Bill Esterson
MP for Sefton Central · Labour · United Kingdom
“As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, our energy supply and our energy security are not a question of having either oil and gas, or renewables; they are about both. It is a great pity that proper process was not followed in 2022 or 2023. [ Interruption.”
“I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to continuing Britain’s global leadership on climate action, including by going to COP31. I also welcome his focus on breathing space for people and businesses, but, as he said, it will take a lot more than that to deliver the growth and reindustrialisation that he is so committed to.”
“Last week the Committee heard from Claire Dykta, the director of strategy and policy at NESO, who told us: “Operational decisions are taken by authorised, trained personnel only.” Her comments were confirmed by Alastair Martin, the chief strategy officer at Flexitricity, who, in the same session, said: “I do not think the idea that the he…”
“As the Minister has just said, new nuclear is essential for energy security. It is also essential as an alternative career for workers in oil and gas.”
“Paul and Susan Robinson each worked for the Health and Safety Executive for more than 40 years. They have not been able to plan for their retirement since finishing work last year; they have been living off their savings and the small loan that they have had. They are typical of the dozens of constituents who have contacted me.”
“Hudson primary school in my constituency does a brilliant job. It is a family hub, it specialises in support for children with SEND and autism, and it has a nursery, but its building, which is 80 years old, suffers from a high water table that brings damp, mould and structural problems for the building—as does occasional flooding.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,882 lines we hold for Bill Esterson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 98.
“We do not know what stage such an agreement is at—with the potential for a fast-track agreement under the current regime, or something else later on—but we know that the Secretary of State has made clear her desire to sign the CPTPP, an agreement with 11 countries on the Pacific Rim. The service chapter of that agreement includes negative lists, ratchet clauses, ISDS and health. There is no opt-out or carve-out for health. As the Nuffield Trust tells us, negative list systems, ratchet clauses and ISDS lock out the potential for Governments to bring public services back in-house once they have been privatised. Indeed, they drive further privatisation and prevent a reduction in it. They take away control, rather than giving back control, as some might say.”
“Let us remember what Mr Hannan and his friends have had to say. When the Cato Institute launched the report, the co-editor who spoke at the launch, Daniel Ikenson, said: “Healthcare is a service, we call for opening services to competition… This is a free trade agreement, the purpose of liberalising trade is to expose incumbent business to competition, including healthcare.” Including healthcare—it is there in the words of the think-tanks with which the Secretary of State works and which advise her on the Board of Trade, to which she appointed Mr Hannan only a few months ago. I turn to the so-called comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP, because this is not just about a potential trade agreement with the United States.”
“Those are the many concerns that led people to sign the petition. Their concern applies not just to US healthcare companies, but to UK right-wing think-tanks and their link-ups with their American counterparts and allies. We have already heard the name Daniel Hannan this afternoon. He is a co-author of “The Ideal U.S.-U.K. Free Trade Agreement”, a document that was launched in London with the Cato Institute on the same day as the Secretary of State for International Trade spoke at the Cato Institute’s Washington office. I do not believe in coincidences, and I suspect I am not the only one in the room who feels that way. Like the petitioners, I am greatly concerned that this is not just about US healthcare companies, but about UK right-wing think-tanks and their representatives.”
“Thank you, Mr Stringer. The petitioners are concerned about the market access to the national health service that is outlined in the trade agreement objectives of the United States. A long-stated objective of American pharmaceutical companies is to take away the NHS’s influence on drug pricing, not just in this country, but across the European continent. That is a very real concern. The petitioners are concerned about access to data. Alan Winters from the Trade Policy Observatory has set out those concerns in real detail: a potential cost of £10 billion to the national health service to get access to our own patient records; the payment of royalties to silicon valley, and legal action against the national health service to boot; and the dilution of data privacy rules if the American trade negotiation objectives are put into law.”
“That all suggests that those who signed the petition were absolutely right to do so, and to have concerns not only about the United States, but about CPTPP as well. They are right to be concerned about the future of the national health service in trade deals.”
“If the Government are serious about exempting the national health service from future trade agreements, they should put that in the Trade Bill, support it in the House of Lords and support it when it comes back here, because they have the opportunity to do just that. We know that the CPTPP is a Government priority in the absence of an agreement with the United States. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will refuse to sign it without carve-outs? As to the lack of scrutiny, that is in the Government’s hands. So far, there has been a refusal to put the exemption in the Trade Bill, key Government advisers are committed to privatisation and we have concerns about the CPTPP.”
“It does not provide a guaranteed mechanism for debate, because it relies on the Opposition being granted an Opposition day debate by the Government. The Government control the agenda in Parliament. Members will have noticed that, for the last few weeks, we have not had an Opposition day debate, and we went for a long period in the last Parliament without any Opposition day debates, so there is no guarantee of that process being implemented. Whether a debate at the end of negotiations—if we are allowed one—is adequate scrutiny is another matter entirely. I come back to where I started.”
“Right-wing think-tanks with links to the Secretary of State and Government also want this to happen, so a lot of reassurance is needed by the petitioners and by many more people besides. The issue requires far greater scrutiny. I heard one hon. Member describing the process for the scrutiny of trade agreements, which we debated in the Trade Bill. In fact, the Minister and I have debated these matters more than once, in relation to more than one Trade Bill, and no doubt we will do so again. The reality is that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which provides the framework under which we operate, gives no guarantee of a debate or vote on trade agreements. It requires the laying in Parliament for 21 days of a trade agreement that has been negotiated.”
“He told us he had met the lead negotiators for the 11 countries and had enjoyed discussions with them. Can he provide reassurance that what the BMA has said is not the full story? Did he ask the question and get an answer about whether carve-outs on health would be possible, given the existing agreement? When he responds, can he tell us whether he asked that question and what the answer was? The Government’s answer to the points that my hon. Friends and I have raised is that the NHS is not on the table. If it is not, why did the US negotiating objectives state that it was? The Government say that the NHS is not in the existing agreements, and that is true. It is not in the agreements that we are currently signed up to, but this petition is about future trade agreements. For us, the CPTPP would be a future trade agreement.”
“That is right. That is the problem in America, where so much money goes to executive wealth or is wasted on administration costs, instead of going into patient care and medical activity. The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. I shall quote what the British Medical Association says about CPTPP. The BMA tells us that the UK would be unable to negotiate any additional carve-outs for healthcare services, and it says: “We do not believe that the NHS is adequately protected under CPTPP.” As a member of the CPTPP, New Zealand has an ISDS carve-out on health that will not be available to us, because the CPTPP is an existing agreement and the member countries have made it clear publicly that they will not give carve-outs to new joiners. On 8 October, the Minister was asked about that in the Chamber.”
“Of course it is right that the furlough scheme and the support for the self-employed should be reinstated at the levels they were at in March, but the Minister will know—everyone will know—that there are a great many people in our country who did not qualify for the furlough scheme or the self-employed scheme, or whose businesses did not qualify for grants at the start and still do not. May I take this opportunity to remind him that a great many people are still without financial support and will find it increasingly difficult to make it through the coming weeks and months? Will he take that message back to his colleagues across the Government?”
“On 4 May, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of support for “companies capable of contributing supplies.” —[ Official Report , 4 May 2020; Vol. 675, c. 411.] All those requests were made and answered by Florence Roby and a list of other companies, including EcoLogix in my constituency, Imperial Polythene Products in Slough, and Staeger Clear Packaging, which makes aprons and other PPE, but they were turned down despite offering to help. It was a chance for British companies to contribute to the crisis, and it was a chance for taxpayers’ money to support businesses through the pandemic to help with jobs and the economy, but they were turned down. That is why the National Audit Office investigation and report are so important.”
“Ayanda Capital, which supplied unusable facemasks, is based in Mauritius, and we heard at Prime Minister’s questions from the Leader of the Opposition about £130 million for external PR. All the while, a £7,000 day rate is being paid to consultants more widely. Florence Roby employs local people and a contract would have added jobs in its factory; instead, it had to lay people off, while PPE Medpro shipped from overseas. That is the contrast. Let us remember that we were told all the way through that there are unique circumstances about procurement during a crisis, and I do not deny that. On 11 April, there was a call to arms from the Health Secretary to any UK textile company that could assist. On 15 April, the Government’s website was calling for PPE manufacturers and home-grown industries.”
“That is the reality of what my constituents faced. They still have not had a contract or a satisfactory answer from the Government. They were just given the runaround. PPE Medpro is not the only company to have profited, having been started from scratch or having had very little footprint and no previous experience. We saw that, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) mentioned, with PestFix and its £108 million contract. PPE Medpro had one advantage: it was assisted by its relationship with a Conservative Member of the House of Lords. Randox, similarly connected to Members of the ruling party, got a £347 million contract for covid tests that could not be used because of safety concerns.”
“Working with local NHS providers, it designed medical robes that could be reused up to 100 times. It took two months for Florence Roby to get an answer, which took it past the 12 May date. Meanwhile, it developed the product and applied for the CE marks. In June, it was told that its product was not required. The Government’s email said that they had all the PPE they could possibly ever need. Florence Roby and dozens of other companies across the country were told the same thing: their services were no longer required. Florence Roby had put weeks of effort and thousands of pounds of investment into developing a product, which, remember, was 100 times reusable; meanwhile, we were getting planeloads of plastic medical robes from Turkey that could not be used because the quality was not good enough.”
“In April, the Government asked businesses across our country to step up to help in the pandemic. I want to tell a story of two businesses that tried to help in the pandemic. It is a contrast between two PPE companies: Florence Roby, owned by constituents of mine in Formby, and PPE Medro, which was founded on 12 May this year. Seven weeks later, this company was given a contract for £122 million to provide medical robes. The contract was not advertised anywhere else, and presumably it was delivered, but we have no way of knowing because we have not had the outcomes yet. How was Florence Roby doing by 12 May, having first approached the Government in March, before the big call for help came? It has been going for more than 50 years, and it is a specialist in the manufacture of uniforms.”
“Many working people have been excluded since March. They do not qualify for furlough; they do not qualify for the self-employed scheme; and their businesses do not qualify for the grants. It is no good the Government giving the mantra about universal credit. It will not wash, because most people who have been excluded do not qualify for universal credit. The Government were right to U-turn over the injustice facing hungry children, so when will they fix the growing injustice faced by millions of excluded people in this country who just want to put food on the table for their children?”
“Concerns have been raised about the accuracy and efficiency of some of the new tests being used to increase testing capacity. Mass testing is essential if we are to control the virus, and the Liverpool mass testing pilot must be a success. So may we have a debate to enable us to scrutinise the effectiveness and accuracy of the new tests being proposed?”
“The first lockdown saw an 80% increase in universal credit claims in Northern Ireland. The five- week wait for universal credit increases family debt and child poverty. With Christmas seven weeks away, and in the middle of a second lockdown, is it not now time to end the five-week delay?”
“Why does the Defence Secretary think the Royal British Legion is so adamant that the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill breaches the armed forces covenant and fails to protect veterans?”
“It has been 33 weeks since the start of the first lockdown. In that time, one in 20 people who are part of the working population have had no work, but have been ineligible for furlough, self-employed financial support and business grants and loans. What is the Prime Minister’s message to the millions of people who have had no financial support about how they should put food on the table for their families?”
“The Chancellor says that he will support only viable businesses. Kim runs a wedding photography business. She is self-employed and works from home and, like millions of other people, she has not qualified for any of the measures that the Chancellor has announced. Weddings will need photographers again, and Kim already has 71 bookings for next year. Why is the Chancellor’s message to Kim, and millions like her, that he thinks her business is not viable?”
“On Monday, I asked the Health Secretary about contact tracing. He answered by talking about testing, so perhaps this Minister will answer a question about contact tracing. Will the Government now give the Serco data to local public health teams, and will the Government provide the financial resources that those local teams need? That equates to roughly £300 million to the Liverpool city region, similar sums to Lancashire and to South Yorkshire, and about £500 million to Greater Manchester when compared with the £12 billion for Serco.”
“The Health Secretary really should admit that Serco has failed. If it was shared fairly across the country, the £12 billion for Serco would mean £300 million for the Liverpool city region alone. When will he give that level of funding to local public health teams, and when will he instruct Dido Harding to give local teams the data that is currently held by Serco, so that they can do the job that Serco has failed to do?”
“We voiced that concern when the Trade Bill was under consideration. Given the impact on vital supplies, our exporters and imports, we are anxious that Members of Parliament are able to scrutinise properly regulations such as those before us today. Can the Minister flesh out for us what evidence base will be provided by the Secretary of State, and what will be in the public domain, so that Members can make informed decisions? The Minister said that the regulations represent a small technical change, and I do not disagree but such changes can have profound implications and consequences on implementation. It is important that we scrutinise the regulations properly. I would be grateful if the Minister offered some assurance about the implications of the Northern Ireland protocol and the exercise of parliamentary scrutiny.”
“He said that the regulations would be laid in a statutory instrument, and that Parliament has the right to vote on them and to annul them. Will that always be the case? Will the exercise of the regulations always be subject to consideration by a SI Committee? The Minister said that the supply of PPE involved the review of the licence applications from various exporters. Can he confirm that a similar process will be used by the Secretary of State in future, and if not, what is the alternative? What evidence will be published in advance of a SI calling for parliamentarians to approve the Government’s proposed actions? Labour, including we few on the Opposition Benches today, has expressed significant concern about how legislative scrutiny is being exercised in this Parliament.”
“The Department noted that the European Commission will still have the ability to impose export restrictions under the protocol, but that it would only be involved under the aegis of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora – CITES. The Department said that there would be negligible implications for trade as a whole. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that that is his understanding, and that there is no prospect of any kind of blockade as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol and the impact of the regulations. That prompts the question about why so much fuss was made about that particular issue in the Internal Market Bill. That leads on to the Minister’s other point about the role of Parliament and the implementation of the regulations.”
“As a consequence of some global actions during the coronavirus crisis we have recognised that we need to drop import tariffs on soap and sanitisers—the example that most readily springs to mind. They also reinforce the need for a balance between a reliance on imports and investment in our domestic manufacturing industries. An over-reliance on imports has serious consequences if we are unable to secure essential supplies, and if other countries apply export controls as a result of our actions. In terms of the application of the regulations by the Secretary of State, I have some questions about the Northern Ireland protocol. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns with the Department for International Trade about the exercise of the regulations.”
“The Minister referred to the review of licence applications and the EU’s restrictions on PPE exports, which we also adopted. One of the consequences may well have been our difficulty in acquiring PPE from around the world—the plane loads of inadequate PPE from Turkey and a company registered in Mauritius, and inadequate and unsuitable face masks. It is clear, therefore, that such controls are not to be exercised lightly and may invite retaliation, if not prompt other countries to take a view of us that is not in our interests. As Alan Winters of the Trade Policy Observatory has said, it is important that we acknowledge the role of reciprocal trade in our own fortunes, and acknowledge how important it is that we have strong bilateral relations, especially with our biggest trading partners – the largest being the EU.”
“Yes, I am sure, especially when you give four and half hour speeches on twinning arrangements with other countries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gray. I am grateful to the Minister for his concise explanation of the common rules for exports and the implementation of the export control regulations transposed from EU law. The Minister flagged up a number of questions, because the use of export controls is not exercised lightly, has consequences and invites other countries to impose similar controls. We have seen that happen in the time period to which the Minister referred. As the Minister said, we saw shortages around the world in medicines and we all remember the concern about the shortage of paracetamol in this country.”
“I am grateful for that helpful explanation, but perhaps I can pick up the point about information that would be in the public domain to enable Members of either House to make informed decisions. Hopefully, we would avoid getting to the point where either House might want to annul such a measure.”
“SAGE warns that a circuit breaker is unavoidable. I wonder whether the Prime Minister’s words will come back to haunt him in a couple of weeks’ time as he admits that and does yet another U-turn. The best restrictions in the world will work only if people have financial security and can afford to comply. Is it not the case that offering only 67% of pay to somebody on minimum wage does not cover 100% of the bills that they have to pay? That is something that needs attention, as is the £1.3 billion underspend for all those people who, so far, have had no help in this crisis at all.”
“Without evidence, people will not have confidence in the Government, so what is the scientific evidence for the restrictions that the Prime Minister has announced, which will affect 1.5 million people in the Liverpool city region? People need hope that these measures will be short-lived, so what is the exit strategy and specifically what will the infection rate have to fall to for the restrictions in the Liverpool city region to be lifted?”
“Hormone-injected beef should never have been part of the trade talks with the United States. Can the Trade Secretary confirm that she told her US counterparts that the UK would drop the digital services tax if the US dropped its insistence on market access for its hormone-injected beef? If she has not made such an offer, can she tell us why The Mail on Sunday says she has? After all, it would not invent such a story, would it?”
“Yesterday, the Health Secretary told me: “we have been putting the extra money into…councils” —[ Official Report , 5 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 637.] What money is that? He announced £7 million, split between nine councils, as compared with £12 billion for Serco. That is not putting the extra money into councils, is it? So may I ask him to show respect for Members of this House and, more importantly, for our constituents, and answer the question: when is he going to stop relying on the outsourcing giants and support local public health teams with the funds they need, because that is how he and this country are going to fix test, trace and isolate?”
“The six councils in the Liverpool city region face a budget shortfall of £150 million. On Thursday, the Health Secretary announced £7 million to be split between the Liverpool city region and three further councils—a drop in the ocean compared with £150 million. He knows that local professionals have solutions to the problems of test, trace and isolate. He has shown that there are not just millions but billions of pounds available for Serco, Deloitte, Compass and friends. So when will he invest in local public health teams and sort out the mess of test, trace and isolate once and for all?”
“We should not be going down this road. The agreement was signed, it was promised to the British people, and the Prime Minister told us that it was in perfect conformity with the Northern Ireland protocol. This Bill is not needed in its current form. The Government should take out the illegal actions that they are proposing and they should be honest with the British people.”
“What of the Prime Minister, who described it as a safety net as well—as a means of preventing this fanciful blockade of Great Britain to Northern Ireland trade? If that were true, why is there nothing in the Bill to deal with this alleged shortcoming? No safety net is needed, either, because the dispute resolution mechanisms set out in the withdrawal agreement and in the Northern Ireland protocol provide everything that we could possibly need. If those protections are followed step by step, we stay within international law, so why are the Government so keen to go beyond that? The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) set out what is already provided—I remember; I was here—when he stood at the Dispatch Box and described the process as providing a clear and lawful set of responses, and he was right to do so.”
“It invites others to say that we are in no position to criticise those who routinely break international law. It undermines this country’s fine reputation, as set out by Margaret Thatcher—revered by all Conservative Members—who said that Britain is nothing if not a country that sets an example to other countries. It undermines the promised negotiations for deals around the world, including the fundamental negotiation right now with the European Union. We were promised by this Government—by their Prime Minister—that 80% of our trade would be covered by international trade agreements after Brexit had been concluded. What is the figure now? It is 8%—that is all they have managed, not the 80% they promised. The safety net has a great big hole in it; it is nothing of the kind.”
“The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster described the breaching of international law as a “safety net”. That breaching of international law is set out clearly as being such in article 5 of the withdrawal agreement that this Government signed up to, put to the British people and passed in legislation. There is no shadow of a doubt that even bringing this legislation to the House means breaching international law, with all the consequences that flow from that. To call this a safety net is entirely wrong. It is anything but that. There is nothing safe in the breach of international law whatsoever, as the Minister well knows. The breach of international law invites retaliation under the terms of the World Trade Organisation. It invites us to be regarded as a pariah.”
“Those of us who represent areas that face additional restrictions as of tomorrow are happy to reinforce the messages, but we need the Secretary of State’s help, don’t we, Mr Speaker? The difference between the instruction of households that they “must not go and visit each other” as opposed to saying they “should not go to the pub together” is one of the ambiguities that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) has highlighted right from the start of this crisis. It is an ambiguity that is exploited by the virus, but it is also exploited, sadly, by a small but important minority of people in this country. Will he clear up these ambiguities and improve the chances that everybody will comply with these necessary new restrictions?”
“Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement makes it clear that it is not possible to do so, and Conservative Members all signed up to it at a general election and in here when they voted for it. They used to say that they revered those elders of their party—many of them would still say they do in the case of Margaret Thatcher, of course—so how did it come to this?”
“Then we move on to the Confederation of British Industry: Carolyn Fairbairn spoke of the damage to our reputation and integrity. The Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland made a plea to the Government for sensible implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but its pleas have fallen, so far, on deaf ears. As we heard earlier, the damage was done when the Northern Ireland Secretary told the House, as he did last week, or the week before now—time passes so fast—that the Government intended to break international law, albeit in a “specific and limited way”. The Vienna convention is clear: it is not possible to use domestic law as an excuse for breaking international law.”
“Indeed, to do so would damage our own integrity as well as international relations.” In 1982, Mrs Thatcher said of Britain’s role: “It is in upholding international law and teaching the nations of the world how to live”. That last bit did not always go down so well, but, Dame Eleanor, you take the point. Mrs Thatcher believed, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead believes, in the rule of law and in the importance of upholding international law at all costs. That is without citing Lord Howard, Lord Hague or Lord Lamont, and I mention them along with the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), as former Members of this House, in three cases, who are held in high regard, or used to be held in high regard, by members of Conservative party.”
“I thoroughly enjoyed the very thoughtful and well analysed speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). I hope his hon. Friends will listen very carefully to what he says, which is incredibly important. There are things I did not expect to be doing today. The first is to be quoting the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who spoke of the untold damage to the UK’s reputation of implementing these clauses which will break international law as soon as they hit the statute book. Something else I did not expect to be doing today, or ever, is quoting Margaret Thatcher. In 1975—before your time, Dame Eleanor—she said: “Britain does not renounce Treaties.”
“I have mentioned trade deals, and we know from numerous Members tonight and previously what the Speaker of the House of Representatives has said and what the former Vice-President and, I hope, future President, has said about the prospect for those trade deals, given this breach of the Northern Ireland agreement and threat to the peace process. What is causing so much disquiet about what Conservative Members signed and voted for last year? Why are they ignoring the senior people in their party and Margaret Thatcher? Why the Damascene conversion to state aid? This is about broken promises, breaking the peace process and breaking the rule of law and international law—and they know it.”
“Tell us what this wonderful new world of support for our industries that the Government are proposing is, so we can scrutinise it. The Government are not very good at scrutiny, are they? We found that out on the Trade Bill, and we continue to do so. They deny any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, and it is the same here with these customs clearances and state aid. When it comes to state aid, we are now being told, although we cannot see the detail, that the Japanese deal will have a different state aid regime from the one they are proposing. Is it the one proposed by the Business Secretary or the one that the International Trade Secretary would prefer, with renegotiation of World Trade Organisation state aid rules? Tell us, so that we can scrutinise and make informed decisions before we vote on the provisions in this Bill.”
“Hypocrisy, and nobody will believe it. No one will believe it because of their own words and, increasingly, their own actions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example. What is this for—customs clearances, and because of a border in the Irish sea that the Government voted for? Have they raised it with the Joint Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked for the umpteenth time earlier? We would love to hear in the wind-up. What of the dispute resolution system and the binding arbitration they have agreed to? Why is it no longer enough? Is this really about state aid, and the Damascene conversion of a Conservative party that last year only spent 0.38% of GDP on subsidies, while in Germany the figure was 1.38% and in Portugal as much as 1.69%?”
“It is no good blaming the public. People want to know that they can get a test when they need to. Some 25% of new cases are in north-west England, but only 15% of testing capacity. My constituents who are showing symptoms cannot get a test. Children and staff in our schools need to be able to get a test, so schools can stay open safely. The care homes in my borough are worried that, as demand goes up, they will not be able to get a test. When will the extra capacity be available in my constituency? The British people know what is going to happen and who is responsible. Fix it!”
“We can see from the right hon. Gentleman’s speech so far that he clearly shares many of the concerns of the Labour Front-Bench team. On that basis, will he confirm that he will be supporting the reasoned amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition?”