Covid-Secure Borders

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Huw Merriman

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that there must be a clear, simply understood and proper hotel quarantine scheme in operation at the UK border to minimise the risk of introduction of new variants into the UK; calls on the Government to immediately scrap the Amber List category of the Government’s Traffic Light System for travel and place all of those countries currently on the Amber List onto the Red List, whilst maintaining a tightly managed Green List, so as not to risk undermining the UK’s successful NHS Covid-19 vaccination programme; further calls on the Government to work with international partners to introduce an international vaccine passport allowing for the safe resumption of travel, to publish all data on international travel arrivals, and to provide details of the decision-making process on the Traffic Light System; and reiterates the need for a sector-specific support deal for aviation.

I rise to speak to the motion in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to be standing here yet again calling for this Government to act to secure our borders against the threat of new variants of covid. The news that the Prime Minister has announced a delay in the reopening on 21 June was a hammer blow to people across the country. Freedoms that have been denied us for so long seemed within our grasp, yet they have been snatched away. Let us be absolutely clear: the impact of what the Prime Minister announced last night is devastating, but it was not inevitable. That delay is happening because of the delta variant first identified in India, and the delta variant is here in such force because of lax Conservative border policy.

The fallout from that chain of events is enormous for pubs and restaurants that were desperate to open up properly again; for friends planning group holidays that have been ruined; for our towns and city centres hoping to have been bustling with workers again; for concerts, sports stadiums, theatres and festivals that were supposed to be filling up; and for families looking forward to great big get-togethers, celebrating milestones, birthdays, children being born and marriages. I want my thoughts today to be with all those who have seen their wedding plans turned upside down. I realise of course that weddings are legally allowed, but with singing and dancing banned, I do not think they will look like the parties that many of us know weddings to be.

This will be a desperate blow for so many people, and the cost of this delay will not just be felt in people’s disappointment and ruined plans. UKHospitality says that a delay of a month will cost its sector £3 billion in sales, with warnings that 200,000 jobs in the sector could go. Some 5,000 gigs are set to be cancelled at a cost of £500 million. Let us be absolutely clear: the responsibility for breaking the promise of freedom day lies squarely with this Conservative Government. The Prime Minister apparently says that his political hero is the mayor from “Jaws”, keeping the beaches open while swimmers were getting attacked. The truth is that he has let the shark take a huge chunk out of the British economy this week. People across the country have every right to be angry about being let down so badly.

Madam Deputy Speaker, through you perhaps I can echo the strong words of Mr Speaker yesterday in condemning the shoddy way in which the Government have treated this House on an announcement of national importance. Our role is to represent our constituents, and the Prime Minister failing to make the statement to this House or to offer himself for questioning was, frankly, an insult.

Everyone knows that managing the pandemic is a huge challenge for Governments across the world, and of course the British public can forgive mistakes, but what is unforgivable is making the same mistakes time and time again, putting the health and prosperity of the British people at risk. As an island, our border protections should have been one of our strengths. Instead, they have been an Achilles heel. Time and again, I have stood here and warned that the UK Government’s border measures are far too weak, yet from the very outset of the pandemic, Government actions at the border have been too little, too late.

At the outset of the pandemic, just 273 people out of the 18 million that arrived here by air were formally quarantined between 1 January and 23 March last year—just 273 people from four flights. In fact, on 13 March last year, even the voluntary guidance that was in place on self-isolation when coming from parts of China and South Korea and from Iran and Italy was lifted. We have never had a credible explanation for that. All this came at a time when we saw the terrible scenes in northern Italy of hospitals being overwhelmed, when our constituents were contacting us and questioning why there were not better and more effective controls at airports, and when the Government’s own chief scientific adviser said that

“a lot of the cases in the UK didn’t come from China…they came from European imports and the high level of travel into the UK at that time.”

There is no point in the Government claiming that they have the toughest border protections in the world. In that same month, March 2020, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada and New Zealand restricted entry to residents and citizens and introduced a 14-day quarantine for all arrivals. It could be done, and it was done; it just was not done by this Government. I wrote to the Home Secretary in April 2020 to ask her to learn the lessons from that, but still the UK remained an international outlier. In May 2020, the UK stood with only Iran, Luxembourg and the US Virgin Islands in having no border protection measures in place, and that, I am afraid, has been the story of the pandemic at the borders.

This Conservative Government have been late to formal quarantining. It was not introduced until June 2020, and even then only 3% of the people meant to be quarantining were successfully checked. The Government have been late to mandatory border testing, which was not introduced until January 2021, and late to start hotel quarantining, which started in February 2021 and even then covered only 1% of arrivals. They have been late and lacking in strategy, with no proper plan, just lurching from one position to another. It is no wonder that the border policy of this Government has been a tale of systematic failure. The Government did not so much leave the back door open to covid and its variants as leave the front door open the whole time.

Let me pay tribute to Border Force, the police and our wider law enforcement community. They have worked heroically. The gaps in our defences that have existed and do exist are not their fault, but the fault of Ministers. That chronic failure has been crystallised in the utter mess over hotel quarantining. On 1 February, we on the Opposition Benches forced a debate and a vote on covid security at the borders. I said that day:

“Labour is calling for decisive action today through a comprehensive hotel quarantine policy, and that would mean a policy of enforced quarantine restrictions on arrivals…Failing to adopt that policy risks undermining the huge gains that have been made by the vaccine roll-out, threatening life and hope.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 753.]

I then asked:

“How on earth can the Government be assured that the measures will prevent emerging strains from countries outside those on the red list? The truth is that the Government cannot answer that question. As a result, the policy is fatally flawed. A comprehensive quarantine policy would give us the best possible chance of preventing a new strain from undermining the astonishing collective sacrifice of the British people.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 755.]

It gives me no pleasure to say it, but that new strain is exactly what came to pass.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

How long does the right hon. Gentleman think his policy of scrapping the amber list and moving everything to red, hotel quarantine, would last? He says it is to deal with the risk of new variants being introduced into the UK. That risk could last indefinitely, so does that mean that his border closure would, by its very nature, also be indefinite?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely not. I have said, and it says in the motion, that there should be a growing green list now. The reason we are unable to grow the green list to the extent that we want to is the danger being created by the ambiguous amber list, by people mixing at airports, and by the mixed messaging from the Government about whether people can actually travel. It is not the fault of the people who are travelling. It is the fault of this Government with their mixed messaging.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to take action. The Prime Minister promised some of the toughest border measures in the world—but we had another example of what defines this Government: overpromising and underdelivering. Instead, they have let people down and delivered a complete mess. It was the Government’s short-termism and refusal to take tough decisions in time that has led to us ending up in this situation. When we called in February for comprehensive hotel quarantine measures in February, the Government Members did not even turn up for the vote—not one of them is shown has having voted in the Lobby.

Let me be clear. We want to get back to safe international travel as soon as possible, but we have to protect the gains of the past 14 months, which have been secured by the sacrifices of the British people. Yes, the comprehensive quarantine policy is tough politically; it is a message a lot of people did not want to hear, but it was necessary to keep variants out. Advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies was that it was the only measure that would work, and the Government’s chief scientific adviser said:

“You’ve got to go hard, early and broader if you’re going to get on top of this. Waiting and watching simply doesn’t work.”

Yet the Government ignored the warnings, time and again.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Huw Merriman

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The first thing I should point out is that everyone in the House wants to see a way in which the mutual legal assistance treaty system is speeded. I do not think there is any issue with that in any part of this House. The issues to which I shall come in a moment in essence fall into two categories: first, the issue of death penalty assurances; and secondly, protections for journalistic data.

In respect of the intervention from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), he has tabled an amendment that is essentially the same as the one that I pursued in Committee. I do not accept in any sense the difference that he suggests there is between the two. I am pleased that his amendment has been accepted and adopted by the Government.

[Huw Merriman]

I apologise if I have got this wrong, but my understanding is that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would not have included circumstances in which the journalist could not be traced, whereas the amendment I have tabled takes that into account, meaning that it would not be a blocker. It is in that limited aspect that our amendments differ.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

All I will say is that I had discussions about that amendment and others with the Minister, and they were things on which we were able to compromise. I am trying to assure the hon. Gentleman that the idea that I was trying to do something to scupper the treaty is completely wrong. I am sure he would accept that that was the case, whatever the differences between us on the detail.

[Huw Merriman]

I absolutely accept that. The hon. Gentleman will know that he and I worked closely throughout the Committee proceedings to make sure that the intent behind what we have now was in the Bill. I give credit to him for that assistance.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that.

Let me turn to the issue of death penalty assurances, which has clearly aroused a great deal of controversy, and explain our position. I should say to the Security Minister that I totally accept that new clause 1 is an improvement. The position the Opposition have ended up in today is a procedural one: unfortunately, because new clause 1 is the lead provision in the group and is therefore at the head of the list to be voted on, the only way that the Opposition can secure a vote on our own amendment is by voting against new clause 1. That is just the procedural position we have ended up in, but accept that it is a step forward and make that entirely clear from the Dispatch Box at the outset.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Huw Merriman

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments, but change that he is seeking will drive a coach and horses through this Bill, which will protect the vulnerable. Is he not using the wrong vehicle for that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, I am not using the wrong vehicle. This plug-in mechanism will have an impact on many other treaties. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is a rhetorical one: if we do not make a stand here, where will we make a stand? The idea that this huge amount of data and information relating to cases that do not carry the death penalty will be put at risk for a small number of cases—three in 20 years, as the Minister said—is, to my mind, not the most credible position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Clause 12 states:

“An application for an overseas production order must be made on notice if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the electronic data specified or described in the application consists of or includes journalistic data that is confidential journalistic data.”

Amendment 3 is designed to broaden that notice requirement to include material that might not be counted as strictly confidential but is nevertheless sensitive. When there is an application for journalistic data, amendment 10 would mean that the court must not determine that application in the absence of the journalist affected, unless the journalist has had at least two business days to make representations, or the court is satisfied that that would not be appropriate on a number of other counts. These two matters are important, and I urge the Minister to consider them carefully.

The notice requirement often enables a negotiation to take place between the media organisation to which the journalist belongs, or the journalist themselves, regarding what data it is appropriate to provide. It would also enable the media organisation or journalist formally to oppose the application if necessary. We believe that those are important safeguards. The notice requirement is helpful for the overall protection of journalistic material that we have discussed during our deliberations on a number of different clauses, and it is a fundamental aspect of fairness in such situations. It is not that there is a blanket exception to material becoming available in appropriate circumstances, but the amendment would introduce an appropriate balance that allows the journalist or media organisation to put forward their concerns and try to ensure that we protect our free press and investigative journalism—something I am sure all members of the Committee wish to do.

[Huw Merriman]

I will be brief because the hon. Gentleman said much of what I wish to say, but I wish to endorse it. The amendment would make the clause consistent with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and apply it to all journalistic information, rather than just confidential information. I would be pleased if the Minister considered such a provision.

The point has been made—perhaps I can extend it—that such a measure would also save a lot of time and administration. If journalists are given an opportunity to negotiate with more notice, we will not find that matters reach the stage where it is too late. I am led to believe that the procedure works very much on a negotiation basis. On that basis, I think this measure is fair and consistent with domestic matters, and that it will also make for more administrative justice through our court process. I therefore support the sentiments behind the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.

I say gently to Opposition Members that, to a certain extent, and judging by what the Minister said earlier, we could perhaps have flexibility in this area and make the Bill work better if they do not seek to drive a coach and horses through the Bill with an amendment that is completely outside its scope and could potentially take it to pieces. I make those gentle points to those on both Front Benches.