UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Paul Blomfield

  • Paul Blomfield – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Paul Blomfield – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2014-05-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 1 April 2014, Official Report, column 714, on physical and mental health (parity of esteem), if he will collect and publish mental health spending data for (a) 2012-13, (b) 2013-14 and (c) future years.

    Norman Lamb

    NHS England currently collects and publishes information about mental health spending via its Programme Budgeting Data collection and published expenditure data for 2012-13 on 21 February 2014. This is available on its website at:

    www.england.nhs.uk/resources/resources-for-ccgs/prog-budgeting

    We are working with NHS England to support its plans to develop the Programme Budgeting Dataset for 2013-14 to provide a more meaningful analysis of expenditure on mental health conditions.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Paul Blomfield – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the Oral Answer of 1 April 2014, Official Report, column 714, on physical and mental health (parity of esteem), in what ways he plans to achieve complete transparency in the availability of data on mental health spending.

    Norman Lamb

    NHS England currently collects and publishes information about mental health spending via its Programme Budgeting Dataset and published expenditure data for 2012-13 on 21 February 2014. This is available on its website at:

    www.england.nhs.uk/resources/resources-for-ccgs/prog-budgeting/

    We are working with NHS England to support its plans to develop this dataset for 2013-14 to provide a more meaningful analysis of expenditure.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Paul Blomfield – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2014-06-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what visits Ministers in his Department made to Australia in the last year; what the primary purpose was of those visits; and who accompanied them on those visits.

    Jenny Willott

    Details of Ministers’ overseas visits are published quarterly on the Gov.uk website:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=department-for-business-innovation-skills&publication_type=transparency-data

    Information for January to March 2014 will be published shortly.

    “

  • Paul Blomfield – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Paul Blomfield – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2014-06-16.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what recent estimate he has made of potential savings to the public purse from the Shared Services Connected Ltd venture.

    Mr Francis Maude

    There has been cross-party agreement on the need for Shared Services for a decade but until recently all too little was achieved.

    Independent Shared Service Centres will deliver a lower cost better quality of service, helping us to deliver a faster, smaller and more unified Civil Service.

    Shared Service Connected Limited will contribute to the savings deliveredto the taxpayer by the transformation of back office functions, which will total over £400m by 2015/16.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Paul Blomfield – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by Paul Blomfield, the Labour MP for Sheffield Central, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    This Bill says everything about the sorry state of this Government. It is not about solving the problems of the protocol, which of course the Government themselves created, but, like the Rwanda plan, the human rights proposals and the handling of the rail strike, it is another wedge issue. As the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) said, instead of getting to grips with the problems they are facing, this Government are

    “simply seeking to campaign, to keep changing the subject and to create political and cultural dividing lines”

    for their advantage and that of the Prime Minster.

    There is no dividing line that the Government like better than Brexit, so here we are again, picking a fight with the EU. It is surely no coincidence that last week’s by-elections were scheduled by the Government on the anniversary of the referendum. In the run-up, we had not only the launch of this Bill but the increasingly ridiculous so-called Minister for Brexit Opportunities rolling out his equally pointless Brexit dashboard. But it did not work. People want the Government to stop banging on about Brexit and start coming up with real answers to the problems they face, and that applies to this issue, too. This Bill is not about fixing the problems arising from the protocol—and there are problems. They are flaws that the Prime Minister negotiated, and he knew what he was doing.

    Our membership of the EU provided an ideal framework for the Good Friday agreement through a shared market with common rules. Unpicking it was always going to be difficult, because there were only three choices: land border, sea border or some form of all-UK alignment. The Prime Minister made his choice. He negotiated a sea border. He knew that it involved checks, and then he lied to the Unionist community about it. We argued that it would damage the Union, but the Prime Minister went ahead and, having played his role in creating the problems, he is now exacerbating them. Ministers are choosing to bypass the existing mechanisms for resolution that they agreed to when signing up to the deal, and to put political self-interest over the national interest. As they did with the internal market Bill’s first iteration, the Government are willing to undermine the peace process in Northern Ireland, provoke a row with our closest allies and most important trading partners in Europe, and anger our friends in the United States.

    There are practical solutions to the problems with Great Britain-Northern Ireland trade, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) outlined them, but it seems as if this Government do not really want a solution. Seeking to remove the role of the European Court of Justice feels like a deliberate provocation from a Government wanting a fight. Manufacturing Northern Ireland, representing a key section of business, said that it is a “Brexit purity issue”. Its chief executive explained:

    “No one in business has raised the issue of the ECJ oversight as a problem for them in my presence. It is purely a political and sovereignty issue, and not a practical or business issue.”

    Why are we back at provocation rather than negotiation? Because provocation is this Government’s approach: lecturing the world on the rule of law, but reneging on international treaties and trashing our reputation on the world stage. When they took the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill through the House, the Government learned the hard way, and they rowed back on the most egregious parts of the legislation. Frankly, it is more than tiresome to be going around this loop again—it is deeply irresponsible.

    There are proposals that form a basis for agreement with the EU. The UK Trade and Business Commission, which has been mentioned and of which I am a member, along with representatives of every political party in this House and a cross-section from business, has listened to the voices of business on the issue. The chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association told us that the cost of exporting food has gone up considerably and described the rules the Prime Minister negotiated as a “monster of a system”, but one that could be simplified through a veterinary agreement.

    The director of the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health Northern Ireland said:

    “The Government has repeatedly stated that it will not compromise on our food standards and on health protection, but it has singularly and spectacularly failed to legislate for that.”

    He continued by saying that

    “that goes back to the need for proper robust veterinary agreements and standards that I would argue, let’s aim for surpassing the standards within the EU, let’s have the best food and environmental standards in the world, because that will ultimately add value to our food products.”

    Those involved are clear that an agreement with the EU on veterinary standards and non-regression would allow us to reach the highest possible standards. It would reduce checks, it would reduce costs for businesses and it would not involve this fight. It could be done quickly—certainly much more quickly than the months of Government posturing that we can look forward to with this Bill.

    Last week’s elections confirmed just how out of touch this Government are with the public, and not only in Great Britain: in Northern Ireland, polling carried out last month showed that the cost of living, the health service, education, the economy and jobs are higher concerns for the people of Northern Ireland than the protocol. Ministers should focus on addressing those issues and commit to sensible negotiations on the protocol, dropping this reckless approach.

    There have been many powerful and thoughtful speeches from hon. Members on the Government Benches this evening. I hope that they will follow their words by joining us in the Lobby tonight and putting an end to this nonsense.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2022 Speech on Access to GP Services

    Paul Blomfield – 2022 Speech on Access to GP Services

    The speech made by Paul Blomfield, the Labour MP for Sheffield Central, in the House of Commons on 21 June 2022.

    A range of important issues has been raised by those on both Front Benches and in the interventions on them, but I want to focus specifically on NHS dentistry issues.

    We have all had so many constituents contact us, and I would like to share a small selection of mine. One new resident to the city said:

    “I moved to Sheffield earlier in the year. I am unable to register for an NHS dentist. I am being quoted waiting lists of eighteen months just for a check-up.”

    Another wrote:

    “My partner has been trying to get into a dentist for a check-up for around 18 months. We have rung every dentist within a 6-mile radius to be told they are not taking on NHS patients…and he will need to go private.”

    One woman wrote to me:

    “I have a MATB1 form entitling me to free dental care whilst I’m pregnant and for a year after birth. Unfortunately, I can’t use this as I can’t find an NHS dentist”.

    A young mother told me:

    “We’re told dental care is important and that we should get our children seen early and regularly. We moved to Sheffield in December 2020. I started to look for a dentist. I’ve been on a waiting list for a year with no progress.”

    Another parent told me:

    “Our son was referred for NHS orthodontic treatment by his dental practice in February 2019 at the age of 12. He has now been on the waiting list for 35 months and will turn 15 next month. He still has not had an initial assessment appointment.”

    Lilian Greenwood

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; the Secretary of State seemed to forget to do so. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, even before the pandemic, the No. 1 reason for hospital admission among children aged five to nine was tooth decay? Is that not a shocking indictment of the failure to address health prevention and care for children and their teeth, and is it not a bit galling for the Secretary of State to suggest that this is the fault of the last Labour Government, when before the pandemic his Government had already been in power for 10 years?

    Paul Blomfield

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and she is absolutely right about how that highlights the crisis we are facing in NHS dentistry. That exists right across England, and it was interesting to hear comments from other nations, because significantly less is spent on dentistry in England than in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State blames everything on the contract, but the cuts to dentistry have been deeper than in the rest of the NHS, with spending a quarter less than it was in 2010, and I am not surprised that he made no mention of that.

    Last Wednesday, I met our local dental committee to discuss the problem—dentists who are committed to their profession and to NHS provision, and who want a solution—and following our discussion, they commissioned a survey of waiting lists across the city. Some 37 practices responded, which is about half of the city’s providers, but only one practice could offer a waiting time shorter than a year. For 29% it was up to two years and for 32% more than two years. The most significant number was that 35% of practices were unable to add any patients to their waiting lists.

    Across England, the number of dentists providing NHS services fell from 24,700 in 2019-20 to 21,500 now, which is a fall of 15% in just two years—

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield) indicated dissent.

    Paul Blomfield

    I see the Minister shaking her head.

    However, there is provision for those who can pay. Healthwatch reported last year:

    “Whilst some people were asked to wait an unreasonable time of up to three years for an NHS appointment, those able to afford private care could get an appointment within a week.”

    That is adding to health inequalities, and it is not because dentists are reluctant to take on NHS patients, but because the system discourages them from doing so. We have patients wanting NHS dentistry and dentists wanting to provide it.

    It is true that there are flaws in the 2006 contract. It is based on units of dental activity using figures from the two years prior to its imposition, which are now massively outdated. It contains huge discrepancies in remuneration rates between practices doing the same work. There are penalties through clawback for underperformance for reasons beyond the control of practices, but no reward for overperformance. I see the Minister smirking, but she has been delivering this contract, and the Government have been operating within it for 12 years. There are limits on how much NHS treatment a practice can provide. That is because of quotas and the way that providers are contractually obliged to spread their NHS work. Dentists have a disincentive to take on new patients, who are more likely to have greater treatment needs, because the fee-per-item system was replaced with a system in which the same is paid for one filling as for 20.

    Maria Caulfield indicated assent.

    Paul Blomfield

    As the Minister is nodding, let us review the position as regards the contract. Back in 2008, the Select Committee on Health declared the system not fit for purpose. The then Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, responded by ordering a review of the system. In 2009, the Steele inquiry reported, and in 2010, we committed to reforming the contracts, but 12 years on, nothing has happened.

    Ministers also blame covid. Clearly, it has had an impact; there was a backlog of 3.5 million courses of dental treatment after lockdown, and patients are inevitably presenting with bigger problems and increased need, which means longer appointments and extra work, for which dentists get no remuneration. The Ministers sitting on the Front Bench have presided over this flawed system. In quarter 4 of 2021-22, 57% of practices faced financial penalties for being unable to meet the targets that those Ministers effectively imposed; the problem is due to the additional infection prevention control requirements and the lack of adjustment to the remuneration system.

    We have reached a tipping point for NHS dentistry. Unless the Government act, the number of complaints that all Members of Parliament are getting will only grow. More practices will move to a private model, which will add to the difficulties, because the system does not work for them.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    NHS services are devolved, but many concerns about them are shared across the UK. Some of my constituents have concerns about the price of NHS dentistry offered through private dental practices, and about transparency in how final costs are calculated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, particularly given the economic climate, practices must give cost breakdowns before treatment begins, so that patients can budget and understand what they are paying for?

    Paul Blomfield

    We need transparency, and that starts with a new structure for remunerating dentists—a structure that no longer disincentivises them from taking on NHS patients, and that does not push them towards private care. If we do not make those changes, the system will get worse. Some 50% of NHS practices have already reduced their NHS commitment, and 75% are planning to reduce further their contracts. Patients will face frustration and all the pain involved in not accessing help when they need it. As others have commented, children’s oral health will be severely damaged. It is a disgrace—it shames the country—that last year, hospitals in England carried out almost 180 operations a day on children to remove rotting teeth, and it cost the NHS more than £40 million. Those problems will impact those children throughout their life. Poor dental health is linked to endocarditis, cardiovascular disease, pneumonia, premature births and low birth weights, all of which add strain and cost to the NHS.

    The good news is that there is an answer, but it is in the hands of the Government. We need to restore adequate funding to dentistry in England, and we need a commitment that the long-promised contract reform will take place. It must be real reform, and not tweaks at the edges. Otherwise, we face the slow death of NHS dentistry.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Living Crisis

    Paul Blomfield – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Living Crisis

    The speech made by Paul Blomfield, the Labour MP for Sheffield Central, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2022.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), who made some important points about the need for action now, in recognition of the severity of the crisis we face.

    I spent yesterday morning at a crisis meeting in a part of my constituency where incomes are lowest. We looked at how the cost of living crisis was impacting on people. The meeting involved the voluntary sector, energy advisers, food banks, debt advisers, schools, housing providers, local councillors and more. We talked about people’s real struggles to feed families and pay bills; about the impact of that on the mental health of people who had previously been just managing but could not see how that could continue; about suicide attempts as a consequence of what people in the constituency were facing; and about the re-emergence of the problem of loan sharks exploiting people’s hardship.

    We discussed the efforts of all those at the meeting to try to offset some of the damage faced by families, and those efforts were extraordinary, but time and again everybody said, “What we are doing is not enough. The Government need to act.” A lot could be done, including the restoration of the universal credit uplift, a meaningful increase in the household support fund and, of course, a windfall tax so that we can cap energy bills and reduce VAT on them.

    The Prime Minister knows that it can be done. Last Tuesday he opened the debate on the Queen’s Speech by telling the House that the Government

    “have the fiscal firepower to help families up and down the country with all the pressures that they face now.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 17.]

    The problem is that they are not going to use it. They shrug their shoulders and say, as the Chancellor did again today, “What can the Government do to solve these problems?” It is not true to say that, and they know it.

    Other countries have acted. To protect consumers and businesses, France has limited energy bill increases to just 4% this year by taking £7 billion out of EDF’s profits. Spain has committed to cutting connection fees and to taxing excess profits on new electricity supply contracts to protect people from soaring prices. It is spending €16 billion on support. Germany has instigated a range of measures, including tax reliefs, a reduction in fuel duty and a monthly public transport ticket costing just €9, which will also encourage the modal shift we need in the way people move about. It is a matter of choice. The Government point to growth as the answer, and growth clearly is important, but their record shows that they cannot deliver it.

    In November 2019, before we knew the word “coronavirus”, growth was the slowest that it had been in a decade. Our bounce back from the pandemic has been slower than expected this year, with the Brexit deal failing to deliver for supply chains, and the Government’s failure to insulate from the cost of living crisis limiting spending and productivity. Either they do not understand the depth of the pressures—and comments such as “learn to cook” or “work more hours” perhaps indicate that they do not—or they simply do not care. If we let people sink or swim, the problem is that too many people will sink. As we know, the money is there. The oil and gas companies have it—more than they know what to do with. What we need is action now, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said. We face an unprecedented crisis in the cost of living. We needed a Gracious Speech that addressed it. We need an emergency Budget. The Government cannot sit on their hands any longer.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2021 Speech on the Obesity Strategy

    Paul Blomfield – 2021 Speech on the Obesity Strategy

    The speech made by Paul Blomfield, the Labour MP for Sheffield Central, in the House of Commons on 27 May 2021.

    The Government are clearly right to say that this is one of the greatest long-term health challenges that we face, and it starts with our children. One in four enter primary school overweight or obese and, as the Minister pointed out, one in three leave in that position six years later. We have a shocking problem that gets worse during children’s primary years.

    Like any disease, there are two ways of tackling it: prevention and treatment. I broadly welcome the measures being proposed by the Government on prevention, although we should look carefully at the evidence and concerns around calorie labelling for those with eating disorders, but prevention is not enough in itself. We need proper treatment services for children, and currently we do not have them.

    Imagine for a moment that we were talking about another disease—say, cancer. Would we say, “We’ll invest in prevention, but I’m afraid we’ll not offer any treatment for children with the disease.” Of course we would not, but that is what we are saying for obesity currently. The Health and Social Care Committee highlighted the problem in its 2018 report, noting evidence from Public Health England that only 56% of local authorities

    “have a tier 2 weight management service for children”

    and that those services

    “are not intended to support individuals with complex needs. When looking at tier 3 and 4 services, service provision is bare.”

    It went on to recommend:

    “The Government must ensure there are robust systems in place not only to identify children who are overweight or obese, but to ensure that these children are offered effective help through a multidisciplinary, family-centric approach.”

    However, the Government’s obesity strategy does not acknowledge the issue. I have become aware of it through the work that I have done with Shine Health Academy in my constituency—a great local project providing the sort of tier 3 services that the Committee wanted. They take children on referral from GPs, teachers and social workers, and they have great outcomes, but they are funded mainly by charities, because neither clinical commissioning groups nor local authorities have responsibility for commissioning services.

    I know that the Minister recognises the problem because, together with the inspirational leader of Shine Health Academy Kath Sharman, I met her to discuss the issue about 18 months ago. There have been some positive initiatives by NHS England, and I welcome the work to establish complications related to excess weight clinics—CREW clinics—to support children and young people with severe obesity, but it is limited. As I understand it, the aim of such services is to manage the comorbidities associated with obesity rather than tackling the disease itself. There are just seven centres in the plan, each for 100 children. It is useful, but it is a very small step assessed against need, because the Obesity Health Alliance calculates that there are 450,000 children in the UK who, if they were adults, would be eligible for bariatric surgery. That is shocking, but it is the scale of the challenge.

    There are also worries about the CREW approach. Such clinics seem to place too much emphasis on the role of hospitals, and risk being about medical management rather than weight management. They definitely have a role to play and are fundamental to the treatment of comorbidities, but they should not be the only model of care. Above all, there is no certainty of future funding. In her summing up, I ask the Minister, who I know cares about this issue, to say whether it will finally be the Government’s intention to establish clear responsibility for commissioning tier 3 services for children as the Health and Social Care Committee recommended, because frankly nothing less will do.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2021 Speech on Dental Services

    Paul Blomfield – 2021 Speech on Dental Services

    The speech made by Paul Blomfield, the Labour MP for Sheffield Central, in the House of Commons on 14 January 2021.

    Can I, too, express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this debate? Dentistry often does not get the attention it deserves when we are looking at health provision for the country, and today is an opportunity to address that.

    Clearly, the pressure on dental services preceded covid-19, but the pandemic has exacerbated it. In normal times—if we can remember them—the demand for NHS dentistry in Sheffield was huge, with unmet need amounting to more than 35,000 patients. That clearly has a long-term impact on oral health, and one that is particularly worrying for children.

    Then came covid-19, which has hit the sector hard. Frankly, to choose this time to impose new targets, without warning or consultation, shows either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard for the consequences. The 45% target will disrupt the priorities of dentists by imposing penalties for failing to hit levels of what are described as normal NHS activity in what are blatantly abnormal times. It will threaten the viability of practices, and worsen access to dental care across Sheffield and the rest of England.

    Dental practices have made huge efforts to be covid-secure, with cleaning and air-clearing procedures that mean they cannot see as many patients as usual. Many have therefore prioritised emergency and urgent care, and this normal activity target will skew their priorities away from those patients most in need. As one dentist explained it to me, they will be

    “forced to stop seeing emergency patients…and to push the limits of the sound infection control procedures brought in to protect patients and staff”.

    Another simply said:

    “These targets are the wrong choice at the wrong time”.

    This is not scaremongering, as has been suggested, but a real and genuine concern from dental professionals who care about the services they provide.

    Sheffield Central is in the top 10% of areas where NHS dental care was most impacted by the pandemic, according to a survey, and the Association of Dental Groups says that problems are particularly acute in the most deprived urban, coastal and rural areas. Imposing this target will hit those most in need—levelling down, not levelling up. We need to be growing our dental services, not threatening them with damaging targets.

    I have great regard for the Minister—we have worked together on other issues, and I know she takes her responsibilities seriously—so I do hope that she will listen to the concerns she has heard today from both sides of the House, talk to colleagues and review this contract.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2020 Speech on EU Negotiations

    Paul Blomfield – 2020 Speech on EU Negotiations

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paul Blomfield, the Labour MP for Sheffield Central, in the House of Commons on 4 June 2020.

    I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “the UK’s Approach to Negotiations,” to end and insert—

    “commends the European Scrutiny Committee on its Fifth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 333, whose Annex draws upon responses from other select committees identifying matters of vital national interest in the EU negotiating mandate; recalls that during the 2019 general election and the passage of the Withdrawal Agreement Act, Government ministers committed that negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU would be based on the Political Declaration; notes that in Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement the UK agreed to “use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019”; therefore calls on the Government to negotiate an “ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership”, including an “ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership” that entails “no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”, a deal that would safeguard “workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”, including “effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement” and a “broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership” underpinned by “longstanding commitments to the fundamental rights of individuals, including continued adherence and giving effect to the ECHR, and adequate protection of personal data”.

    I join the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in commending the determined work, over so very many years, of the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I thank him, and members of the Committee, for their report. That is both because of the important issues that the report raises, and because it provides the House with a rare opportunity to debate with Ministers about the negotiations as they reach a crucial stage. There might be issues in the report that Labour would set out differently, and we have shaped those in our ​amendment. At this stage, however, because of the extraordinary circumstances in which we are currently conducting business, although I will speak to the issues in the amendment, we do not intend to press it to a vote.

    Let me begin with the issue on which we agree wholeheartedly with the Committee, and indeed with the motion, which is the central point of accountability. We have consistently pressed for accountability and transparency throughout these negotiations, as we were promised at the outset. The Prime Minister told us on 20 December that

    “Parliament will be kept fully informed of the progress of these negotiations.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2019; Vol. 669, c. 150.]

    On 27 February, the last time that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster actually addressed or made a statement to the House on these negotiations, he said that

    “we will keep Parliament fully informed about the negotiations, and colleagues will be able to scrutinise our progress.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 469.]

    But it has not worked like that, has it? Indeed, since those negotiations started, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made no oral statement on them at all. He has only updated the House once when he was forced to do so by an urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). That silence has spanned three months for negotiating rounds, Joint Committee meetings and all the disruption resulting from covid-19. By comparison, during phase one of the negotiations, either the Brexit Secretary or the Prime Minister reported personally to Parliament after every key negotiating round and after each meeting of the European Council.

    This week, as the Chancellor has made clear, sees the fourth and crucial round of talks before the Joint Committee and high-level meeting at which progress is to be reviewed. I hope that, in her wind-up, the Minister will give an assurance to the House that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will commit to making a statement to the House on Monday, and that the Prime Minister will update the House in person after the high-level meeting in June. I hope she will also commit to making real efforts to consult the devolved Administrations, because the terms of reference for the Joint Ministerial Committee referred to reaching agreement with the devolved Administrations on the approach to the negotiations and Ministers made repeated promises that engagement would be stepped up, after disappointment was expressed at an earlier stage, once we moved on from the withdrawal negotiations. That has not happened, has it?

    Michael Gove

    I would like to take this opportunity, as the hon. Gentleman is kind enough to give way, to say that the Paymaster General has indeed stepped up engagement with all the devolved Administrations, and we are grateful to them for their work. One thing has come through though: the Welsh First Minister—the Labour First Minister—has been clear that he seeks an extension of our time in the transition period. Is that official Labour party policy?

    Paul Blomfield

    I am looking forward to addressing precisely that point. I do understand why the Minister is so keen to talk about the process. It is because he does not really want to address the substance of the negotiations. ​Let me just say a further word on the consultation with the devolved Administrations, because that may be his perspective, but it is certainly not the perspective of the devolved Administrations themselves who feel that the engagement has been cursory, and has not been meaningful either around the negotiating mandate or in updating them on the progress.

    Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my colleague, the Brexit Minister in the Scottish Parliament, Mike Russell, that the whole process of involvement with the devolved Administrations has been merely about letting them know what is happening rather than letting them influence what is happening in the negotiations or having any input in decisions on any crucial issues?

    Paul Blomfield

    I do indeed, and that is a concern that has, I think, been widely expressed by others as well. Indeed, it reflects the Government’s approach to this Parliament. They keep us a little bit informed, with a written ministerial statement here and there, but there is no meaningful engagement.

    Parliament must be given the opportunity of holding the Government to account for the pledges they made to the British people in the election to which the Minister referred. At that election, the Conservative manifesto promised an “oven-ready deal”. That deal was the new withdrawal agreement and political declaration that the Prime Minister triumphantly renegotiated in October 2019.

    Jacob Young

    I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the fact that we had a clear pledge in our manifesto and that you are well aware of the fact that we won the general election. In the light of that, what is your view on Michel Barnier’s letter to Opposition leaders calling for an extension to the transition period?

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is new to the House and I do not want to upset the flow of the debate, but other Members may not be aware that you should not address someone in the House as “you”. “You” only means the Chair. During these unusual times, standards have been slipping and we must not allow that to happen. I know that I can trust the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to pick him out but he has just given me the opportunity to make sure that, from now on, he will refer to the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Gentleman.

    Jacob Young

    But the question stands.

    Paul Blomfield

    And the question will be answered, but one of the things the hon. Gentleman will learn is that there is no firmer upholder of standards than you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the mandate that the Government secured in December, and we acknowledge that the arithmetic the general election produced gives them a clear a majority in the House, but instead of talking about process, we should focus on the substance of the mandate. What was that promise? It was not, “Get Brexit done at any price.” It was, “Get Brexit done on the basis of the oven-ready deal.”

    That deal promised the British people

    “an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership”​
    with

    “no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”.

    It promised to safeguard workers’ rights and consumer and environmental protection, and to include

    “effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement.”

    The Minister talks about deals such as that with Canada as a reference point. He will know that the comprehensive economic and trade agreement contains some provisions for a level playing field with enforcement mechanisms, and in fact negotiations are taking place for those to be enhanced.

    Delivering on those promises matters, because the Government have sought to talk down expectations about their ability to achieve the pledges they made to the British people. We face a huge economic hit as a result of covid-19. We must not make that worse through a bad deal on our future relationship with the European Union.

    The director general of the CBI said on Tuesday:

    “For many firms fighting to keep their heads above water through the crisis, the idea of preparing for a chaotic change in EU trading relations in seven months is beyond them. They are not remotely prepared. Faced with the desperate challenges of the pandemic, their resilience and ability to cope is almost zero.”

    One of those firms, Nissan, warned yesterday that tariffs on cars exported to the EU would make its business model unsustainable if we left the transition, for example, on the much-vaunted Australia model—the “no deal exists” model. Meanwhile, obviously concerned about progress, the Governor of the Bank of England has urged banks to step up their preparations for the UK leaving the transition period without a future trading relationship in place.

    Of course, the deal is not just about goods and services; there are nine other strands to the talks, among which security is critical. At the general election, the public were promised

    “a broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership …underpinned by long-standing commitments to the fundamental rights of individuals, including continued adherence and giving effect to the”

    European convention on human rights,

    “and adequate protection of personal data”.

    However, since the election, the Government have rowed back on their commitment. On 11 March, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union that

    “we may not necessarily have concluded everything on internal security by”

    31 December.

    That is of deep concern, as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), pointed out yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions. Without a comprehensive security agreement, even for a short period, extradition would be slower and more bureaucratic, law enforcement agencies would find it harder to get crucial information for investigations as they lost access to EU-wide databases, and it would be more difficult for UK investigators and prosecutors to collaborate with EU partners.

    We have left the European Union. The task now is to build the best possible new relationship for jobs and the economy in all parts of the UK through tariff and ​barrier-free trade in goods and services, to maintain the security of the UK by retaining existing co-operation as far as possible, and to maintain protection for workers, consumers and the environment. And of course nothing must be done that undermines the Northern Ireland protocol and the Good Friday agreement.

    That is what the country was promised at the election. That is the deal that the Government have to deliver. They have said that they will deliver that deal by December. They should confirm today that they remain confident that the oven-ready deal that they pledged to the British people, summed up in the political declaration that they signed with the European Union, will be delivered—not any deal; that deal—and by the end of the year. They should also spell out how they plan to, in the words of their own motion, “facilitate essential parliamentary scrutiny” on their progress.