Category: Parliament

Steve Double – 2020 Speech on the Census

Below is the text of the speech made by Steve Double, the Conservative MP for St. Austell and Newquay, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I wish to discuss the matter of a tick box for Cornish national identity.

There is no doubt about the historic identity of the Cornish. We have been around for more than 12,000 years and, along with our Welsh cousins, we are the most ancient people on this island. We have our own language, which is about 5,000 years old but is enjoying a revival. We have our own flag, patron saint and even our own party. The idea of Cornish as a national identity in its own right is not some ageing romantic notion; it is a belief that is alive, real and passionately held today—and growing.

The Cornish received a huge boost when, in 2014, the Council of Europe framework convention for the protection of national minorities officially recognised our identity. That was duly welcomed and embraced by the UK Government, who stated at that time that they would give the Cornish the same recognition as the other Celtic people of these islands—the Welsh, the Scottish and the Irish. It was a moment of celebration: at last, for the first time in centuries, the Cornish had been recognised by the UK Government. A sense of optimism was unleashed, the struggle was over: we had been recognised and told that we would be given equality of recognition.

However, that optimism proved to be misplaced. Far from the struggle being over, it has never felt more important, because having been granted that recognition, what is now important is that it is acted upon—that it actually comes to mean something, not just in words but with something tangible.

An advisory committee from the Council of Europe visited the UK in March 2016 to assess how the UK Government and other public bodies were complying with the articles of the framework convention. In early 2017, it published an opinion that was very critical of the UK Government and their failure to act on the articles of the convention. In the committee’s report, one key proposal to address that shortcoming is to include in the 2021 census a Cornish tick box for national identity. It is hugely disappointing, and indeed frustrating, that we are here today and a tick box for the Cornish has not yet been included in the upcoming census. It would be simple and straightforward to grant, and enable the Government to say that they had actually delivered something to recognise the Cornish.

However, the frustration has not been having to convince Ministers; we have been consistently told that we need to convince the ONS. From the numerous meetings and discussions that I and others have had with the ONS, it is clear that it sees this as a localised and minority issue. It has failed to recognise that there are hundreds of thousands of Cornish men and women living across the UK who wish to be able to register their nationality as Cornish.

I cannot say often enough that this is not about the geographical place of Cornwall; it is about the national identity of Cornish people, who are found living in all corners of the UK. I am sad to say that it appears that the ONS simply does not get this. It certainly feels as though the ONS was determined not to grant the tick box for Cornish national identity, whatever case was made, because every objection that it has raised to a tick box has been answered. We have demonstrated time and again the unique case for the Cornish, and it is a unique case—no other indigenous national people in these islands are able to make such a claim. We are the only indigenous national identity that is not recognised in that way.

Sadly, because of the circumstances that Parliament is currently operating in, we find ourselves unable to push this matter to a vote in order to amend the order. If we had been able to vote, I feel sure that one would have been called.

In winding up, I have two points to put to the Minister. First, we have been told that, in place of a tick box, a write-in option will be available for people to identify as Cornish, and that a campaign will be run to draw awareness to this, focused in Cornwall. But the Cornish diaspora are spread far and wide across this nation. In fact, more Cornish people live outside Cornwall than in it. Will the Minister therefore ensure that any such campaign is national and not limited to Cornwall?

Finally, the Government continue to have an obligation to give the Cornish equal recognition as the other Celtic people, so if not a tick box, what will the Government do to ensure that the Cornish are recognised as we rightly should be?

May 7, 2020
David Amess – 2020 Speech on the Census

Below is the text of the speech made by Sir David Amess, the Conservative MP for Southend West, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

As I make my maiden virtual speech, some people will say that the last thing we should be worrying about at the moment is a national census. Well, I disagree. In all the circumstances, this is an excellent moment to decide how we best prepare for the census. An awful lot has happened to our country in the past 10 years, and the world has changed. Accordingly, it is more important than ever that we know precisely how many people actually live in the country. Is it 65 million, 70 million or 75 million? What is the number?

Stemming from that, we need to deal with an issue that has been dodged for so long: how many Members of Parliament should there be? I am not au fait with the Government’s current thinking as to how many Members of the House of Lords there should be, but I was one of those colleagues who were content to see the number of Members of Parliament reduced from 650 to 600. When we get the accurate figures for the number of people living in this country, I would hope that all Members of Parliament would represent roughly the same number of people.

I would also like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister a little more detail as to how the census will be conducted, what the penalties will be for failure to comply and over what period it will be carried out. We have heard from colleagues about the Sikh community being represented in the new questions. I would like to know the basis on which the new questions were included and who made the decisions. The more questions we include, and the more complicated the census becomes, the less accurate it will perhaps be.

Apparently, the Government are hoping that 70% of respondents will fill in the form online, and paper copies will be made available only on request. Surely, it would make more sense and be more cost-effective to send people both the paper copy and the online details. How many people—particularly the elderly and the vulnerable—still do not have access to a computer at home? Will there be a cost for people who request paper copies?

With that in mind, I would like to raise a further issue with regard to accessibility. What provisions are being made to ensure that the census is accessible to people who are blind or partially sighted? Will it be made available in large print, audio description or Braille? In addition, what provisions will be made for those for whom English is not their first language? Will the census be made available in other languages, and what languages will those be? While on the subject of accessibility, I would also like clarification of the special arrangements available to ensure that those who live in communal establishments rather than individual households are counted.

I note that consideration is being given to changing the question on long-term health and disabilities, and I would welcome some clarification on that. Will the census now make a distinction between mental and physical health, and what guidance will there be on answering the relevant question?

We need to think sharply about the purpose of this census. It is not to pry into people’s lives, but to make sure that we understand and get a real sense of what we are as a country. Let me pluck out just one bit of information: fair allocations of money in each area. Taking that into account, we need to encourage respondents to fill out the census online, so it will be more important than ever to ensure that individual personal data is secure. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister: is there a robust system in place to ensure that no sensitive data is susceptible to cyber-attacks, and is there a contingency plan if a successful attack does happen?

There is no point in conducting what will inevitably be an expensive census unless we put the information to good use. That debate can perhaps wait for another time, but the evidence produced by the census will undoubtedly prove that Southend should be made a city.

May 7, 2020
Hywel Williams – 2020 Speech on the Census

Below is the text of the speech made by Hywel Williams, the Plaid Cymru MP for Arfon, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

First, I want to congratulate those in Wales, including my Plaid Cymru colleagues, who have campaigned hard for the right of Welsh people to identify as Asian Welsh or black Welsh in the ethic question if they so desire. That reflects the reality in Wales today, and I am glad that the Welsh Government and the ONS have responded. I am, however, concerned that the census order does not reflect that change in the tick box options. Will the Minister therefore assure us that the census regulations, when they are laid before Parliament and in the Senedd, will reflect that change?

This will be the first predominantly digital census, which I welcome. However, I am concerned about the robustness of the process where there is poor internet or no internet at all, as is the case in much of rural Wales. Will the Minister therefore update us on the arrangements with community organisations to support people to access the census, and give us the number of those who will need digital support or may want a paper copy instead?

There are good census datasets, from the 19th century onwards, on the number, percentage, location and so on of Welsh speakers, but we have no information about Welsh speakers in other parts of the UK. In the 2001 census, some respondents in England were intrigued by question 17, which was marked “intentionally left blank”. That was because question 17 in Wales asked about the Welsh language ability of respondents—something that was not deemed to be required in England. However, the 2011 census showed that 507,000 people in England were Welsh-born. If 20% of those people speak Welsh, that is another 100,000 Welsh speakers on top of the 600,000 in Wales. That was a missed opportunity, because we have a target in Wales of increasing the number of Welsh speakers to 1 million. Will the Minister, even at this late stage, consider including a question on the Welsh language in the census in England?

Finally, I would like to add my voice and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues to the call for a Cornish identity tick box, for which Cornish Members rightly make a strong case, as we have just heard. In 2001, as we heard, there was no option for a Welsh tick box, so handy little stickers the size of the tick box were produced by a person or persons unknown, allowing people to tick that box, even though it was not part of the official form. There was also a write-in option, and 14% of Welsh people wrote “Welsh” in the “Other” box. Does that mean that only 14% of people at the time in Wales identified themselves as Welsh? No, it was a fault with the question. In the following census, there was a tick box, and the percentage of self-identifying Welsh people shot up to 67%.

Enabling Cornish people to assert their national identity will not only allow them to feel represented, but give us a correct result as to the Cornish identity in 2021. Let me therefore conclude by saying meur ras, or diolch yn fawr in Welsh.

May 7, 2020
John Spellar – 2020 Speech on the Census

Below is the text of the speech made by John Spellar, the Labour MP for Warley, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

Frankly, this measure is a slap in the face for the Sikh community, a community that has contributed so much to our country not only in recent years, but over the past couple of centuries of our joint history. As we know, this sizeable, dynamic community is contributing in business, the professions, the armed forces—we recorded last year the huge contribution and the vast number of deaths in world war one—politics, the media and medicine. Only a month or so ago, that was highlighted by the death of Manjeet Singh Riyat, the A&E leader at Royal Derby Hospital. Clearly, the Sikh community feel strongly about this: in the 2011 census, 83,000 ticked the box saying “Other” and wrote in, “Sikh”.

Why does this matter? First, because Sikhs have been legally recognised as an ethnic group for nearly 40 years, since a House of Lords ruling in 1983. The ethnic group set question was only introduced in the 1991 census. At that time, the Office for National Statistics stated that it was introduced to help public bodies assess equal opportunities and develop anti-discrimination policies. Ethnic group data, not religious data, is what is used by public bodies to make decisions on the allocation of resources and the provision of public services. The Prime Minister’s most recent race disparity audit indicated that there were 176 datasets spanning sectors from housing and education to employment, health and the criminal justice system, but no data on Sikhs. Effectively, they are invisible. As the covid-19 crisis has shown, there has been no systematic collection of data on the number of Sikhs tested as positive or on the number who have tragically died, even though we are inquiring into the question of differentiation in different groups of health outcomes. Although they come to prominence when a key worker dies, nobody is actually properly collecting the data. Quite frankly, we either need to change the local practice of how this is assessed and how Departments work, or we need an additional box in the census. I would argue that one is probably quite a bit simpler than the other.

I am frankly still perplexed by the Government’s stubbornness on this issue. It seems perverse of the Government to marginalise and ignore this important community and our society. The Minister mentioned bringing forward further orders on the census at a later stage, so I ask her, even at this late stage, to restore the Sikh community to their proper place in the census.

I will also touch on another matter: how we run the census in the first place. The Minister rightly indicated some improvements and changes, but fundamentally, the basic way of collecting the census remains unchanged over the last couple of centuries. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said that this is a snapshot. It is, but as public bodies, we are still using data from 2011, and in many of our constituencies and right the way across the country, there have been very significant changes. Are we capturing that or is there a better way of doing this? Would it not be better now, in the modern age of technology, to look at, for example, creating a virtual national register and having up-to-date information undertaken by sampling and polling?

A whole number of areas are going to be changed by the coronavirus epidemic, including travel to work, work patterns and holiday patterns. A huge range of changes will take place, and we need to be able to capture those in real time. I therefore ask the Minister to look at that, and, by the way, there is an additional layer of her responsibilities where this would be an advantage: we could end up with a much more accurate and comprehensive electoral register, and do it much cheaper.

May 7, 2020
Cat Smith – 2020 Speech on the Census

Below is the text of the speech made by Cat Smith, the Labour MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition Front Bench, supporting changes to make a more inclusive census that is fit for the 21st century.

The census is an important tool for taking a snapshot of the country as it is today, useful for Government planning now and precious to the historians of the future, who will use this vast record of how we live our lives. Perhaps the most telling way in which this is a 21st-century census is the ambition that the majority of respondents will complete the census online. For many, this will make completing the census easier and collating the data faster. However, I urge the Minister not to forget those who are still digitally excluded.

This legislation will introduce new voluntary questions about gender identity and sexual orientation, allowing as yet unknown numbers of lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens, as well as those who have transitioned their gender identity, the chance to be recognised in official statistics. This is a huge step forward for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people of this country. It is not only symbolically important, but practically necessary. Information derived from the census helps to inform policy, plan services and distribute resources effectively to local government and health authorities. By building a clear picture of LGBT communities, resources can be targeted more effectively. I am proud of the progress that we are making on LGBT equality, which started under the previous Labour Government, by repealing the discriminatory section 28, introducing civil partnerships and equalising the age of consent. We are now seeing an LGBT-inclusive census for 2021.

Labour is proud to support the LGBT community, and our support has never wavered. Although this is not personally the Minister’s responsibility, I cannot give up the opportunity to remind her that we are still waiting for her Government to publish the results of their consultation on reform of the outdated Gender Recognition Act 2004. I am sure that the House and the LGBT community, who will be following the progress made on the census today, would really appreciate an update from the Government for their reason in delaying reform of that Act.

With regard to statistics, the LGBT community is currently a hidden population. Although we do not have accurate data about the size of the community, we do know that it has been hit hard by a decade of Tory austerity, preventing the development of truly specialist LGBT services, and we know that homophobic and transphobic hate crimes are on the rise. Since 2014, offences against gay, lesbian and bisexual people have doubled, while offences against trans people have trebled. This analysis was released after two women were attacked on a bus in London last year for refusing to kiss in front of a group of men. That is just one example of LGBT hate crime that was recorded.

The position of LGBT homeless people warrants particular attention in this discussion, not least given the shocking statistic that up to 24% of the youth homeless population are from the LGBT community. I pay tribute to the Albert Kennedy Trust for its continued work in this area, but the unprecedented rise in homelessness under this Government is a national shame. I ask the Minister whether, when the census data eventually exposes the size of this community, which has been neglected for so long, the Government will finally provide the specialist LGBT services that are so desperately needed, including support for those who are homeless?

The Labour party fully supports the inclusion of a new question about armed forces personnel and veterans in the census. This will ensure that charities, public bodies and service providers will be able to meet the needs of this community. It is right and proper that those who have stood up and served our country are recognised and supported when they return to civilian life. Referring back to my earlier points on homelessness, it is a scandal that so many veterans find themselves street homeless.

If minority groups are represented in the census, they will have a better chance of receiving the resources they need. That is why we warmly welcome the inclusion of the Roma community in the 2021 census. The Roma are among the most disadvantaged people in the country and have poorer outcomes in key areas such as health and education. The community has faced overt discrimination and abuse for generations. Data about this community will hopefully lead to better resource allocation.

Last year, the Women and Equalities Committee released an eye-opening report, making a damning critique of the progress made in addressing inequalities faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I challenge the Government to do more to improve the outcomes in education and health and to tackle discrimination and hate crime, as well as violence against women and girls. Today’s inclusion of Roma in the next census is an important step in that, but will the Minister say more about what she hopes the Government will do, or what she believes they have done, to develop a clear and effective plan to support Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities?

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) hope to speak in this debate about the issues raised by the Sikh communities that they represent in this place. They will express how their constituents want to see the campaign for the inclusion of a Sikh tick box in the ethnic identity question raised in our discussions this afternoon. There is no doubt that policy decisions have overlooked the Sikh community in our country. Up-to-date statistics are few and far between, but the UK Sikh survey in 2016 found that almost one in five Sikhs had encountered discrimination in public places over a year, with Sikhs who wear religious iconography or clothing most likely to experience abuse. The report stated that the Government had

“systematically failed the minority Sikh community by not adequately responding to the disproportionate impact of racism and hate crime targeting Sikhs since 9/11.”

A freedom of information request submitted by the Network of Sikh Organisations revealed that 28% of victims recorded under the Islamophobic hate crime category during 2015 were in fact non-Muslims. Indeed, in 2018 we saw a Sikh visitor to our Parliament racially attacked, with his turban ripped off while queuing for the security checks to enter Parliament. A lack of accurate data can mean that such anti-Sikh hate crimes are perhaps neglected, because many are inaccurately recorded. Indeed, evidence suggests that the census has historically underestimated the Sikh community in the UK. For example, Sikhs are believed to constitute just 1% of the London population, yet account for 5% of deaths among homeless men. Either the Sikh population is higher than estimated, or the Sikh community has been disproportionately affected by homelessness. That point is especially pertinent in the context of the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus pandemic on minority communities, including health and social care workers.

How does the Minister plan to address such inequalities while we lack the accurate data needed on the Sikh community? Does she recognise that the chronic statistical under-reporting of communities such as the Sikh community could allow discrimination to go unnoticed? Currently, only data collected under the ethnicity question in the census is used by public bodies for resource allocation and service planning decisions. We know that data collected under the optional question of religion would be more accurate in reflecting the Sikh community. The religion question should not be made compulsory, but what action could be taken to ensure that the census data collected on religion could be used by public bodies in the same way that data on ethnic groups is handled?

Lastly, will the Minister outline what action the Government are taking to ensure that the Sikh community does not remain statistically invisible to law and policy makers? It is clearer now more than ever that minority groups can no longer be left invisible to those responsible for making public policy decisions.

We do not want to see delay in the census, and we support the important changes in the legislation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses in her closing remarks.

May 7, 2020
Chloe Smith – 2020 Statement on the Census

Below is the text of the statement made by Chloe Smith, the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

I beg to move,

That items 2 (resident particulars), 5, 6 (visitor particulars), 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 (demographic particulars), 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36(d) (education and employment particulars), 41, 42, 43 (accommodation particulars), 45, 46 (additional particulars for individual returns) in Schedule 2, and items 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Schedule 3 to the draft Census (England and Wales) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.

It is a pleasure to join you for my first time in the Chamber under these hybrid arrangements, Mr Speaker.

The draft Order in Council was laid before both Houses on 2 March, under the provisions of the Census Act 1920. It provides for the 22nd census of England and Wales to take place on 21 March next year. It prescribes the date of the census, the people to be counted, the people responsible for making a census return and the information to be given in those returns. The draft order gives effect to the recommendations of the UK Statistics Authority and its executive arm, the Office for National Statistics, as set out in its December 2018 White Paper.

The primary aim of the census is to provide accurate data on the population, so the information that it provides includes people’s characteristics, education, religion, ethnicity, working life and health. It gives decision makers in national and local government, as well as in community groups, charities and businesses, the opportunity to better serve communities and individuals in the UK. It enables a wide range of services and future planning to be supported.

The statutory instrument before us today is unusual, with a mixed procedure. It is principally subject to the draft negative procedure, but under the terms of the 1920 Act, some questions—those printed in italics in the draft order—may be included in the census only if they are approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses. It is with those elements of the order that the motion before us is concerned. They include questions on health, education and national identity. If the House wishes to debate the census more broadly, I would of course be happy to try to answer hon. Members’ questions, but would emphasise that the scope of the motion is somewhat narrow.

The draft order is the first stage of the secondary legislation necessary for a census to be held. The order covers England and Wales. Subject to the approval of this Order in Council, the Government will bring forward census regulations for England, which will set out the final questions and govern much of the operation of the census. Those regulations will describe the content and functionality of the online forms for this, the first predominantly online census. It will also contain copies of the corresponding paper questionnaires. Separate regulations for the census in Wales will be laid before the Welsh Parliament by the Welsh Government. Hon. and right hon. Members will be aware that the census order for Scotland has already been approved by the Scottish Parliament, and the census order for Northern Ireland has been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly. Together, these three statutory instruments allow for the 2021 census to take place on the same date across the United Kingdom.

Let me turn to the proposals for the census. The ONS’s work has been informed by extensive consultation, research and engagement. The majority of questions will stay the same as in 2011 to ensure comparability of data between censuses. New questions or response options are only included after research and consultation that provide compelling evidence for their inclusion. For 2021, there will be new questions on past service in the armed forces, and new voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity.

As I have mentioned briefly already, the 2021 census will be predominantly online, making it easier for people to take part when and how they want. Of course, help —including language support and paper forms—will be available for those who need it. Nobody will be missed out and everybody can identify as they wish. This will ensure that the 2021 census reflects the society we live in today, and that will enable national and local government, community groups, charities and businesses to better serve communities and individuals across the country.

Our aim is for the census to be the most inclusive ever, so the ONS will work with local groups and organisations across the country to raise awareness of the census, to promote the different response options and the new search-as-you-type functionality, and to support people in completing the census online or on paper. To be successful in its aims, the census relies on the willing support and participation of the public, on whose behalf the information is collected. With hon. Members’ help and support to promote awareness of the census and its benefits in all our communities, the ONS can ensure that the ’21 census provides reliable data that benefits all our constituents.

The census is unique in the insights that it provides into our nation and the data it provides to support policy making nationally and locally. Data from the census can inform a wide range of planning decisions, including on school places, hospital beds, GP and dental services, where to build houses and roads, and businesses’ decisions on where and in what to invest. The census provides us with the opportunity to build a detailed and comprehensive picture of the nation.

At this point I will mention, as I am sure this will come up in the debate, that social distancing measures have of course meant that some national events have been postponed or cancelled. The 2021 census, which will be primarily online, is still nearly a year away, and the ONS is working to deliver it as planned, but we will continue to assess the situation and any implications for the census, including appropriate contingency measures, should they be needed.

Community engagement will very much go ahead and onwards from now, including with local government in all our areas, to help ensure that everybody can take part. To this end, dedicated staff on the ground will have a particular focus on hard-to-reach communities, which I know will be welcome to all Members. I commend the draft order to the House, and look forward to our debate.

May 7, 2020
Alan Clark – 1983 Speech on Sex Discrimination [Allegations of Minister Being Drunk]

Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Clark, the then Under-Secretary of State for Employment, in the House of Commons on 20 July 1983. Clark was alleged to have been drunk when making the speech, with his diaries later admitting that he had indeed consumed a large amount of alcohol.

I beg to move,

That the draft Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
The debate is on the draft regulations to amend the Equal Pay Act 1970. The regulations arise from a need to amend the Act to conform to our European obligations. To do this in a way that is sensible and fair to everyone requires careful balances to be struck, raising complex matters of law and procedure. I apologise if I have to lead the House into matters which are complicated and which may seem to certain hon. Members on first consideration to be unwelcome. I apologise also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that on the first occasion on which I am speaking from the Dispatch Box in your presence I might have to deviate from the injunction for brevity of which you almost constantly remind us. However, there are certain legalistic passages which I might have to deal with at 78 rpm instead of 33. I am sure that the House will understand.

At first sight, the regulations consist of some simple propositions. The Equal Pay Act allows a woman to claim equal pay with a man, or a man with a woman—I do not propose to repeat that disclaimer on every occasion on which it might arise and in all comparative contexts henceforth a man can also mean a woman and a woman can also mean a man— if she is doing the same or broadly similar work, or if her job and his have been rated equal through job evaluation in effort, skill and decision. However, if a woman is doing different work from a comparable man, or if the jobs are not covered by a job evaluation study, the woman has at present no right to make a claim for equal pay. This is the gap, identified by the European Court, which we are closing. We are providing for those women to make claims to industrial tribunals, which will be helped by newly appointed experts who will furnish independent reports on whether the jobs compared are in fact of equal value.

It might be helpful to hon. Members if I summarise the history and background of this amendment. The House will recall the Equal Pay Act 1970—a most progressive measure. Five years later, in 1975, there was promulgated a European Community directive on the principle, and a further four years later, in 1979, the European Community Commission started infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom on the ground that the Equal Pay Act did not provide for equal pay for men and women for work to which equal value was attributed unless that work had already been rated as equivalent under a job evaluation scheme.

I note that some of my hon. Friends are getting slightly restive already—

Ms Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)

Speed it up a hit.

Mr. Clark

The speedy bit comes later. The European Court of Justice at Luxembourg gave judgment on 6 July 1982 to the effect that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its treaty obligations because United Kingdom legislation did not contain measures to enable employees, where no system of job classification existed, to obtain equal pay for equal work for men and women. We are therefore required to amend the 1970 Act to comply with the court’s judgment.

The Government accept the principle of equal pay for men and women and are committed to the full implementation of the European Community directive. We accept the need to amend the Equal Pay Act so as to close the small gap between the directive and the Act found by the European Court.

The European Communities Act 1972 provides a means to do this swiftly and efficiently by regulations, the draft of which we are discussing tonight.

We circulated draft regulations for comment in February. In drawing up that draft, we sought to retain the existing structure of the Equal Pay Act and machinery for deciding cases while making provision for the assessment of the value of work where no job evaluation had been undertaken, thereby bringing the Equal Pay Act into full compliance with the European Equal Pay directive as required by the court judgment.

The draft that we circulated in February provided, as does this one, that a woman is entitled to equal pay with a man in the same employment not only in the circumstances laid down in the current Act—where she is employed on work which is “like” or already “rated as equivalent” under a study—but also where her work is of equal value to a man’s in terms of the demands made on her.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

I am sure that my hon. Friend understands, as I do, that we joined the European Community so that we could trade with our partners in the European Community. Why do we have this nonsense tonight? What have the regulations to do with trading? Why must we put up with this rubbish?

Mr. Clark

I do not think that my hon. Friend has fully comprehended the scope of our commitment to the European Community, which is set out in the treaty of Rome, and on which subject we do from time to time have the benefit of his views. I hope that if he should catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will hear those in extended form later.

Where a claim for equal pay arises under the new equal value provision, the draft regulations provide for the industrial tribunal to commission a report from an independent expert on whether the jobs are of equal value. The experts are to be appointed by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, to which I shall henceforth refer as ACAS.

Three specific areas in the February draft were criticised, and as a result we have made changes. The criticisms came from the Equal Opportunities Commission, to which I shall continue to refer as the Equal Opportunities Commission and not as the EOC.

Mr. Michael Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)

Get on with it.

Mr. Clark

Does the hon. Gentleman want me to abbreviate the text or to speak more rapidly?

First, in the February draft the burden of proving sex discrimination in pay was placed on the woman. We did this because we were anxious to emphasise that a claim should be brought for equal pay for work of equal value only if sex discrimination was involved. On reflection, however, we felt this was unnecessary and what was needed instead was a provision for employers to be able to argue in appropriate cases that sex discrimination was not involved. I shall explain later precisely what provision we have made for this.

The second area in which there was criticism of the February draft was a provision that people already covered by a job evaluation scheme could not bring a case under the new equal value provision. We introduced this limitation because the European Court judgment did not suggest that we needed to enable people whose job had already been evaluated to make a claim. However, representations were made to us by the Equal Opportunities Commission and others that the exclusion of people whose jobs have been evaluated would be contrary to the European equal pay directive.

We appreciate that the fact of creating a new provision to claim equal pay for work of equal value may highlight the difficult position of people whose jobs have been evaluated but who feel that there may have been sex discrimination—particularly indirect sex discrimination — in the evaluation itself. With that in mind, we decided on this point alone to go further than the European Court judgment required and provide that employees whose jobs had already been evaluated might have a claim considered under the new provision on the ground of sex discrimination in the original job evaluation study. Regulation 3(1) of the draft regulations gives effect to that.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Would it be possible for my hon. Friend to take time off from dealing with these regulations to take a rapid reading course?

Mr. Clark

I am surprised at my hon. Friend’s intervention. I feel that it is desirable that the House should be able to digest what is an exceedingly complex matter.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

Certainly, but a little faster, please.

Mr. Clark

I know that my hon. Friend has a capacity to absorb data at a speed greater than some other hon. Members, but in the general interest of the House I will, for the time being, retain my existing pace.

Ms Clare Short

Does the hon. Gentleman believe in what he is saying? If not, is he not demeaning the office of a Minister of the Crown? Does he feel it right that he should stand at the Dispatch Box acting the part, just reading out words? He should either mean what he says or resign.

Mr. Clark

I applaud the hon. Lady’s sentiments. When she has been here longer she will appreciate that a certain separation between expressed and implied beliefs is endemic among those who hold office.

Ms Short

Disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order.

Mr. Clark

I regret that the atmosphere should have been sullied in this way.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

We have heard the hon. Gentleman speak from below the Gangway on many occasions. If he feels that it was worth while taking ministerial office, he should put the Government’s view that they, and he, believe in equal pay, and if he believes in equal pay, he should speak about it with enthusiasm and not in the manner in which he is speaking tonight.

Ms Short

If not, resign.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps we might now return to the regulations.

Mr. Clark

Plainly, an assessment of enthusiasm is a completely subjective matter.

Representations have been made that any delay in implementation must be shown to be reasonably necessary to comply with European law; and in view of the fact that the administrative arrangements can be made within six months, we have decided to advance the date of implementation to 1 January 1984.

I now summarise the provisions of the draft regulations as laid before the House on 6 July, and inevitably I shall have to go into some technical, legal language, and I hope that the House will bear with me. In deference to the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) I shall accelerate my pace of delivery for this passage. The draft contains regulations which provide that a woman is entitled to equal pay with a man in the same employment—or a man with a woman—where her work is of equal value to a man’s in terms of the demands made on her, for instance, under such headings as effort, skill and decision—regulation 2(1). Where a claim for equal pay is to be determined under the new equal value provision, a tribunal will be able to dismiss an application if it is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for determining that the jobs are of equal value—regulation 3(1).

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

Will the Minister pause and explain the meaning of that last paragraph, because some of us who are skilled in understanding these provisions find it impossible to understand that one? Instead of racing through it, will he pause long enough to say what he believes it means, as presumably he is inviting the House to accept it? Will he remember that he is dealing with a matter which some of us regard with great concern?

Mr. Clark

I welcome so early a revelation of the fact that when one tries to please an hon. Friend one immediately offends an Opposition Member. I had hoped to disarm criticism on the Government Benches, but I find that I have aroused it on the Opposition Benches. I shall settle for a median rate of delivery between the two extremes.

If the tribunal is satisfied that there are no such grounds, it will dismiss the application.

Mr. Janner

What does it mean?

Mr. Clark

The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Janner

Honourable and learned.

Mr. Clark

The hon. and learned Gentleman corrects me, using the very adjective that I was about to choose to suggest that his mastery of such language doubtless exceeds my own and that in the fullness of time he will form his own Government.

The draft regulations explicitly provide that if jobs are already covered by a job evaluation scheme and there is no evidence that that scheme is itself sexually discriminatory, there are no reasonable grounds for the tribunal to let the claim go forward.

Ms. Clare Short

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have read in the newspapers that in the House one is not allowed to accuse another hon. Member of not being sober. However, I seriously put it to you that the Minister is incapable. [HoN. MEMBERS Withdraw.”] It is disrespectful to the House and to the office that he holds for the hon. Gentleman to come here—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady ought not to make allegations of that kind. She should withdraw.

Ms. Short

I shall not withdraw.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady should withdraw the allegation.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Ms. Short

No. I am speaking the truth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady should withdraw the allegation.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)

Name her.

Ms. Short

I should be grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean what I say, but I do not understand the rules of the House. How I am allowed to tell the House that I mean it, without being penalised for saying it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I understand how the hon. Lady feels. She has not been long in the House. However, she really ought to withdraw that allegation. It is not permitted to accuse an hon. Member in that way.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Ms. Short rose—

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not permissible for an hon. Member to ask you a question? As I understand it, the hon. Lady did not make an allegation but suggested to you that you should give—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have given the hon. Lady time to consider, and I ask her to withdraw the allegation.

Ms. Short

If I am allowed to withdraw when the House understands that I meant what I said, I withdraw.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I shall accept that as a withdrawal. We should now continue with the debate.

Mr. Wareing

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for any right hon. or hon. Member to address the House if he were drunk?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is a hypothetical question. I think that we should continue with the debate.

Mr. Clark

The regulations expressly provide that there shall be taken to be no reasonable grounds for determining that the work of a woman is of equal value if her work has already been given a different value to that of her male comparator on a job evaluation study and there are no reasonable grounds for detenning that the evaluation contained in the study was made on a system that discriminates on grounds of sex.

The draft regulations provide, in regulation 2(2), that a material factor which is not the difference of sex must, in the case of work which is like or already rates as equivalent, be a material difference between the woman’s case and the man’s. This is a test applied in the current Equal Pay Act. However, in the case of work which it is claimed is of equal value in terms of the demand made on the employees, the regulations provide that the material factor may be, but need not be, such a material difference.

The purpose of this provision is to enable unequal pay to be justified in situations where the work is of equal value but there is no sex discrimination. We consider that a wider test is required in equal value cases than under the current Act, because “material difference” under current case law has been interpreted as meaning factors personal to the employee concerned, and in these new equal value cases, where the scope for comparison will be much wider than under the current Act, we consider that the scope of the employer’s defence needs to be widened accordingly.

I shall come back to that point a little later in my speech.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

In widening the scope of the defence, is the Minister satisfied that he is not undermining the purpose of this legislation, which is intended to bring the law into conformity with a judgment of the European Court?

Mr. Clark

The decision to widen the scope was taken after consultation. I shall return to that point shortly, but I think that I am satisfied in that regard.

To resume my summary of the regulations, if the tribunal is satisfied at this early stage that the employer has shown that the variation in pay is due to a material factor other than sex, it will dismiss the case. Otherwise, the tribunal will commission a report from an independent expert on whether the two jobs in question are of equal value. The independent expert will be drawn from a list of people designated by ACAS. The experts will have experience of industrial relations and the evaluation of jobs, though they will not necessarily be expected to use formal job evaluation in considering the value of the two jobs in question.

The expert will report to the tribunal on the value of the jobs and the tribunal will make a decision on equal value, taking such account of the expert’s report as it considers appropriate. If the tribunal decides that the jobs are of equal value, and unless at this stage the employer can show that the variation is due to a material factor other than sex, the tribunal will award equal pay.

In addition to the draft regulations whose contents I have just been describing, provision needs to be made in procedure regulations for rules governing the operation of the independent expert and of these cases generally.

Mr. Marlow rose—

Mr. Clark

I shall give way, but because of various interruptions this speech is taking an inordinately long time to make, even by the standards of a full debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot give way indefinitely.

Mr. Marlow

I shall be as brief as my hon. Friend has been in giving way. He says that equal pay will be awarded. I assume that that means that the man or woman in question will receive more pay. Does that not mean that the product or service that she is providing is likely to become more expensive? If the product or service becomes more expensive, is there not a possibility that the company for which she works will go bankrupt and that she will lose her employment? Is not my hon. Friend a Minister in the Department of Employment, and is it not his job to secure maximum employment opportunities? If so, why is he introducing this measure?

Mr. Clark

It is, of course, true that where wage increases are reflected in the price of the article produced, they may also be reflected in the balance sheet. However, whether that subsequently leads to bankruptcy depends on the individual case.

In the event that a report is commissioned, we propose to provide for the tribunal to make the necessary request to the expert, for the parties to be sent copies of the expert’s report by the tribunal and for the parties to be able to make representations and produce evidence in respect of the expert’s report in certain circumstances. The expert would not be open to examination.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Full stop.

Mr. Clark

Having outlined the legal framework, I should like to say a word or two about the practical effect of these regulations.

The current Equal Pay Act will, of course, still operate. This means that people doing work which they claim is similar to or already rated as equivalent to work done by a person of the opposite sex may have their claim considered by an industrial tribunal, which will consider their claim and also any defence the employer wishes to make to the effect that the difference in pay is genuinely due to a material difference other than sex.

As I mentioned earlier, under the current case law the defence of a genuine material difference other than sex has been interpreted to mean factors personal to the employee concerned—for example, merit, qualifications or length of service.
To take a concrete example, if a woman claims equal pay with a man who is doing the same work but who has worked in the establishment for 15 years longer, the employer is entitled to justify a higher pay for the man on the ground of his length of service, provided this is a genuine reason and not just an excuse for underpaying the woman.

Under the amending regulations which are the subject of this debate, an employee will be able to bring a claim for equal pay with an employee of the opposite sex working in the same employment on the ground that the work is of equal value. When this happens, conciliation will first be attempted, as in all equal pay claims. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the industrial tribunal will take the following steps. First, it will check that the work is not in fact so similar that the case can be heard under the current Act. Secondly, it will consider whether the jobs have already been covered by a job evaluation scheme and judged not to be of equal value. If this is the case, the claim may proceed only if the original job evaluation scheme is shown to have been sexually discriminatory.

Having decided that the case should proceed, the tribunal will first invite the parties to see if they can settle the claim voluntarily. If not, the tribunal will consider whether to commission an independent expert to report on the value of the jobs. It will not commission an expert’s report if it feels that it is unreasonable to determine the question of value — for example, if the two jobs are quite obviously of unequal value. Nor, as I have already explained, will it commission an expert’s report if the employer shows at this stage that inequality in pay is due to material factors other than sex discrimination.

Mr. Janner rose—

Mr. Clark

I have given way twice to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might be interesting if he develops his theme at greater length.

Let me here digress for a moment on the intention of this “material factors” provision, to which I said I would return. The draft regulations specifically provide that in these equal value cases the defence of material factors may go wider than the current defence of material difference other than the difference of sex.

What we have in mind are circumstances where the difference in pay is not due to personal factors between the man and the woman, but rather to skill shortages or other market forces. If a man is paid more than a woman for work of equal value because his skills are in short supply, this is not sexually discriminatory, provided the reason is genuine and the employer can show this.

Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham)

The Minister mentioned market value as a material factor which could deny a woman her equal pay claim. Does he not recognise that the market awards higher pay to a man than it does to a woman because of the undervaluation of women’s work in the market? The Minister will be providing a complete let-out if he allows market value as a way of excluding equal pay.

Mr. Clark

Market values on their own cannot operate in that way. What is true is that the market in some cases assesses women higher than men. I feel that it is safe to rely on the market, particularly as more women enter employment and their special skills become apparent in a wider area.

If a man is paid more than a women for work of equal value because his skills are in short supply, that is not sexually discriminatory, provided that the reason is genuine and the employer can show that. In making this provision, we have had regard to the reality that pay is not determined just by the demands made on the worker. At the same time, it must be possible for a woman to get equal pay if there is no good reason for the difference in pay other than sex discrimination.

I return to the procedure that will operate. If a tribunal considers that a claim of equal pay for work of equal value is clearly not going to succeed, either because the work is obviously not of equal value or because the employer has shown material factors unrelated to sex, the tribunal will dismiss the case. Otherwise, it will commission a report from an independent expert on the value of the jobs. Once the experts have reported, the tribunal will copy the report to the parties and at the subsequent hearing the parties will be able to make representations about the report, though not to cross-examine the expert. The tribunal’s task will be to come to a decision on equal value in the light of the report.

Ms. Harman

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clark

I have just given way to the hon. Lady. I am greatly looking forward to hearing her speech if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are nearly at the end.

If the tribunal finds the work to be of equal value, and comes to the view that there are no genuine material factors other than sex justifying the inequality of pay, it will make an award of equal pay. an award may be backdated to two years, as is the case in the current Act, but no backdating before the new regulations come into force will be possible. That means that, as the regulations will come into force on 1 January 1984, that full award of two years’ back pay will not be possible until 1 January 1986.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

What my hon. Friend is reading out is of enormous complexity. Bearing in mind that just before the Dissolution his predecessor came to the Select Committee on Employment to give advance warning of this measure, would it not be more sensible for there to be a delay before implementation, so that the Select Committee, when it is set up, can examine not only the complexity of what my hon. Friend is reading out but its impact on British industry? We should have a proper inquiry before we rush into this complicated measure.

Mr. Clark

Alas, the manner in which the regulations are submitted and verified is not for me. There may be an implied reproach in my hon. Friend’s reference to my reading my speech, but as he has been in the Chamber throughout he will appreciate that the complexities are such that it can be presented only by copious reference to the printed word.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

There are considerable difficulties for the Minister and the House. He said that the matter could be understood only by copious reference to the printed word. It would have been much easier if the House had had a chance to read his speech before he delivered it.

In all seriousness, if we are to make a measured judgment, which has been made somewhat difficult by the interruptions of Opposition Members, would it not be to the advantage of the House and the good name of Parliament if hon. Members had a chance to read the speech and make a decision on it later?

Mr. Clark

To make a measured judgment requires a high level of concentration.

I hope that it will be apparent from what I have said that our aim has been to implement the European Court judgment sensibly and quickly, having regard to the need to comply with European law and at the same time safeguard employers against having to give equal pay where there is no sex discrimination.

We have responded to criticisms from the Equal Opportunities Commission and others and the draft regulations incorporate amendments which have been made as a result of comment and discussions during the consultative period.
I commend the regulations to the House.

May 6, 2020
Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on the Fire Safety Bill

Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Labour MP for Torfaen, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2020.

I thank the Security Minister for his speech and his welcome. I shadowed him briefly in a previous role over recent months, and I look forward to working with him on issues of national interest.

In our deliberations today, at the forefront of our minds are the 72 people who lost their lives and the more than 70 who were injured in the terrible tragedy of Grenfell on 14 June 2017. All of us in this House and, indeed, the whole country will remember where we were when we first saw those devastating scenes in west London. It was one of the most heart-wrenching tragedies we can all imagine, and what made it unbearable was the fact that the event that unfolded was wholly preventable. It is and always will remain a stain on our national conscience. For those who escaped, for the emergency services at the scene and for all the family, the friends and the wider community, the events of that awful day will live with them forever.

The fact that such a tragedy could happen in one of the wealthiest boroughs in one of the wealthiest countries in the world shines a piercing light on the inequality in modern Britain and the many ways in which it manifests itself. Over the course of this debate, we will, of course, discuss the legislation, the numbers and the finance, but at the heart of it, we must always remember first and foremost that this is about people, and most strikingly, those who lost their lives and those who managed to escape but will live forever with the memories of that night. That is why people will rightly look to this House for not just words but action.

Getting the Bill right is vital, not just to address the failings so horrifically exposed by Grenfell but to guard against similar incidents—incidents that may appear unlikely or unimaginable today, but could be all too real in future. Labour Members support the Bill, but we urge the Government to go further and faster on fire safety so that there are no more Grenfell Tower tragedies and people are kept safe and secure in their own homes.

In October, we welcomed the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, which addresses the events of the night itself: when the fire began, when the first 999 call was made, at six minutes to one in the morning, and when the first firefighters reached the tower, five minutes later. We await phase 2 of the inquiry and its investigation into the broader causes, but we already know from the first phase report how it happened. The report says:

“Once the fire had escaped from Flat 16, it spread rapidly up the east face of the tower. It then spread around the top of the building in both directions and down the sides until the advancing flame fronts converged on the west face near the south-west corner, enveloping the entire building in under three hours.”

The report also sets out that there is

“compelling evidence that the external walls of the building failed to comply with…the Building Regulations 2010, in that they did not adequately resist the spread of fire having regard to the height, use and position of the building. On the contrary, they actively promoted it.”

It continues:

“It is clear that the use of combustible materials in the external wall of Grenfell Tower, principally in the form of the ACM rainscreen cladding, but also in the form of combustible insulation, was the reason why the fire spread so quickly to the whole of the building.”

Given the particular focus on the actions of the London Fire Brigade at the scene in the first phase report, recommendations made to the fire service should be given the full response that they require. At the same time, while recognising what the first phase report says and learning the lessons, we continue to pay tribute to the heroic actions of firefighters in our country every day, including on the night of the Grenfell Tower fire, when so many put themselves at serious risk to save the Grenfell Tower residents. We will continue to press the Government to give all survivors the support that they need, to bring those culpable to justice, and to put in place every measure needed to prevent a fire such as Grenfell from ever happening again.

As the Security Minister said, the Bill’s provisions clarify that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to external walls, including cladding, balconies and windows, and individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. Responsible persons will need to ensure that they have assessed the fire safety risks of the relevant premises and have taken the necessary fire precautions, with fire and rescue authorities having enforcement powers, including the ability to remove cladding and to put in place prohibitions until changes are made. However, we have to be absolutely clear who the responsible persons are and allow nobody—owners or anyone else—to shirk their responsibilities under the Bill.

Although those powers are welcome, they are clearly not enough in themselves to meet the Government’s pledge to prevent another tragedy from happening. Clause 2 gives the Government powers to make further changes through secondary legislation, and the Government have said that that will provide a foundation to take forward recommendations. The Government have said they will launch a consultation on the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in spring 2020, and that that will include proposals for implementing the Grenfell Tower phase 1 report recommendations, which will be delivered via secondary legislation.

However, the Government have not given a timetable for when they will deliver those recommendations through secondary legislation. They must do so urgently. There is an urgent need for the fire safety measures recommended, and that urgency must be reflected in the actions of Ministers. Indeed, almost three years after Grenfell, this three-clause Bill is the first and only piece of primary legislation on fire safety that the Government have put before the House.

The Bill does not include provisions for the inquiry’s recommendations. The Government had already promised, in October 2019, to implement the inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay. The 2019 Conservative manifesto repeated that commitment, but even the simpler recommendations, such as the inspection of fire doors and the testing of lifts, are not in the Bill. Long-overdue reforms of building safety are also not included in the legislation—they are to be in a separate building safety Bill. The Security Minister indicated that the draft version of that Bill would appear before the summer, but that process still needs to be moved forward as quickly as it possibly can be. He should clarify when it will appear in final form.

The House cannot escape the way in which the inquiry report was repeatedly critical of the Government: for the failure to remove ACM cladding from other blocks; for not funding the fire service efficiently to be properly equipped; for failing to publish national guidelines on the evacuation of tall buildings; and for ignoring recommendations to retrofit sprinklers in social housing blocks in the years leading up to the Grenfell tragedy.

The Bill will require a higher level of inspection and enforcement and will increase the workload on fire and rescue services. There has to be clarity about the funding to carry out such work. The Fire Brigades Union has said today that there are 1,100 fire-safety inspectors left; there have to be more to carry out the duties in the Bill. Between 2010 and 2016, the fire and rescue services were cut centrally by 28% in real terms, with a further cut of 15% by 2020. That led to 12,000 fewer firefighters—20% of the whole service.

As Mayor of London, the Prime Minister was responsible for deep cuts. An independent review by Anthony Mayer found that in the eight years of the Prime Minister’s mayoralty, the London Fire Brigade was required to make gross savings of more than £100 million, leading to the cutting of 27 fire appliances, 552 firefighters, 324 support staff, two fire-rescue units and three training appliances, along with the closure of 10 fire stations and a reduction of fire rescue unit crewing levels.

Grenfell was not the first fire in a high-rise block of flats that resulted in loss of life. In 2013, coroners wrote to Ministers about two separate fires: in Camberwell in 2009, in which six people died; and in Southampton in 2010, in which two firefighters died. The coroners’ letters included clear points of criticism and recommendations, important parts of which—including recommendations to retrofit sprinklers in high-rise housing blocks and to urgently overhaul building regulations—were either rejected or ignored. Letters were sent to the then Housing Minister by the all-party group on fire safety and rescue, with the last sent just 26 days before the tragedy.

An issue that must be recognised is the reaction to the Grenfell fire, with the Government not acting swiftly enough to remove Grenfell-style cladding from tower blocks and a failure to support residents with interim safety costs. To give an example, waking watches, when fire wardens patrol residences, can cost residents £10,000 or more for very short periods of time.

Coronavirus is an unprecedented challenge and I recognise what the Security Minister said about action continuing where it can and the crisis that we are currently in. We of course recognise that it absolutely changes working patterns, but it cannot ever be an excuse for failing to take strong and swift action on the removal of cladding, because 60,000 worried residents are still living in buildings wrapped in cladding that needs to be replaced. Almost nine in 10 private sector buildings and half of social sector buildings have not had cladding removed.

The Security Minister will, I am sure, remember setting a deadline of the end of 2019 for social sector blocks to be made safe, and of June 2020 for private sector blocks—a deadline that now looks likely to be missed. In addition, the Government have yet to publish their findings from the audit of how many buildings are covered with dangerous non-ACM cladding, such as high-pressure laminate. I urge the Minister to make that audit’s findings, which I understand were available at the end of March, fully available as soon as possible.

After Grenfell, the Government accepted that there were flaws in the building safety regime and commissioned the Hackitt review, as the Security Minister said. That was published in May 2018. The Government accept that they did not go far enough. That led to the ban on combustible cladding in November 2018 and the restrictions on desktop studies. As I have indicated, the Government have yet to publish that primary legislation. While the draft will be available in the summer, as the Security Minister said, the process must be faster.

Labour will look to improve the Bill during its passage through Parliament. I urge the Government to have an open mind in the short Committee stage they have allocated and to give reassurance on a timetable for the measures they intend to take. Anything less than that would be a breach of promise to those who were lost and every person affected by the terrible tragedy of Grenfell, which none of us wants to see ever happen again.

I will conclude by taking a moment to pay tribute to all those who were impacted by the Grenfell tragedy and the remarkable community efforts that grew up and have been maintained to support people. In this, the most awful of incidents, we also saw the very best in people. I commend the work that they have done campaigning for justice.

May 6, 2020
James Brokenshire – 2020 Statement on the Fire Safety Bill

Below is the text of the statement made by James Brokenshire, the Minister for Security, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2020.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Almost three years have passed since the tragic events on the night of 14 June 2017. It was the greatest loss of life following a residential fire since the second world war. None of us will ever forget the events of that terrible night, and the Government are resolute in their commitment to ensure that they are never repeated. Those 72 people should never have lost their lives. Our thoughts today are very much with the victims’ families, survivors and fellow residents, who have had to rebuild their lives over the past three years.

I know from my time as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government the profound effect the events have had on the Grenfell community, but also that community’s sense of purpose and its clear demands for justice and change. I have had the privilege to meet survivors and their families, as well as those in the local community who joined together to support them. Those discussions have been humbling and harrowing. They have underlined the responsibility—indeed, the duty—on us to act. The Government will continue to provide support to the affected families and support the creation of a memorial on the site of the tower, a process that is rightly being led by the bereaved and the local community.

The House has had the opportunity to debate the tragic events at Grenfell Tower on a number of occasions. Despite the unusual circumstances we are operating under today, I have no doubt that we will hear once again many powerful and impactful contributions. There is considerable experience across the House, and we will continue to listen to views from all interested colleagues, as well as working with the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue. I welcome the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) to his new role as shadow Home Secretary. We will continue to engage constructively with him and his team.

Our home should be a place of safety and security. At a time when we are asking the people of this country to stay at home—indeed, many of us will contribute to this debate from our homes—we are reminded of the overriding importance of people being safe and feeling safe at home, especially in high-rise properties.

In the days following the terrible tragedy, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced that there would be a full independent inquiry, led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, to get to the bottom of what happened on that night and to understand why the building was so dangerously exposed to the risk of fire. Alongside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Home Office commissioned an independent review of building regulations and safety, which was led by Dame Judith Hackitt. Dame Judith’s findings have underpinned our unprecedented programme of building and fire safety reform. We are resolute in our commitment to delivering on them, and significant steps have already been taken to address building safety and fire safety risks.

Where a fire and rescue service has been advised of a high-rise residential building with aluminium composite material cladding, the National Fire Chiefs Council is confident that that building has been checked by the local fire and rescue service and, where appropriate, additional interim measures have been put in place to ensure the safety of residents. The Government have established a fire protection board, chaired by the National Fire Chiefs Council, to provide oversight of the programme to ensure that all high-rise residential buildings are inspected or reviewed by the end of 2021; £10 million has been allocated to support the fire and rescue service in this endeavour.

In December 2018, the use of combustible materials on new high-rise homes was banned, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in this year’s Budget that the Government will provide £1 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems for both the social and private residential sectors on buildings of 18 metres and above. The prospectus for this new building safety fund will be published in May and open for registrations soon after. The funding is an addition to the £600 million we have already made available to ensure the remediation of the highest-risk ACM cladding of the type that was in place on Grenfell Tower.

In January, MHCLG issued specific advice for building owners on assurance and assessment and how to ensure fire doors meet appropriate fire safety standards. We have pushed owners and local authorities hard to identify and remediate unsafe buildings. We work closely with local fire authorities and fire and rescue services to ensure that interim safety measures are in place in all buildings until the cladding is replaced, but there is an urgent need for remediation to progress, even at this challenging time, recognising the continuing risks and the financial burdens on leaseholders in maintaining waking watches. I therefore want to be clear that remediation work can and should continue wherever it can be done safely—wherever it can, whenever it can.

It is critical that this work continue, and to help support that we have published information for industry and stakeholders on the gov.uk website on how to ensure sites can operate appropriately under the current restrictions. We have also appointed a firm of construction consultants to provide specific advice for those carrying out cladding remediation work.

While the focus of much of our activity has been high-rise residential buildings, it is important to stress that our work rightly goes far beyond that. To support the protection work targeting other high-risk buildings. the Home Office will be providing fire and rescue services with a further £10 million to help deliver protection work within their communities.

While talking about essential work within communities, at this time of incredible national challenge I want to use this opportunity to recognise, and pay tribute to, the essential role fire and rescue services are playing in our response to the coronavirus pandemic. In addition to their core duties, fire and rescue services have around 4,000 volunteers working to support ambulance services, coroners and local communities, as well as helping the vulnerable and those isolated at this incredibly difficult time. I want to thank firefighters and staff up and down the country for their incredible service, their dedication to duty and their desire to help others where they can, and for the incredible difference that is making.

The Queen’s Speech committed the Government to bringing forward two Bills on fire and building safety. The first is this short, technical, Home Office-led Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The second, the building safety Bill, led by MHCLG, will put in place an enhanced safety framework for high-rise residential buildings, taking forward the recommendations from Dame Judith’s review. The purpose of the Bill before the House today is to clarify that the fire safety order applies to the external walls, including cladding and balconies, and individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. The fire safety order requires responsible persons, often building owners or managers, to assess the risk from fire, to put in place fire precautions so far as reasonably practicable to keep premises safe, and otherwise to comply with the requirements of the order. The order does not apply to domestic premises, except in limited circumstances.

The Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report found compelling evidence that the external walls of the tower were not compliant with building regulations. In January this year, the independent expert advisory panel on building safety set up by the Government shortly after the Grenfell fire published its consolidated advice. That includes advice on measures that building owners should take to review ACM and other cladding systems to assess and assure their fire safety and the potential risks to residents of the spread of external fire.

We have established that there are differing interpretations of the provisions in the order as to whether external walls and, to a lesser extent, individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings are in scope of the order. For that reason, we submit that the Bill is a clarification of the fire safety order. It will apply to all multi-occupied residential buildings regulated by the order. The current ambiguity is leading to inconsistency in operational practice. That is unhelpful at best and, at worst, it means that the full identification and management of fire safety risks is compromised, which can put the lives of people at risk.

Twenty flats in Barking were destroyed in June 2019 when a fire spread from a wooden balcony. Richmond House was a four-storey timber-framed block of flats in Worcester Park that burnt down in September. Only last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) highlighted a further significant fire in her constituency. Such fires are stark reminders of how a conflagration can spread on the external envelope of a building, and why those risks need to be identified or mitigated.

The Bill will therefore ensure that, when the responsible person makes a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks, it takes account of the structure, external walls, balconies and flat entrance doors in complying with the fire safety order, and allows enforcement action to be taken confidently by fire and rescue authorities. That will complement existing powers that local authorities have under the Housing Act 2004.

The Grenfell inquiry’s phase 1 report, published last October, provided a comprehensive picture of what happened on the night of 14 June 2017. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at the time of publication, the Government accepted in principle all of the 14 recommendations addressed to the Government directly.

For high-rise residential buildings, the inquiry’s recommendations included new duties on building owners and managers: to issue information to the fire and rescue services; to ensure that there are premises information boxes; to carry out regular inspections of lifts; and to ensure that building floor numbers are clearly marked. For all multi-occupied residential buildings, the inquiry also called for new duties for regular checks of fire doors.

The objective is to ensure that fire and rescue services can plan for and respond to a fire in a high-rise residential building, alongside overall fire safety benefits for residents. As we said in our initial response to the report, we are committed to working closely with other organisations to ensure that the right changes are brought about to protect the public.

The Bill will also provide the firm foundation on which the Government will bring forward secondary legislation to enact those recommendations. Our proposals will be the subject of public consultation, to be published in the coming months. The consultation will also set out proposals to ensure that the fire safety order continues to regulate fire safety effectively in all the premises it covers, as part of the ongoing improvements to building safety following our 2019 call for evidence on the order.

The Bill will give the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to amend or clarify the list of premises that fall within scope of the fire safety order. That will enable us to respond quickly to any further developments in the design and construction of buildings and our understanding of the combustibility and fire risk of construction products.

As the order and therefore the Bill relate to matters within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly, the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government in the Welsh Assembly has confirmed that she will put the matter before the Assembly for a legislative consent motion.

I am aware that the provisions of the Bill will require potentially significant numbers of responsible persons to review and update their fire risk assessments. For many, that will require specialist knowledge and the expertise of the fire risk assessor. We are working with representatives of the sector to understand the particular challenges in delivery. That will inform our approach to the implementation of the Bill, while maintaining a clear and consistent approach to fire risk assessments. In any event, and in line with the independent expert advisory panel’s consolidated advice, I would none the less encourage those with responsibilities to carry out a fire risk assessment under the order as a matter of good practice and to consider flat entrance doors and external wall systems as part of their fire risk assessment for multi-occupied residential blocks as soon as possible, if they have not already done so.

As I have highlighted, there is further legislation to follow. Following the 2019 consultation, the building safety Bill will put in place an enhanced safety framework for high-rise residential buildings. It will establish a new system to oversee the performance of building control functions, with stronger enforcement and sanctions, and give residents a stronger voice in the system, ensuring that their concerns are never ignored. That Bill will be published in draft form before the summer recess.

We will also establish a new national building safety regulator within the Health and Safety Executive. The new regulator will be responsible for implementing and enforcing a more stringent regulatory regime for high-rise residential buildings, as well as providing wider oversight of safety and performance.

The Fire Safety Bill complements all the actions that we have taken to date. It demonstrates that we are applying the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy and will continue to do everything within our power to ensure the safety of people in their homes. While legislation alone can never provide all the answers, I believe that it will make a significant and lasting contribution to the safety of residents. It will provide a catalyst to drive the culture change that is needed within our building and construction sector to put safety and security at the forefront and provide responsibility and accountability where people fall short. Above all, it will help to provide the legal foundations to ensure that such a tragedy can never happen again. I commend the Bill to the House.

May 6, 2020
Lisa Nandy – 2020 Speech on the Repatriation of UK Nationals

Below is the text of the speech made by Lisa Nandy, the Labour MP for Wigan, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2020.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I confirm that it is as sunny as always in our neck of the woods.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the weekly briefings that have allowed us to work together over recent weeks to bring some very vulnerable people home. In that spirit, I turn to a number of issues that his statement did not address, so that we can begin to resolve those, too.

I am deeply concerned that, weeks after Britons were advised to return home by the Government, there is still no accurate assessment of who is stranded and where. On Monday, the Foreign Office came up with a figure of 57,500, yet I have been told repeatedly that there can be no accurate assessment because, although some embassies record those who approach them for help, others do not. We do need to know who is stranded and where, so will the Minister now ensure that his Department now counts and publishes those statistics, so that we can bring those numbers down rapidly?

I was glad to hear that the numbers returned on charter flights are up to 19,000, on 93 flights, and I again place on the record my thanks to our diplomats, embassies and consular staff, but this is still frustratingly slow by comparison with countries such as Germany, which by early April had repatriated 60,000 citizens on 240 charter flights. By chartering 20 times the number of flights, Germany was able to bring its citizens home weeks ago—I place on the record my thanks to Germany and other countries that offered spare places on their flights to stranded Britons—and I am sure the Minister understands why people are upset and frustrated that their Government have not done the same.

I know that the Government were keen to reduce costs, but this reliance on commercial flights has left far too many British people at the mercy of cancelled flights, airline strikes, extortionate prices, domestic lockdowns and chaotic booking systems, so can the Minister commit today to rapidly scaling up the number of charter flights? It is not clear to me what the barrier still is. Ninety per cent. of the country’s commercial fleet is grounded. The RAF stands ready to help. Other countries have the same problems as we do, and in recent weeks I have spoken to many global leaders who say that there is a willingness to work together internationally to open airspace and to keep the transit hubs operating. He is doing his best, but this is unlike the problems that the Government have had with testing or PPE; we have the capacity to do more, and we must.

Many people on those charter flights told me that they are being charged up to £1,000 a ticket, so it would be helpful to understand where the £75 million that the Foreign Secretary announced has gone. Has it been spent and, if so, what on? After the Foreign Office website this week suggested that Britons in New Zealand might be better off staying put until the crisis is over, can the Minister commit that all British people who need it will be not just helped, as he suggested, but repatriated, and that the cost will be no barrier to bringing our citizens home?

I also suggested to the Minister last week that it be made easier to apply for emergency loans and that people be allowed to claim universal credit from overseas. He gave me a very enthusiastic response. Can he update the House on progress with that?

Can the Minister tell us what support is being provided to non-UK nationals, many of whom have lived and worked in Britain for decades? Many with whom I am in touch are extremely vulnerable, and others are NHS workers who are desperate to get back to the frontline, but some of them have been told that they are at the back of the queue, while others have been told to contact other countries’ embassies for help. We were recently shamed by the treatment of those who made Britain their home and have lived and worked here for decades, and we must not allow it to happen again. I hope he will take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to those non-UK nationals and guarantee them the same rights to return home.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister about the mixed messages that those returning home are getting. At the weekend, a Government source told The Telegraph that a 14-day quarantine period would be introduced. When the Foreign Secretary was asked, he simply said, “I don’t know.” Yesterday, the Transport Secretary wrote to MPs to tell us that targeted screening measures had been carried out at UK airports but that those have now been stopped. That is really worrying. There are people entering the UK from countries where infection rates are rising, access to healthcare is limited and preventive measures are non-existent. They are travelling back to their families on public transport. This is surely not sensible.

We have discussed that several times. It is frustratingly one of the areas where we have been unable to make progress, and the UK is now a major outlier on this. South Korea, the Netherlands, Greece, Lithuania and Singapore all have self-isolation requirements in place. We must have clear advice for those returning to the UK, with a quarantine period and testing on return to limit the spread of the virus. Can the Minister commit to that today, and if he cannot, will he take it away and ensure that it is acted on? As always, I am ready, happy and willing to offer assistance and support where I can.

May 6, 2020