Online Safety Bill

Debate between Paul Scully and Ian Paisley

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Minister for engaging with us on access to private property and for setting up, with his officials, a consultation on the right to access a person’s phone after they are deceased or incapacitated. I thank him for incorporating some of those thoughts in what he and the Government are doing today. I hope this is the start of something and that these big digital companies will no longer be able to bully people. The boot will be on the other foot, and the public will own what they have on their digital devices.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the access of coroners, families and others to information, following the sad death of Molly Russell. Again, I pay tribute to Ian Russell and all the campaigners. I am glad that we have been able to find an answer to a very complex situation, not only because of its international nature but because of data protection, et cetera.

The measures I have outlined will ensure that risks relating to security vulnerabilities are managed. The Bill is also clear that Ofcom cannot require companies to use proactive technology on privately communicated content, in order to comply with their safety duties, which will provide further safeguards for user privacy and data security.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Ian Paisley

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Paul Scully)]

I entirely agree that social mobility is at the heart of what we want to do, and I congratulate those four institutions. If the Minister for Arts and Heritage or the Secretary of State will not come to Hastings and Rye, I certainly will.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

T4. Why is there no right to appeal against decisions made by the executive complaints unit in the BBC? Does the Minister agree that it would strengthen confidence in the BBC if there were an independent complaints process enabling people to appeal against those decisions?

Covid-19: Requirements for Employees to be Vaccinated

Debate between Paul Scully and Ian Paisley

Monday 24th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend. He talks about the impact, and we understand the concerns about that. That is why, apart from the measures that I outlined a second ago about making it as easy as possible to have the vaccine and giving the grace period and the ability to flex within that, the NHS is planning further increases in engagement with targeted communities, where the uptake is lowest. That includes extensive work with ethnic minority communities and faith networks to encourage healthcare workers to receive the vaccine.

We have obviously had an analysis of the equalities implications. That was published in the equalities impact assessment, alongside the consultation response. We are obviously engaging with colleagues such as my hon. Friend to hear about real-world results and impacts and respond accordingly. But as the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, has rightly said,

“people who are looking after other people who are very vulnerable do have a professional responsibility to get vaccinated”,

so we remain committed to bringing these measures in on 1 April.

Outside these specific settings—health and care—it is fair to say that there could be some other circumstances in which it may be lawful for an employer to require staff to be vaccinated. There is no general “Yes, it is lawful” or “No, it’s not lawful” answer to that question. It will depend on the facts and details of each case. There is a lot for an employer to consider.

For example, what is the current evidence on the consequences of covid-19 both for the individuals and for the organisation? What are the employer’s reasons for imposing a requirement to be vaccinated? Given the particular work being undertaken, are those reasonable? And what are the circumstances of the individual employee? Are there Equality Act 2010 considerations in play? An employer would need to weigh the answers to all those questions and more before being confident that it was lawful to require employees to be vaccinated.

I should be clear that there is a difference between how an employer might treat those who are already employed and those who are not. When it comes to those who are not already employed, there is more scope for an employer to establish a requirement to be vaccinated, subject to the employer satisfying themselves that they can pass relevant legal tests, such as on discrimination. The employer might make such a requirement a condition in the contract; it then becomes more a matter of whether to accept the contract. It would then be a matter of personal choice, just as a prospective employee might consider a requirement to work a number of late or early shifts, or weekends.

For those already in employment, the issue is really about what might happen if they refuse to be vaccinated. After all, an employer cannot physically force someone to have a vaccination. There is the issue of the consequences of refusing to be vaccinated. Could an employee be suspended without pay, refused access to certain shifts, roles or tasks, or disadvantaged in some other way? Could they fairly be dismissed? Those are the key concerns that people will have. I do not believe that it is appropriate to make vaccination a special case. Such cases should be treated in the same way as other instances where an employee feels that they have been treated unfairly at work.

Employment law provides an extensive framework to protect employees from unfair treatment, including unfair dismissal. That framework applies to refusing to be vaccinated just as much as it does to other circumstances. This framework, rather than imposing a blanket set of prescriptive terms and conditions about when a dismissal is fair, allows the facts of each case to be weighed and considered, so that what is fair and what is not can be properly established in the light of any evidence, the employer’s situation and the business circumstances. I strongly believe that the legal framework for employers around the country allows for the interrogation of all relevant facts, provides the right checks and balances, and ensures that employers can take action as a result of someone’s refusal to be vaccinated, where that is appropriate.

I conclude by acknowledging that there is a fine balance to be struck. On the one hand, we obviously want people to recognise the benefits of the vaccine, and as a matter of choice, we want to ensure that they have all the injections and boosters needed to minimise the impact of the pandemic on them, their friends and neighbours, the health service and the economy. On the other hand, we want to ensure that vulnerable people are properly protected and do not face unnecessary risks. The employment law framework and the steps that we are taking to make vaccination a condition of employment in certain settings strike the right balance.

Once again, I thank those who contributed to the debate. It has been a valuable discussion. I also thank all the workers in the NHS, who have kept us safe throughout this period, and who continue to do so, despite the winter pressures. We will always make sure that we work with those valued workers, who serve our public so well.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Mr Day, would you like a minute or two to wind up? I would like to put the Question, though; I think that is important.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Paul Scully and Ian Paisley

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions not just here and now, but in the earlier stages of this Bill, which allowed for that important lock. The taxation Bill and this Bill work in lockstep as well, and I can confirm his interpretation. I will come on to that in a second regarding the statement earlier today.

After the transition period ends, Northern Ireland will and must remain fully integrated with the UK’s internal market. There should be nothing controversial about that. The protocol expressly recognises that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK’s customs territory and qualifying Northern Ireland goods will enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK market. We will never accept additional burdens or barriers on goods moving from Birmingham to London, and neither should we accept those on goods moving from Belfast to Liverpool. Moreover, clause 46 would codify in legislation the existing practice where state aid is notified to the European Commission by the Foreign Secretary via the UK mission in Brussels.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for the commitment he has made about goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland. Can he tell us whether the same assurance will be in place for all goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB?

[Paul Scully]

I can indeed.

Part 5 of the Bill contains vital provisions to ensure that this will always be the case, whatever the outcome of our negotiations within the EU. Since these clauses were originally introduced, the UK and EU have worked constructively together through the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee discussions, which continue to progress, and final decisions are expected in the coming days. I can confirm today that if the solutions being considered in those discussions are agreed, the UK Government will be prepared to remove clause 44, concerning export declarations, from the Bill. The UK Government would also be prepared to deactivate clauses 45 and 47, concerning state aid, such that they could be used only when consistent with the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

As I have said before in regard to these clauses, the changes that we set out in a statement earlier today work on the assumption that we have had success in the discussions and that we can solve this elsewhere. We hope that the “notwithstanding” clauses will never have to be used, and we understand the concerns that have been raised. Making regulations of this nature would not be done lightly. That is why, before this clause is commenced, this House, as we have discussed, will be asked specifically to approve a motion to that effect, and the other place will hold a take note debate. Any regulations made under this clause would be subject to the affirmative or made affirmative procedure, meaning that they will be subject to debates requiring a vote in both Houses.

Moreover, as the Prime Minister has made clear, in addition to taking these steps in domestic law, if we had to make it clear that we believed the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith as required and provided for under the withdrawal agreement and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, we would seek an arbitration panel and consider safeguards under article 16 of the protocol in parallel. We must ensure that, in any scenario, we are upholding the economic integrity of the United Kingdom, maintaining the Belfast or Good Friday agreement and the gains of the peace process and protecting the delicate balance between communities in Northern Ireland.

These “notwithstanding” clauses are a limited and reasonable step that create a safety net to enable those aims to be met. They ensure that the UK Government can always act as necessary to protect and maintain our UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s integral place in it. That is entirely in keeping with what the Government have constantly said, including in public commitments from the Prime Minister, our manifesto commitments and our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why the Government cannot agree with the Lords amendments, which would remove what was part 5, and why I urge hon. Members to disagree with the Lords amendments and restore the critical provisions in full.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene in this way. Does he welcome the comments made by the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr Coveney, who said that, essentially, all the commentary for the past three years on erecting borders on the island of Ireland was basically a game of bluff by the Irish Republic? Does he welcome the fact that it has now conceded that point?

[Paul Scully]

I have not heard those words, so I will not comment on them. There has been a lot of commentary, but what is important is the reality. Northern Irish businesses want the certainty offered by this Bill and the unfettered access to the GB market.

I emphasise that the Government has been reasonable, and will continue to be reasonable, in discussions on this Bill. We have made many positive changes to the Bill and they are on the table, but the Government need to balance this with the need to deliver a Bill that provides the certainty that businesses want and need to invest and create jobs, to maintain high standards and choice for consumers while keeping prices down, to ensure that the Government can continue to continue to level up the whole of the United Kingdom and strengthen our precious Union, and, ultimately, to preserve the UK internal market that has been an engine of growth and prosperity for centuries.

Lifting the Lockdown: Workplace Safety

Debate between Paul Scully and Ian Paisley

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for that comment. Clearly, the Government’s first priority in all of this is saving lives, but livelihoods and making sure that businesses and jobs are retained and that we can bounce back is very important. I will certainly take that away. I know that the Treasury has always been keen to look at each step of the situation to ensure that we can come up with economic support as well as the health support that we have been discussing in this urgent question.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

Welcome to North Antrim, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister tell us what guidelines he and the Government will put in place to assist necessary workers and passengers travelling on airlines from Northern Ireland to London? What assistance will he put in place for air operators that are taking and making necessary flights to ensure that there are the necessary guidelines and protections in place for those workers?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Part of giving people the confidence to return to work is giving them the confidence to be able to travel to and from various parts of the UK to work, which is why this process will also look at transport, at opening schools and at those kind of things when the health guidance is appropriate.

Cystic Fibrosis Drugs: Orkambi

Debate between Paul Scully and Ian Paisley

Monday 10th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Vertex has a pipeline that should help its shares—their value has doubled over the past few years, and I am sure they will do very well in future—but we must have a balance with shareholder value, so that the company can continue to invest and continue its research. As he says, this is about human beings, their quality of life and their lives.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has struck a chord with the points that he has raised, which have been heard by Members of different parties. We must also make this cross-channel, and Northern Ireland cannot be left out of this arrangement. I know the chief medical officer has been in discussions with NICE and the Department to ensure that no postcode in the whole of the United Kingdom is left out of a settlement in this matter.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Northern Ireland must surely be in there too.

 Orkambi and Cystic Fibrosis

Debate between Paul Scully and Ian Paisley

Monday 19th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 209455 relating to access to the drug Orkambi for people with Cystic Fibrosis.

I will first read the petition into the record, if I may. It is entitled “Make Orkambi available on the NHS for people with Cystic Fibrosis”, and states:

“Conventional CF treatments target the symptoms of CF, precision medicines like Orkambi tackle the cause of the condition. Though Orkambi is not a cure, it has been found to slow decline in lung function, the most common cause of death for people with CF, by 42%.

In July 2016, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) recognised Orkambi as an ‘important treatment.’ They were, however, unable to recommend the drug for use within the NHS on grounds of cost effectiveness and a lack of long-term data.

We are calling on the British Government to call for a resolution to ongoing negotiations between Vertex Pharmaceuticals, NHS England and NICE as a matter of the utmost urgency. It is essential that a fair and sustainable agreement is found.”

To date, there are 115,419 signatories to the petition.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. This is my first debate here—hon. Members have not come to see me, but to support this important cause. It is incredible to see so many people, and to see these Benches and the Public Gallery full. I thank my hon. Friends and colleagues for supporting this noble cause.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason why there is such public and political interest in this matter is that the Government have acted in a prehistoric way when it comes to treating patients? This drug should be purchased and made available as widely as possible and as soon as possible, so that patients who suffer from this disease can have a better quality of life.

[Paul Scully]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s position and concern, especially so when many people in Ireland in particular are cystic fibrosis sufferers, but I remind him that NHS England is the procurer, not the Government—it is done through that independent process.