sir Philip Rutnam. That is clearly incompatible with that duty. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether such a list exists?

[Michael Gove]

No such list exists. It is the case that having worked with a variety of permanent secretaries and other senior civil servants across Departments, I have personally benefited from their robust—sometimes very robust—advice, and I have always been happy to come to this House to acknowledge when I have been wrong and others have been right.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is it not the case that this all started with briefings from unknown sources against the Home Secretary, not the other way around? My constituents want fair immigration and fairness for the taxpayer. They want 20,000 more police on our streets. Does this not have the nasty whiff of an establishment who are trying to stop these policies?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. I suspect that many people watching our debates and knowing that we are discussing home affairs and the Home Office will be asking, “Why are MPs not concentrating on improving our migration system? Why are MPs not doing more to ensure that our police are supported in the fight against organised crime? Why are MPs not making sure that we take an even stronger stance against terrorism?” It is vitally important, of course, that the ministerial code is upheld and defended, but it is also vitally important, as he points out, that the Government deliver for the people on their manifesto promises.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I gently caution the Minister against his two central arguments: first, that a strong and exacting Minister can pretty much get away with anything, and secondly, that the Home Secretary is charming, so that is all fine. The truth of the matter and the experience in this House—and my personal experience when I was a Minister—is that the way bullying normally happens is that somebody one minute is extremely charming, praises you to high heaven, and then the next day humiliates you in front of staff and colleagues or behind your back. That is the nature of bullying and I urge the Minister not to dismiss all this talk of bullying, because too many people out in the country still get bullied.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We do not dismiss any allegations or concerns about bullying. It is vitally important that Ministers, special advisers and civil servants all work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. He is right that bullying can occur in any workplace and we must be vigilant about bullying behaviour, but I also say that simply because allegations have been raised or complaints have been made, it should not automatically be the case that people then, whether through trial by media or other means, attempt to besmirch the reputation of someone who is an outstanding public servant.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has been doing a fantastic job on child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Ministers will not find directions given to civil servants blocked or diverted?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend has done outstanding work in drawing attention to those issues, and it is the case that the work of the Home Office, its ministerial team and its superb civil servants goes on uninterrupted. One of the most important things that the Home Office can do is safeguard the most vulnerable in our society from the type of exploitation that she has so vigorously campaigned against.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Of course there is a world of difference between having a difference of opinion with somebody and being shouted down or humiliated by that person. We have a situation where impartial civil servants may feel that they cannot operate in an impartial way. How will the Minister guarantee that they can continue to do the job that they are supposed to do when they are concerned that their advice may result in bullying or abuse?

[Michael Gove]

It is my experience, and the experience of my ministerial colleagues, that the civil service is clear that it can offer robust, impartial advice and provide counters from time to time to propositions that are put forward by Ministers, confident in the knowledge that we as Ministers respect the civil service for its independence and integrity. It is vitally important that anyone within public service who feels that the atmosphere in which they work is not conducive to that has the opportunity, which this Government provide, to make sure that their concerns are properly expressed and, if necessary, properly investigated.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned some press reports, but he never touched on the fact that the policies pursued by the Home Secretary were voted for overwhelmingly in December and are extremely popular. People voted for 20,000 extra police and a managed immigration system. Her real offence is that she has upset the Opposition and the establishment. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) touched on, that this inquiry will have the necessary resources to be finished quickly so that our greatly respected Home Secretary can crack on and deliver the job we were voted in to do?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend, who was an outstanding Cabinet Minister, makes an important point. The comments from some—some—on the Opposition Benches suggest they are very happy when attention is shifted away from our focus on delivering our manifesto commitments, but we will not be diverted from delivering on those manifesto commitments, and the Home Secretary is committed to ensuring we do just that.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Is this not the honeymoon period for a new Government? In less than three months, the Government have lost a Chancellor and now the head of the Home Office. How does the Minister think things are going for the Government?

[Michael Gove]

It is probably fair to say that different people enjoy different types of honeymoon.

[Chris Bryant]

Tell us about it.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

No, please don’t.

[Michael Gove]

A candidate for the deputy leadership of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), invites me to go further than I would want to at this moment, but I shall not.

[Angela Rayner]

indicated dissent.

[Michael Gove]

On a more serious note, the vital thing that we all recognise is that all Governments face entirely understandable and legitimate media scrutiny, but the real test of any Government is not what may preoccupy commentary at any given moment, but the delivery of the people’s priorities, the keeping of manifesto pledges and making life better for the people of this country, and that is our relentless focus.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I was a civil servant at three Departments. On the day of the Brexit referendum result, I was told at the Foreign Office by multiple senior civil servants that it was the wrong decision and that the people had got it wrong. Is it not right that sometimes, sadly, Ministers do need to be robust with civil servants to make sure the people’s priorities are always delivered?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right. Of course, we will all have different opinions about the wisdom of particular policies as individual citizens, but as a Government we are united in delivering the manifesto on which we were elected. One of the strengths of our system of government is that the civil service works energetically and determinedly to ensure that the Government of day’s agenda is fulfilled. I am grateful to the civil servants with whom I and other Ministers work for being so dedicated to ensuring that the public’s wishes are followed.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Home Secretary herself has admitted that her

“actions fell below the high standards that are expected of a secretary of state”

and

“below the standards of transparency and openness that I have promoted and advocated.”

Of course, that was the last time she had to resign from the Cabinet—as International Development Secretary. What has changed since then? Given the Minister’s interest in the work of the Home Office, can he say who has replaced Shona Dunn as the second permanent secretary, given that person’s important role in dealing with the immigration system?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman refers to events in the past, but it is also fair to say that since then we have had a general election at which the public endorsed our clear manifesto commitments to an additional 20,000 police officers, a points-based immigration system and a tougher line on organised crime. We need tough and determined Ministers pushing that agenda, but we also need great civil servants, which is why I am so glad that Shona Dunn, with whom I have had the pleasure of working in the past, is now leading in the Home Office.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

As a general point, recruitment for several permanent secretary posts is either ongoing or imminent. What role do the Government envisage Secretaries of State playing in that recruitment process, and would that role necessitate any changes to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010?

[Michael Gove]

There are well-laid-out procedures for the role of Secretaries of State in the appointment of permanent secretaries. We have a superb cadre of permanent secretaries and senior civil servants, who I know will maintain the very high standards that characterise the work of our civil service.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Is it Government policy to comply with the rulings of the courts?

[Michael Gove]

You betcha.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has traditionally been referred to as robust and forceful exchanges is too often routinely referred to as bullying nowadays, and that while there is no place for bullying within Government, effective government does need robust exchanges?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us consider Ministers who were successful in the past. No one would accuse Denis Healey, for example, of having been a shrinking violet when it came to ensuring that effect was given to the policies of the Labour Government of the day. However, it is also vital to acknowledge that in every workplace we must show respect to every individual and ensure that the people who work in the civil service are confident that their views are respected and their wellbeing safeguarded, and that is at the heart of everything that we do.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister what financial settlement was offered to Sir Philip Rutnam? What was the figure?

[Michael Gove]

It would be wrong for me to go into those details, given that Sir Philip—who was, as I mentioned earlier, a distinguished public servant—has indicated that he may initiate legal proceedings. I would not want to say, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want me to say, anything that would prejudice the appropriate conduct of those proceedings.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not the place of civil servants to choose their Secretaries of State, and that any attempt to do so is wrong?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key—[Interruption.] I see no reason why, in a debate in which we are considering the importance of civility, people should attempt to criticise my hon. Friend for asking a fair and robust question. She has made a critically important point. It is Ministers who are publicly and electorally accountable. Ministers hold office as a result of a general election, and it is important that we respect the popular will and the popular mandate of any Government in making sure that the people’s priorities are delivered.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Were any complaints received by Downing Street in respect of the conduct of the current Home Secretary when she was Secretary of State for International Development or when she was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, and if so, were they investigated?

[Michael Gove]

The inquiry that is proceeding will look at all complaints that may have been made. I cannot say more than that.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

A huge number of people in North Cornwall and around the country want the Government to deliver on the people’s priorities. Is it not therefore right for Ministers to be tough and robust with their talented civil servants and officers to ensure that they can deliver on those priorities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital for Ministers to be energetic and determined in pursuit of the manifesto commitments on which the Government were elected.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

As a former senior civil servant who served under various Ministers in both Labour and Conservative regimes, I find it hard to express how unprecedented the actions of Sir Philip Rutnam are. This is completely unheard of. Although the Minister will not comment on the specifics, will he at least accept that this is completely unprecedented? Does he also agree that there is a pattern of behaviour here, and that whether we are talking about the civil service, the BBC or the judiciary, this Government are more interested in picking fights than in doing the right thing for the country?

[Michael Gove]

With respect to the hon. Lady, who was a very distinguished civil servant, I disagree. The first thing to say is that because Sir Philip Rutnam has made it clear that he wishes to pursue a particular legal route, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to provide a commentary on his remarks. As for the hon. Lady’s broader point, absolutely not: far from being pugilistic, the Government are concentrating on delivering on their manifesto commitments.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not be distracted by fielding stones thrown from the glass house of the Opposition Front Bench, but should concentrate on delivering the points-based immigration system? Will he assure me that that will still happen, notwithstanding the issue that is before us today?

[Michael Gove]

It absolutely will. The Minister for Security has been working with other ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that that vital reform to our immigration system proceeds apace.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Despite all the bluster from his Back Benchers, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all the talk of manifesto pledges and implementation of policies is no excuse for a Secretary of State or Minister to behave how they want or to bully and intimidate people? Also, can he confirm that the Government are not beholden to Dominic Cummings’ plans to disrupt and dismantle the entire civil service?

[Michael Gove]

I am not aware of any such plans. It is not bluster; it is an absolutely key democratic commitment to fulfil our manifesto pledges, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that everyone deserves to be treated with courtesy and civility in public life, and Ministers across Government are committed to just that.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is predictable, sadly, that the Leader of the Opposition should accuse those on this side of the House of bullying when he himself is in charge of a party that is rife with it, and I find it shaming that he has made that allegation. I am a friend and colleague of the Home Secretary, and I find this leaking, innuendo and smear unacceptable, as I am sure we all do in this House. Surely there must be an internal procedure to ensure that this is done behind closed doors. If there is evidence of bullying, fine. If there is not, the matter will have been dealt with. Can we please ensure that this is done quickly?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is vital that this investigation is concluded as quickly as possible in the interests of everyone involved, so that we can concentrate on ensuring that no justice is delayed, and no justice is denied.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Has the Home Secretary ever asked officials in her Department to act in breach of court rulings?

[Michael Gove]

I have absolutely no reason to believe that that is the case.

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a pattern involving the appointment of female Home Secretaries and vicious briefings against them in the media? Is it possible that some of these unelected men have a problem with taking instructions from powerful women?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are fortunate in this country to have had a succession of strong female Home Secretaries. Jacqui Smith, the former Member for Redditch; my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May); Amber Rudd, the former Member for Hastings and Rye; and now my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) have all been distinguished public servants. They all demonstrate the evidence that the job of Home Secretary is exacting, and we are lucky to have had four powerful and effective women performing that role.

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that everyone has a duty to treat colleagues with respect, but that we ought not to take lectures from the Labour leadership on how to deal with bullying and harassment?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The experiences of Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman remind us all that the Labour party has a job to do to ensure that bullying is removed from its own ranks in order to improve the health of our democratic life.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has acquitted himself well on the Front Bench in explaining the circumstances of this investigation. The Home Secretary has our full support in implementing our policies, but will my right hon. Friend remind the House whether there is an ongoing investigation into the leaks from the civil service about the Home Secretary?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that everyone in public life behaves with the maximum degree of civility, courtesy and consideration to others. It is also important, however, that confidentiality is respected during the robust discussions that take place between Ministers, special advisers and officials, and leaks are therefore to be deprecated.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

We on this side of the House are certainly not frit of strong women. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the demanding work between Ministers and officials is vital and that we could not begin to accomplish things and deliver people’s priorities without the fantastic minds of those in the civil service?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend gets the balance absolutely right. Effective government, whether by Conservative or Labour Prime Ministers, has been driven by having strong Ministers who are exacting and demanding, and by having robust and professional civil servants who provide impartial advice with full integrity.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that allegations, when made, are just allegations—allegations that must be carefully investigated—and that, at all costs, we must avoid any sense of a trial by media?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When there are briefings and counter-briefings, the most important thing is to ensure that the facts are established and that we, as a Government, uphold the highest standards in public life and ensure that the public whom we serve have the manifesto pledges they want to see implemented, implemented energetically and in full.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend rightly says that civil servants have the right to give good advice without fear or favour but, similarly, Ministers have the right to expect at least a modicum of competence from their civil servants in delivering on their policies. Too often, the reward for serial incompetence is an interdepartmental cha-cha to another role in another Department. If not in the ministerial code, will he assure me there are robust measures in place to hold civil servants to account more accountably?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Ministers are rightly accountable here at the Dispatch Box and, at general elections, at the ballot box. Our civil servants ensure that the policies on which we stand, and for which we stand, are delivered effectively but, as Ministers, we also need to do everything to ensure that civil servants are supported to provide the most efficient service possible. That work is ongoing, and the Cabinet Secretary and others are ensuring we do everything we can to make sure that civil servants have the support and the capacity required to be as efficient as possible.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

It may be a bit of my northern bias, but I know that what the media report on here in London does not necessarily reflect what people are talking about in my constituency of Bishop Auckland and, I am sure, in many constituencies represented by my hon. and right hon. Friends.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this issue should not become a distraction from delivering on our manifesto, which was overwhelmingly supported by our communities, and delivering a points-based immigration system and more police?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course it is important that, in Whitehall and Westminster, high standards are upheld by everyone involved in delivering for the public, but our most important duty is to make sure that the people of Bishop Auckland have the policies for which they voted implemented effectively.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall the stories of alleged phone throwing and shouting at officials by a former Prime Minister? Does he remember which party that former Prime Minister represented?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend invites me to go down memory lane, and the point he makes is a fair one. People who are dedicated to doing their best for the public have, in the past, occasionally shown a degree of exasperation. As we look back, we can learn from them and say that their commitment to public service was admirable but that we all need to make sure that we treat those with whom we work with appropriate respect.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the steps he is taking in tackling this head-on, but what does he intend to do, as part of his reforms to the civil service, to make sure that civil servants are accountable and are seen to be accountable?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, Ministers are directly accountable for the actions of their Department—that is the appropriate constitutional principle—but it is also right that we should work with the civil service to ensure that individuals of talent have an opportunity to contribute in every way. I am confident that the approach being taken by the Cabinet Secretary and others in the Cabinet Office to ensure we provide civil servants with all the support they need will ensure that the civil service is even better equipped in future to help us and, indeed, all future Governments to deliver.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Does my right hon Friend, like me, find it extraordinary that, at a time when uppermost in our constituents’ minds are an international virus that will cause chaos, our many homes that are under water and the important trade negotiations that are about to start, the priority of the Opposition is to raise the resignation of a public servant of whom most of our constituents have never heard? Having sat here for several years watching industrial-scale bullying from the Chair, through which they remained silent, they go into overdrive the minute the allegations involve a strong woman who does not curry favour with their stereotype.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is clear sighted and robust in expressing his point of view, and I know that there will be many people who will thank him for being so candid.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

With the general election being so recent, the clear demand from the general public is to deliver on immigration and law and order. We on the Government Benches have got it. Is my right hon. Friend certain that the civil service—they are an excellent civil service—have also listened to the general public and will deliver on their priorities?

[Michael Gove]

One thing that I should say is that part of my role before the general election was to make sure that this country was prepared if we had to leave the European Union without a deal. Of course, we have secured a good deal and we have got Brexit done, but during that process I was consistently impressed by the energy and determination of civil servants in making sure that we were ready for any eventuality. Many of those same civil servants who worked tirelessly in the civil contingency secretariat at that time are also now engaged, having dealt with flooding, in work to make sure that we deal effectively with the threat of the coronavirus. We simply could not keep this country safe and its people healthy and secure without their work, and it is really important that we all remember how dedicated those individuals and their colleagues are.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

We are enormously blessed to have an independent and diligent civil service, but would my right hon. Friend join me in speculating that if the Home Secretary had asked her Department to release more criminals from prison early or check fewer entrants at our border, we might not be having this conversation today?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend reminds us that the Home Secretary and, indeed, this whole Government were elected on the basis that we would take a tough line on law and order with a firm but fair migration policy, and making sure that that we implement those policies is absolutely critical.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Whatever the Government do in relation to this matter, may I please have some reassurances that we will not take any lessons from the Labour party? When they were faced with allegations from their staff in relation to misconduct and antisemitism, they did nothing but fill the airwaves, undermining them, questioning their credibility and doing what some might call bullying them.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is absolutely vital that we all do everything we can to ensure that we treat other people with civility. I know that in the debate over the future of the Labour party, the regrets that have been expressed about how antisemitism had been dealt with will, I am sure, be addressed by the future leadership of the Labour party to ensure that that stain is wiped away.

Future Relationship with the EU

Michael Gove Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Written Statements

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

Today the UK Government have published a Command Paper “The Future Relationship with the European Union: the UK’s approach to negotiations”. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

This paper sets out our vision of the future relationship with the EU. This is based on a comprehensive free trade agreement, or FTA, plus separate agreements on fisheries, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, aviation, energy, and others.

We are seeking the type of trade agreement which the EU has already concluded in recent years with Canada and other friendly countries.

Our approach is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals. It represents our clear and unwavering view that the UK will always have control of its own laws and political life, legal autonomy, and the right to manage its own borders, immigration policy and taxes.

This Government is committed to establishing the future relationship in ways that benefit the whole of the UK and strengthen our Union. We believe that this overall approach is a fair and reasonable one.

[HCWS129]

Contingencies Fund

Michael Gove Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Written Statements

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

The Cabinet Office has sought a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £82,663,000.

This routine requirement arises each year because the Cabinet Office receives a high proportion of its voted funding at supplementary estimate, and as a consequence may only draw the related cash from the Consolidated Fund after the Supply and Appropriation Act has received Royal Assent in March 2020.

The cash advance will pay for programmes which will generate Government-wide benefits or savings and are urgent in the public interest.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £53,885,000 and capital of £27,903,000 and cash of £875,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £82,663,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS134]

European Union: Future Relationship

Michael Gove Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s approach to our future relationship with the European Union.

Now that Britain has left the EU, we are entering a new chapter in the history of these islands. This Government have honoured the clearly expressed wish of the British people. Their instruction to us, their servants, to secure our departure from the EU has been followed. The votes of 17.4 million people—more than have ever voted for any democratic proposition in our history—were implemented on 31 January and we are now on a new journey. As a sovereign, self-governing, independent nation, we will have the freedom to frame our own laws, control our own borders, lower all our taxes, set our own tariffs, determine our own trade relationships, and ensure that we follow the people’s priorities on security, the economy, and democratic accountability. Over the next nine months, we will negotiate a new relationship with our friends and partners in the EU based on free trade and friendly co-operation. We have today published the approach for these negotiations, and copies of the document, “The Future Relationship with the EU”, were made available to Members in the Vote Office from 9.30 am.

Talks with the EU on our future relationship begin next week. It is our aim to secure a comprehensive free trade agreement as well as agreement on questions such as fisheries, internal security and aviation. We are confident that those negotiations will lead to outcomes that work for both the UK and the EU, but this House, our European partners, and, above all, the British people should be in no doubt: at the end of the transition period on 31 December, the United Kingdom will fully recover its economic and political independence. We want the best possible trading relationship with the EU, but in pursuit of a deal, we will not trade away our sovereignty.

The Government’s vision for the UK’s future relationship with the EU was outlined with crystal clarity by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign, and the election result comprehensively confirmed public support for our direction of travel. In his speech in the Painted Hall in Greenwich on 3 February, the Prime Minister laid out in detail how we will reach our destination. The first principle of our approach is that we wish to secure a relationship based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals. We respect the EU’s sovereignty, autonomy and distinctive legal order, and we expect it to respect ours. We will not accept or agree to any obligations where our laws are aligned with the EU or the EU’s institutions, including the Court of Justice. Instead, each party will respect the other’s independence and the right to manage its own borders, immigration policy and taxes.

The second and allied principle of our approach is that we will seek to emulate and build on the types of relationship that the EU already has with other independent sovereign states. We will use precedents already well established and well understood to ensure that both sides’ sovereignty is respected. By using already existing precedents, we should be able to expedite agreement. We will seek functional arrangements that the EU will recognise from its many other relationships. Our proposal draws on existing EU agreements such as the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada, the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement and the EU-South Korea free trade agreement. That approach should enable us to move swiftly towards the goal envisaged in the political declaration agreed last October, in which both sides set the aim of concluding a zero-tariff, zero-quota free trade agreement.

As well as concluding a full FTA, we will require a wholly separate agreement on fisheries. We will take back control of our waters as an independent coastal state, and we will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets. Our fishing waters are our sovereign resource, and we will determine other countries’ access to our resources on our terms. We also hope to conclude an agreement on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, so that we can work with the EU to protect their citizens and ours from shared threats, but we will not allow our own legal order to be compromised. By taking back full control of our borders, we can implement measures to make the British people even safer, and we can tackle terrorism and organised crime even more effectively. We also wish to conclude a number of technical agreements covering aviation and civil nuclear co-operation, which will help to ensure continuity for the UK on its new footing as an independent sovereign nation.

Securing agreement on all those questions should not, in principle, be difficult. We are, after all, only seeking relationships with the EU that it has with other nations—relationships that respect the interests and the sovereignty of both partners. It is in that light that we should view discussions about what has been termed the “level playing field”. It has been argued that EU demands in this area will make full agreement difficult, yet there is no intrinsic reason why requirements that both parties uphold desirable standards should prejudice any deal.

The United Kingdom has a proud record when it comes to environmental enhancement, workers’ rights and social protection. In a number of key areas, we either exceed EU standards or have led the way to improve standards. On workers’ rights, for example, the UK offers a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to parental leave, so that both parents can share care. The EU minimum is just 14 weeks. On environmental standards, we were the first country in the world to introduce legally binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. We were also the first major global economy to set a legally binding target to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 2050.

We will not dilute any existing protections. Indeed, as the Environment Bill debated yesterday demonstrates, we wish to go further and faster than the EU in improving the natural environment. We do not need the EU’s permission to be a liberal nation leading the world in the fight against climate change and for social progress. That is why the UK Government seek an FTA with robust protections for the environment and labour standards, but we do not see why the test of suitability in those areas should be adherence to EU law and submission to EU models of governance. The EU does not apply those principles to free trade agreements with other sovereign nations, and they should not apply to a sovereign United Kingdom.

Some argue that we must accept EU procedures as the benchmark because of the scale of UK trade with the EU, but the volume of UK trade with the EU is no greater than the volume of US trade with the EU, and the EU was more than willing to offer zero-tariff access to the US without the application of EU procedures to US standard setting. The EU has also argued that the UK is a unique case, owing to its geographical location, but proximity is not a determining factor in any other FTA between neighbouring states with large economies. It is not a reason for us to accept EU rules and regulations. We need only look at the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement for an example of a trade agreement that does not require regulatory alignment to one side’s rules or demand a role for one side’s court. Geography is no reason to undermine democracy.

To be clear, we will not be seeking to align dynamically with EU rules on EU terms governed by EU laws and EU institutions. The British people voted to take back control, to bring power home and to have the rules governing this country made by those who are directly accountable to the people of this country, and that is what we are delivering.

The negotiations are due to begin next week, led by the Prime Minister’s sherpa, David Frost, and I would like to end by looking ahead optimistically to the coming months. There is ample time during the transition period to strike the right deal for the UK. We hope to reach a broad agreement ahead of the EU Council’s high-level summit in June, whereupon we will take stock.

We know that our proposals are measured and our approach is fair. We know what we want to achieve. We are ready to go, and this Government are committed to establishing a future relationship in ways that benefit the whole UK and strengthen the Union. We are committed to working with the devolved Administrations to deliver a future relationship with the EU that works for the whole UK, and I take this opportunity to reassure colleagues that our negotiation that will be undertaken without prejudice and with full respect to the Northern Ireland protocol.

This Government will act in these negotiations on behalf of all of the territories for whose international relations the UK is responsible. In negotiating the future relationship between these territories and the EU, the UK Government will seek outcomes that support the territories’ security and economic interests, and reflect their unique characteristics. As the Prime Minister committed to do on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, we will keep Parliament fully informed about the negotiations, and colleagues will be able to scrutinise our progress.

This Government are delivering on our manifesto commitments with energy and determination. This Government got Brexit done, and we will use our recovered sovereignty to be a force for good in the world and a fairer nation at home. We want and we will always seek the best possible relationship with our friends and allies in Europe, but we will always put the welfare of the British people first. That means ensuring the British people exercise the democratic control over our destiny for which they voted so decisively. That compact with the people is the most important deal of all, and in that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the Cabinet Office for prior sight of his statement. He talks about having got Brexit done, but he knows that is not the case. We have taken the first step in leaving the European Union, but Brexit, as he knows, is far from done. The Government’s ambition for our new relationship with our most important trading partner is, frankly, underwhelming. They started with a commitment to securing the exact same benefits; then scaled it back to frictionless trade to protect our vital supply chains; then it was Canada-plus-plus-plus; and now it is Canada so long as that does not get in the way of ending our alignment with the standards that we have previously enjoyed.

The Minister talked about the Government’s mandate in the general election, which was based on a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration that says the free trade agreement will be

“underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field”.

They now apparently reject that. The Minister spoke of higher UK standards than are required within the EU, and he is right—there are some examples; there are also contrary examples—but EU standards are a floor, not a ceiling. May I ask the Minister: if the Government have no intention of falling below those standards, why are they unwilling to make that commitment?

I spent Monday evening with manufacturing companies from across the north of England, and they are not worried by alignment; indeed, they want it. They are concerned about the barriers to trade undermining their position in the crucial European market. I know that the Prime Minister has made his contempt for the views of business well known, but will the Government not think again at this crucial moment, because they are taking serious risks with our economy, people’s jobs and their livelihoods?

The Treasury analysis from November 2018 predicted that a Canada-style FTA would shrink the economy by up to 6.4%. I know the Government have rubbished their own analysis already, but what new analysis have they done? May I ask the Minister: will the Government publish a full economic impact assessment of the deal that they are seeking? Will they also publish the assessment of the other trade deals that he mentioned? A recent freedom of information request revealed that the Department for International Trade has commissioned and received, but not yet published, assessments of the impact on the UK economy of the FTA with the US, of that with Japan and of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Will he commit to publishing those impact assessments immediately?

The Prime Minister has told us time and again that his Brexit deal

“represents stability and certainty for business.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 594.]

But in ruling out extending the transition period, the Government are taking business from one set of uncertainties to a new set. They are expecting to complete enormously complex negotiations in just 10 months, with a cavalier disregard for the consequences of failing to do so. The Minister’s warning to business that customs checks are “inevitable” and that “almost everybody” will face extra barriers at the border is deeply concerning. Indeed, the one place where the Government claim that there will not be checks—for GB trade with Northern Ireland—is the only place where they have actually so far committed to having them: down the Irish sea. In light of the conflicting statements from so many of his colleagues, will the Minister clarify the extent of checks along the border that the Government have created down the Irish sea?

Labour wants the best deal for Britain in trade, security and all the other areas mentioned by the Minister. That means maintaining the closest possible relationship with our most important trading partner, and it is on that that we will hold the Government to account.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and for the constructive way in which he approaches these matters. This Government are wholly committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement, to respecting and enacting the Northern Ireland protocol, and to giving effect to the political declaration and its aim of securing a comprehensive free trade agreement without tariffs, quotas or quantitative restrictions. He asked specifically about the maintenance of standards, and the requirement that we follow EU law and ECJ judgments in order to secure workers’ rights and environmental protections. We do not believe that is necessary, and the EU does not require submission to its legal order from any other sovereign independent state. Ultimately, the best guarantor of environmental protections and workers’ rights is a sovereign UK Parliament that is determined to lead in the world, just as this Government are doing in those areas.

It is vital to ensure that our manufacturing sector, like all sectors of our economy, is equipped to take advantage of new economic opportunities. That is what the Government are doing, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say more about how we can supercharge every part of our economy when he delivers the Budget statement on 11 March. The free trade agreement that we seek should ensure tariff-free access to markets, and provisions on rules of origin that will allow the manufacturing sector to flourish in the future.

The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the need to ensure that negotiations are concluded by the end of the transition period on 31 December necessarily means that they will have to proceed at pace. They will, but as I pointed out, and as he acknowledges, because we are seeking relationships for which there is already a precedent between the EU and other countries—precedents such as those between the EU and Canada, Japan, South Korea and others—it should be possible to make rapid progress. I note that my good friend, Dr Martin Selmayr—he is now the EU’s permanent representative to Austria, and he previously worked for the President of the Commission—has said that it would be entirely possible to conclude those negotiations in a timely fashion, and not for the last time, Dr Selmayr and I are in complete agreement on that.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about customs checks and a border down the Irish sea. There will be no border down the Irish sea, and we will ensure that there is unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the United Kingdom.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s sincere beliefs and his commitment to appropriate scrutiny, but the problem for the Labour party more broadly is that its approach to Europe would mean that we would have no control over our fishing borders, no effective control over our borders, and no way of charting our own independent economic destiny. Looking at that proposal, I am afraid all I can say, as someone once said, is, “No, no, no.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his clear statement, and on his view that since the standards we set are higher than those in the EU, he will therefore not be demanding that the EU aligns with our standards as we go forward. That is refreshing. The settlement on Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement included provision on state aid, and since then, the EU has interpreted that as bringing the whole UK under state aid provisions. Will he confirm that in any future agreement with the EU, we will not accept that the UK leaves itself under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice when it comes to state aid provision?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we must respect the integrity of that protocol, but it is not the case that the CJEU should be governing the application of state aid in the way that some have envisaged, which would be quite wrong.

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

What a load of bunkum, baloney and codswallop! This is nothing other than a route map to the cherished no deal, which is the real ambition of the Brexit zealots on the Conservative Benches. They are, even now, prepared to break international law to achieve that outcome.

Let us dispense with the unicornism and see if we can start to make sense of the real world and what we are actually dealing with. The EU expects nothing other than the political declaration to be implemented in full. It expects that level playing field to be realised and it will not accept anything else. How many times do the Government need to be told that the UK will not leave with a better deal and arrangement than that which is currently enjoyed? It does not matter if it is Canada-plus. It does not matter if it is Australia. It does not even matter if it is outer space-minus-minus-minus. The Government will have an inferior product at the end of the day when we finally get an agreement with the EU. Look at who we are up against: it is the clown-shoe UK up against the efficient, effective EU, with its negotiating experience—[Laughter.] Conservative Members are laughing, sitting there with their proposals which mean absolutely nothing. They will be trounced by the EU in the negotiating process. Their hard Brexit will do nothing but hurt my nation. Even with one of these free trade agreements, our GDP will be hit by 6.1%. If they get their cherished no deal, the consequences will be absolutely catastrophic for my nation of Scotland.

Scotland wanted nothing whatever to do with this ruinous Brexit and we will not accept it. I am sure the hon. Gentlemen who have been laughing and scoffing have seen the opinion polls in Scotland. There is now sustained majority support for independence for Scotland. One of the things driving that is all of them saying no to Scotland and pursuing their hard Brexit. Scotland is not going to be a part of this, Secretary of State. We will not accept it. When will you allow us to have a referendum, so we can get out of this mad Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. First, may I use this opportunity to place on the record my thanks to Mike Russell MSP from the Scottish Government for the work he has done, along with leaders from other devolved Administrations, in helping to shape our approach?

Of course, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government will in some areas take a different view from the UK Government, but it is undoubtedly the case that our negotiating position is enhanced as a result of the conversations we have with our colleagues in the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government. Indeed, a number of changes have been made to our approach and to this document, following conversations I have had with the Scottish Government over the course of the past week.

It is also the case, however, that Scotland, like every part of the United Kingdom, will benefit hugely not just from our departure from the European Union but from the new trading relationships we will develop with other countries. It is the case, for example, that when we conclude a new free trade agreement with the United States, Scotland will be one of the sectors that benefits most from the new trading opportunities. It will also be the case, as the Scottish Government have themselves pointed out, that tens of thousands of new jobs will be created in north-east Scotland in the fishing sector as a direct result of our departure from the European Union—jobs that would not be created if we followed the SNP approach of staying in the common fisheries policy.

Ultimately, the greatest threat to the prosperity and security of the people of Scotland is the reckless approach the Scottish Government take towards the 2014 referendum and their determination to overturn the settled will of the Scottish people to stay in the United Kingdom. Their approach, I am afraid, would mean that we would have border posts at Berwick and they would not be able to use the pound sterling in Stirling. We must give that madness a miss.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that those who continue to peddle the line that we somehow need to tether ourselves to the EU’s rules and standards are in fact making a case to hold Britain back?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that 60% of international exports from Wales go to the European Union? The Welsh Government have said that there must be a level playing field and frictionless trade with the EU in the interests of the Welsh economy. Is he aware of that?

[Michael Gove]

I am very well aware of the views of the Welsh Assembly Government, thanks to the excellent work done by Jeremy Miles AM, the Brexit Minister and Counsel General. I enjoy the conversations I have with Jeremy, Mark Drakeford and others to ensure we can work together.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I appreciate that negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU is a priority, but will the Minister confirm that we will also look to reach free trade agreements with other countries, that such negotiations are either under way or will be shortly, and that we have the civil service capacity to reach them?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Yes, we do—the Department for International Trade has a team of trade negotiators, lawyers and other policy experts. There have already been a number of informal and formal contacts with the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other participants in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we will proceed at pace with negotiations with partners across the globe to forge free trade agreements in the interests of every part of the United Kingdom.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Brexit is clearly far from done. It had cost us £130 billion by January and the average UK household is £900 worse off. Will the Minister tell us what he estimates the price tag will be at the end of this year, and, given the gendered impact of trade, where is the equality impact assessment that the Government have a statutory duty to provide?

[Michael Gove]

Looking at most of the indices of economic performance, such as the measures of increased investment and increased capital expenditure recently, it is the case that the United Kingdom economy, following the Conservative victory in the general election on 12 December, is powering ahead—indeed, powering ahead by comparison with EU nations. I would like to make sure that we get a comprehensive free trade agreement so that other EU nations can benefit from the dynamism of the UK economy and that men and women across Europe can benefit from the right economic relationship.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

Financial services are critical to this country’s economy, contributing 11% of our total tax take. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents who work in financial services that their interests will be protected during free trade negotiations?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely—financial services matter not just in the City of London, but in Edinburgh, Perth, Leeds and across the United Kingdom. It is a dynamic and growing sector and it is important that we make sure we have the right arrangements for them. We hope that the EU will report by June on the prospects for equivalency in financial services. That commitment was made in the political declaration. It did not subsequently appear in the EU’s negotiating mandate, but I am confident that by June the EU will have completed those equivalency assessments.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In our future relationship, it is important that musicians, performers and so on can move freely and continue to go to Europe, and that European performers can come here on a reciprocal basis. What is the Minister’s understanding of the Government’s position on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Member makes an important point. He will see that in this document there are details on how we can ensure that those who provide professional services, including artists and musicians, can continue to do so at the end of the transition period. It is critically important that the cultural excellence that so many UK musicians are responsible for continues to be available to European nations. Whether it is the Bayreuth festival or pop concerts in Belgium, we need to make sure that British talent has a chance to shine.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an agreement on a future relationship by the end of the year is perfectly feasible, and that the EU and its negotiators need to recognise the reality of a sovereign, independent United Kingdom with a strong, dynamic economy?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, that is absolutely right. As I mentioned, a number of EU leaders have said that a deal is doable because we are operating on the basis of precedent, and it should then be possible to conclude all the necessary agreements. Having concluded these agreements by the end of this year, we can then move on to deepening the many bilateral and multilateral relationships that we have with our friends and partners in Europe to the benefit of all.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman referred to other deals that he is hoping to emulate. He will be aware that the EU’s deal with South Korea took eight years from the start of negotiations to implementation and that the Canada deal took seven. Given that the Government are seeking a much more comprehensive arrangement than either of those, his optimism that it can be done and ratified in 10 months remains to be proven, but will he confirm that if it is not possible to conclude a deal, we will exit the transition period on 31 December with no agreement whatsoever?

[Michael Gove]

We already have an agreement—a withdrawal agreement that safeguards the rights of UK and EU citizens, settles our financial obligations and makes provision through the protocol for Northern Ireland’s position. As for the free trade agreements to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, it is more difficult to begin when one is designing a prototype; now that the prototypes exist and have become precedents, it is much easier to replicate their provisions.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Further to the previous question, some two years ago I attended a presentation, complete with slides, given by Mr Michel Barnier, at which he indicated that, as things then stood, the only post-Brexit trading arrangements available to the UK were those enjoyed by South Korea and Canada, which is precisely the arrangement that the Government are seeking. Since then, the EU seems to have resiled from that position. Does my right hon. Friend know why the EU is apparently showing such bad faith?

[Michael Gove]

As my right hon. Friend knows, having served with distinction in government, there is a range of views across the European Union, but the EU mandate has now been concluded, with unanimity, and we are confident that we can negotiate using our approach and that mandate to reach an appropriate deal, similar to the one that he has outlined.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I have often referred in this place to the concerns of the highland tourism industry, in particular hotels, about the continuing employment of EU nationals, many of whom are heading homeward, and the concerns of fish processors about getting their fresh produce to European markets in good time. Will the Secretary of State, who is a good Scot, consider coming to the highlands to meet representatives of those industries? He would be most welcome.

[Michael Gove]

I would be delighted so to do. Any opportunity to visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is a welcome one. He is absolutely right that the hospitality industry is integral to the success of the highlands economy. We want to make sure that in the future those who provide such a high standard of hospitality have access to the skilled labour they need.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and his clear message on fisheries. He will know that memories run deep in our fishing communities, and that great concern continues to be felt because of the way the fishing industry was treated previously. Will he make it absolutely to clear to fishermen in Cornwall and around the country that access to our fishing waters will not be used as a bargaining chip to be traded off against other priorities?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: memories of what happened in the 1970s certainly do run deep, and for very good reason. That is why I sought to stress that we, as an independent sovereign state, regard control of our own resources as something we cannot barter away. Of course we want to co-operate in the management of stocks with our neighbours, but the approach we take will be similar to that of other sovereign states or regimes such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. As an independent coastal state, we will regulate access to our own waters on our terms.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment to trying to secure a comprehensive free trade agreement, but does he accept that many of my constituents who work in the automotive industry are seriously worried about the impact of a potential 10% tariff on motor vehicles? Will he give a firm commitment to making sure that their interests are as protected as possible?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Throughout his time in the House, he has been a strong, consistent and powerful voice for the rights of workers. He is absolutely right that those who work in our automotive sector deserve the best possible future, and it is for that reason that we will seek to avoid any tariffs on cars or automotive products.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

British farmers are proud to produce food to the highest standards, and the British consumer benefits from that. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the farmers and consumers of my constituency that those high standards will be maintained in any free trade agreement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. The Agriculture Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) during her outstanding tenure as Environment Secretary and which is being carried forward by her successor, will ensure that farmers have a firm foundation on which to plan for the future. In all our trading relationships, we will make sure that there are appropriate protections for the environment and for animal welfare, to ensure that the peerless standards set by our farmers are used as a badge of excellence to enable them to do even better in the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that fishing fleets and fish processors in Portavogie in my constituency, Ardglass, Kilkeel and elsewhere will have the same rights as their fellow fleets and processors in Scotland, Wales and England, and that Northern Ireland will not be disadvantaged by the border down the Irish sea?

[Michael Gove]

There will be no border down the Irish sea, and the fishing fleets of Northern Ireland will enjoy all the rights that they deserve, similar—indeed, identical—to those of other fishermen, and fishers, throughout the United Kingdom.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Striking a deal is far easier and far more likely from a position of strength. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in contrast to what happened in 2017, going into these negotiations with clarity and unity, backed up by a strong electoral mandate, should give us all reasons for optimism, not pessimism?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, given a 52-48 referendum result and 650 different views in the House, not everyone will be satisfied with every aspect of our negotiating approach; but with a united Government, a clear approach and a general election mandate, and given that this document is underpinned by clear work by lawyers, trade negotiators and others, I believe that we can secure a deal, and I am sure Members throughout the House recognise that we should not make our own personal perfect the enemy of the common good.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Minister’s statement and the document published today show that the Government have made a fundamental choice, which is to prioritise sovereignty over any economic argument or consequence for either goods or services. Is there not a danger, however, that having made that choice, the Government will impose long-term economic consequences on the country in pursuit of the prize of a sovereignty that they will end up not using very much, because at the end of the day good standards in the environmental, labour market and consumer sectors actually make sense?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman always makes thoughtful contributions to our debates, and I take his point. It will be for this Parliament and future Parliaments to decide how our sovereignty is exercised in accordance with the wish of the British people, but the experience of history tells us that the countries with the maximum amount of control over their own destinies are the best equipped to succeed economically and, indeed, to secure a greater degree of equity for all their citizens.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the distinction between EU regulations and European technical standards? The latter are set outside the EU, and without a loss of sovereignty, by expert bodies of which the British Standards Institution is one of the most respected and admired in the world. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that British standards expertise will continue to be able to influence European and international standards?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point, which reflects the brilliant work that he did as Business Secretary. It is absolutely the case that there are common technical standards in which British experts play a distinguished part. We will want to ensure—and I know that others will want to ensure—that those common standards can help to underpin successful commerce and trade.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister began by saying that the Government were not asking for anything that was not already in an existing agreement between the EU and another country, but then gave an answer on financial services which the document backs up, saying that the Government were seeking an enhanced, comprehensive equivalence regime for our major sector. I must respectfully say to him that those statements cannot both be true. There is no single equivalence regime—it is a patchwork of regulations—and there are major bits of legislation that contain no equivalence provisions at all, such as cross-border payments regulation, the motor insurance distribution directive and the single euro payments area. So, with respect, we are asking for something additional, and one of the answers that the Minister has given is not really correct.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful intervention, but all that we are seeking is straightforward equivalence in financial services. The European Union has said that it will review that, and we will know the conclusions of its review by June.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What an excellent statement the Minister made, outlining our principles, but can he assure me that the principles will not change when the EU says no to something? Over the last few years I have listened to excellent speeches from that Dispatch Box, only to find that our principles change when the EU says no.

[Michael Gove]

I am a restless seeker after consensus wherever it can be found, but, more important than that, I am a democrat. The British people made it clear in the referendum and again in the general election that they wanted us to leave the European Union, and the Prime Minister made it clear in the general election, as he did during the referendum campaign, that that meant leaving the single market, leaving the customs union and leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We will not move from those principles.

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

Regrettably, the British Government, through this statement, have decided to take a belligerent approach to the second phase of Brexit negotiations. Their opening move is to try to reopen the agreement reached after the first phase of Brexit, and to set further arbitrary deadlines for the infinitely more complicated second phase of Brexit dealing with trade. Rather than playing Russian roulette with people’s jobs and economic wellbeing, would it not be better for the Government to take a grown-up approach to these negotiations and remove any arbitrary deadlines for the conclusions of the negotiations?

[Michael Gove]

There are no arbitrary deadlines. The deadline of 31 December for agreement is in the political declaration. If we were to take that out, we would be altering the political declaration. However, we are honouring the political declaration, and far from being belligerent, all we are doing is simply setting a deadline. When I was an editor in the world of newspapers, setting a deadline for correspondents was not an exercise in belligerence; it was a way of making sure that we could serve the people.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have higher standards than the EU in a number of areas, particularly in maternity, and that it might be useful for the EU to recognise that in some of its discourse?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely bang on. Across the nations and countries of the continent of Europe, there are different approaches to some of these questions. There are also countries outside the European Union, such as Norway, that have exemplary standards in environmental protection, as well as in maternity and social rights. The UK, like Norway, is a progressive, liberal, modern country, and that is something that we should celebrate across the House. Outside the European Union, we can aim even higher.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister knows that Canada, South Korea and Japan are not in the single market or the customs union, so we are starting from a different position. Will he therefore accept that if we diverge from EU environmental standards and workers’ rights, there will inevitably be restrictions? Is it not really his plan to lose British jobs and simply blame the EU? Would it not be better to keep up the standards and keep up the trade, because people did not vote to lose their jobs when they voted to leave the EU?

[Michael Gove]

I completely understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but we have had a referendum and a general election, and in both it was very clear that we were going to leave the single market and the customs union and take back control in the interests of the British people.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I very much welcome the statement, and the document to which my right hon. Friend refers. I particularly welcome the clarification and increased detail on the subject of fisheries, and not least the point that, as he said in his statement, “we will require a wholly separate agreement on fisheries. We will take back control of our waters as an independent coastal state, and we will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets.” Will he confirm to the House and to the constituents of Banff and Buchan, particularly those in the seafood sector—the catchers and those on the processing side—that we will retain sovereignty and get the best deal for our fishermen across the United Kingdom, despite the assertions from the EU and the seemingly wishful thinking of Scottish National party Members?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For folk in Banff and Buchan, Moray and across the United Kingdom, a sea of opportunity beckons when we leave the European Union, and it is a great pity that the SNP and the Scottish Government, despite the many talented Members that they enjoy, still want us to remain in the EU and the common fisheries policy. This is one of a number of ways in which they would sell Scotland short, and it breaks my heart.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

This Government have today ignored the voice of Scotland in the referendum and ignored the compromise proposals from the Scottish Government. They are showing that they are willing to ride roughshod over a Sewel convention. Now the right hon. Gentleman has reneged on his offer as chair of Vote Leave for Scotland to have its own immigration policy. Which one of these aspects will strengthen his so-called precious Union?

[Michael Gove]

We are respecting the referendum result. In 2014, the people of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom. This is a settled decision that, sadly, the Scottish Government seek to unpick to the detriment of all. After Scotland voted to be in the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom, whole and entire, voted to leave the European Union, and we are working to ensure that that democratic decision works in the interests of all.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The UK’s economy is primarily service based, and while I hear that taking back our borders means a separate treaty for fishing, which many people in coastal communities will welcome, many of my constituents are in financial services and probably represent more people than are employed by fishing in the entire UK. We have talked about taking back control of our money, so why not have a separate treaty for financial services? If not—I have heard his comments on equivalence—will he set out the Government’s position on equivalence when it comes to the derivation period?

[Michael Gove]

As my hon. Friend makes clear, financial services matter not just in Wimbledon, but across the United Kingdom, which is why, as stated in the document published today, we wish to conclude an agreement that will make provision for financial stability, market integrity and investor and consumer protection for financial services. We also want to secure mutual recognition of professional qualifications to ensure that everyone in our service sector can continue to have access to opportunities in every market in which they currently work.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister for further information to the chapter on digital in the report, which refers to an

“open, secure and trustworthy online environment”

and encouraging regulatory co-operation? With the Government moving to tackle online harms on various platforms, will he set out in more detail what he means by ensuring that there is co-operation on regulation in any future trading agreement?

[Michael Gove]

Yes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are compliant with the general data protection regulation that the EU introduced, and we want to ensure that we get an equivalency judgment from the EU on data adequacy, so that we can continue to ensure that data flows, which are so integral to business and others, can continue in an appropriate way.

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement for its clarity and optimism, which people of Montgomeryshire and, indeed, the majority of people in Wales will welcome. To tackle some of the scaremongering, will he meet with the Welsh farming unions to outline again that we will not seek to lower food standards? Indeed, if my hon. Friend wants a Welsh farmhouse breakfast, we can certainly do that in Montgomeryshire.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Whether it is from the Farmers’ Union of Wales, NFU Cymru or my hon. Friend, farmers in Wales have brilliant representation. There is nothing nicer than a Welsh farmhouse breakfast, apart from possibly an Ulster fry, or a bacon sandwich in Peterhead harbour.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

The Minister states that the negotiation will take place without prejudice to the Northern Irish protocol. However, there is confusion in Northern Ireland. We hear from the EU that there will be no derogation from the rules, but reports over the weekend suggested that the Government seek to find ways around the protocol, yet the Minister and his colleagues say that there will still be unfettered access and no border in the Irish sea. Will the Minister please describe in detail, with the crystal clarity he referred to, how those irreconcilable aims will be married up, and how people in Northern Ireland will finally get certainty after three and a half years of bluster and stalled investment? Will he also clarify what form the negotiation with the devolved Administration will take?

[Michael Gove]

Far from there being confusion, I hope that there is clarity that we will implement the withdrawal agreement, respect the Northern Ireland protocol, and then conclude a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union that will work in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and people across the United Kingdom. I have had profitable conversations with both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the preparation of our approach today. We will not always agree with every party in Northern Ireland, but all parties in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Lady’s, have an important role to play in ensuring that we deliver for all the people of the United Kingdom.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reassurances to our fisheries. Those reassurances are particularly relevant to the fisheries in my beautiful constituency. Does he agree that the point of leaving the EU is to enable us to make our own laws in our own way through politicians whom we elect, and who are accountable to the British people?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter. Democratic accountability, as outlined brilliantly and eloquently by the father of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in this House and elsewhere, is something that all of us should celebrate, and that leaving the European Union allows us to enhance.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The document rightly acknowledges the importance of the second-generation Schengen information system—SIS II —database, which holds millions of pieces of data on wanted or missing persons, including vulnerable children. The document also says that if by June insufficient progress has been made on ensuring the basis of an agreement by September, the Government will begin to make their own preparations for domestic priorities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain how he will protect this country properly if we have to sacrifice our access to millions of pieces of vital data and rely on an Interpol database that contains only a few hundred thousand records?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. We would like to continue having access not just to the Schengen information system II database, but to Prüm, ECRIS and a number of other law enforcement and criminal justice tools. Of course, we will have to see what approach the European Union takes. I am hopeful it will take a pragmatic approach, because it benefits just as much as we do, if not more, from our participation in these databases. Leaving the European Union allows us, through our controlling our own borders and laws, to improve homeland security in a number of ways, and we will always act in the interests of the British people.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK and the EU will trade together under an Australian-style agreement if an agreement cannot be reached by the end of the year?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to have a comprehensive free trade agreement on the model I outlined in my statement, but if we do not, there are other great countries, including Australia, New Zealand and, of course, the United States, that have a huge volume of trade with the EU without having an agreement of that kind.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

We cannot level up by damaging the foundations, but that is exactly what would happen to the economy if we walked away in June, as the Government have this morning been briefing that we will. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, it would also do damage to our security. The document clearly says there should be no

“role for the CJEU in resolving UK-EU disputes”.

Does that mean that the Government are happy potentially to lose access to not only databases that are crucial to our security, but the European arrest warrant?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

That is ultimately a question for the EU. We are clear that we want a relationship of sovereign equals. If the EU attaches to that relationship a requirement that we follow the jurisdiction of its courts, it is not a relationship of sovereign equals. The security of the EU would be impinged as well, and I am sure that no European politician would want to sacrifice the security of their people by taking anything other than a constructive approach.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Before I came to this place I had a job, in the wake of the Brexit referendum, representing the banking industry in negotiations with the EU, the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Council, and in discussions with the Bank of England and the Treasury on what sort of relationship we want with the EU after Brexit. We came to realise quite quickly, as did the Bank of England—Mark Carney has spoken on this point—that, as a global financial centre, being a rule taker and having no say on our financial regulation would be a threat to the UK’s financial stability. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to be very careful, as becoming a rule taker would be a real threat to our financial services?

[Michael Gove]

I agree 100%. Spot on. Totally correct.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Yesterday, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I heard from Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute that

“the risks to the UK’s essential alliance relationships are greater now than they have been for many decades.”

Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster advise the House on why the statement on our future relationship with the European Union says absolutely nothing about maintaining and improving defence?

[Michael Gove]

When it comes to maintaining and improving defence, we have a network of relationships, including, of course, our membership of NATO—the strongest and most durable alliance for freedom the world has ever known. When it comes to defending this country, one of most perilous things we could do would be to follow the Scottish Government’s approach of breaking up the United Kingdom and of unilateral nuclear disarmament. I am afraid that the SNP’s position on defence, like its position on so many other issues, would mean the Scottish people were less safe. That is the direct result of its ideological attachment to separation.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

In the light of the Minister’s remarks on a level playing field, can I ask him about competition policy and governance arrangements? Would the Government accept commitments on workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer and social standards being subject to any dispute resolution mechanism agreed to as part of the wider agreement?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman has given a list, and I will come back to each of them in correspondence. Some will be covered by dispute resolution mechanisms, and others may not.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

Scotland cast its biggest ever vote on a proposition when it voted by 62% to remain in the EU. More people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU than voted to remain in the United Kingdom—and that was using the UK Government’s franchise; had the Government trusted 16 and 17-year-olds in the way we trust them in Scotland, a bigger proportion of voters would have voted to remain in the EU. Does the right hon. Gentleman truly believe that withholding the sovereign right of the Scottish people is a sustainable position? While protecting the sovereignty of the UK, is he prepared to deny the sovereignty of Scotland?

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that the Scottish nationalist party—[Hon. Members: “National!”] I am sorry, but as Robert Burns said,

“facts are chiels that winna ding”.

I am afraid that the representatives on that Bench are nationalists. They put separation—the smashing up of the United Kingdom—ahead of anything else. Some of them are decent and kind people, but they are nationalists. The reason they object so much is that when the mask comes off and we recognise the ideological heart of the SNP, they dinnae like it up ’em.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is estimated that if agreement is reached, there will be a need for about 50,000 new customs officers. Is it feasible to recruit and train that many people in less than six months, and who is going to foot the bill for it?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, it is, and the Government stand behind that.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Does the Minister recognise that even the most far-reaching and comprehensive free trade agreement will sadly still mean regulatory and rules of origin checks down the Irish sea. As such, beyond simply giving a rhetorical commitment on the implementation of the protocol, will he assure not just the House, but his negotiating partners in the EU, that the Government are preparing to implement that protocol?

[Michael Gove]

We will ensure that the protocol is appropriately implemented, and we will also ensure unfettered access for businesses in Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK market.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Brexit will be extremely damaging for Scotland in a range of ways. The difference between me and the Minister is that he is a British nationalist, whereas I am a Scottish nationalist. Does he think that Brexit imposed on Scotland will increase or decrease constitutional tensions across the UK?

[Michael Gove]

Britain leaving the EU will mean that there is a greater degree of harmony between every part of the United Kingdom. I recognise that that will be a disappointment to the SNP in its restless search for grievance, dissension and division, but one thing I cannot help saying is that even though I profoundly disagree with the SNP, it is so lovely to have so many SNP Members here in the Westminster Parliament. I know that for many, many years to come, there will be representation for Scotland here in Westminster, and that is a lovely thing.