UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Dominic Raab – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Dominic Raab – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, on 7 May 2020.

    Good afternoon and welcome to today’s Downing Street Press Conference.

    I’m very pleased to be joined by Sir Ian Diamond the UK’s National Statistician from the ONS, And also by Dr Jenny Harries, Deputy CMO.

    The latest data from our COBR coronavirus data file shows that, as of today:

    there have now been 1,534,533 tests for coronavirus across the UK
    that includes 86,583 tests carried out yesterday
    206,715 people have tested positive, that’s an increase of 5,614 cases since yesterday
    And those who tested positive, very sadly, 30,615 people have now died, and my deepest condolences go out to anyone who has lost a loved one throughout this pandemic.

    Three weeks ago, before the Easter bank holiday weekend, I set out five tests for the UK to move on to the next phase in this pandemic. Then, just as now, there were calls to ease up on the restrictions. But as the science made clear, we couldn’t responsibly do that. In fact, the advice from the group of scientific experts, SAGE, who advise the government made it very clear that there weren’t any changes at all that we could confidently take, Without risking a second peak of the virus.

    That’s why we asked the public to keep going. We weren’t done yet.

    We said ‘stick to the plan’, and the British public kept going. People stuck to the rules. That meant working from home, it meant worries about money it meant adjusting to home schooling, time apart from family and friends, and just not doing many of the things which we all enjoy in life.

    At the same time, there’s been a lot of people who, despite their own personal sacrifices, have gone the extra mile. They volunteered to support the elderly and the vulnerable in their community, who have been shielded themselves away from the virus.

    And each Thursday, of course, we now come together to applaud the NHS staff, and the carers, the people who just kept going to keep our country going.

    And because of that monumental effort we have now passed the peak of the virus. The NHS hasn’t been overwhelmed. We haven’t seen hospital wards overwhelmed with patients, people left without hospital beds, people left without the ventilators that can mean the difference between life and death.

    Now I know the tragic death toll in this country and around the world has been sobering for all of us, and there have been real challenges in this country – with PPE, and with care homes.

    But, in this first stage of the fight against COVID-19, through this national team effort, we’ve prevented the number of deaths rising to even higher levels, and we’ve ensured critically that the NHS had the capacity to cope.

    Today the Cabinet was updated on SAGE’s advice on the progress that we’ve made to date. And as a result of the social distancing measures that we’ve put in place the R level, which signifies the rate of infection, is now between 0.5 and 0.9. The overall number of new cases has been steadily falling and the rate of deaths is also steadily falling.

    Now, just to be clear about what all of this means in practice. The virus is not beaten yet.

    It remains deadly and infectious, and we are working very hard right across government and with local government to bring it down in areas of concern, like in care homes, and I’m confident we can do it and we will do it.

    But, because we held firm three weeks ago, we are now in a position to start to think about the next phase in this pandemic.

    So, this weekend, the Prime Minister will set out the next steps which we can responsibly take over the following weeks, guided by the scientific advice and mindful, as we’ve said right from the word go, of taking the right decisions at the right time.

    Now, we can start setting out how we will live and work, whilst maintaining the necessary social distancing rules, we can also be clearer about those measures which are still necessary to prevent a second peak.

    The Prime Minister has been directing Ministers and our teams of officials right across government to carefully develop a road-map for the next phase.

    It contains appropriate measures to be taken at appropriate milestones, subject to very clear conditions.

    And there be detailed guidance to help inform, advise and reassure the public, businesses and other organisations.

    To get this right, we have set milestones. Some changes can confidently be introduced more quickly than others, and some of those other ones will take longer to introduce.

    And, it’s important to say this, at each point along the way when we take these decisions, they will be based on the five tests and the scientific advice that we receive.

    And as I set out in the fifth of our five tests when I spoke here at this lectern, on 16 April, the point at which we make even the smallest of changes to the current guidance will be a point of maximum risk.

    If people abandon the social distancing, if we forget the sacrifices that were made to get us through the peak, to get us to this point, the virus will grow again at an exponential rate.

    That would lead to a second peak which would threaten the NHS. It would trigger another lockdown, which prolong the economic pain, and we we’re determined to keep it temporary, to keep it as short as possible.

    So, we’ve kept the current measures in place for this long, precisely so that we can bounce back with vigour and energy as soon as possible, as soon as it is responsible to start looking at the second phase.

    And because of that, our next steps will be surefooted and sustainable. Any changes we make will be carefully monitored. If people don’t follow the new rules, or if we see that the R-level goes back up, we will tighten the restrictions again, we will always retain the option to do so. That way we can safeguard public health and we can also safeguard the economy in a sustainable way.

    So having prepared carefully, and based on the updated advice from SAGE, this weekend, the Prime Minister will set out the roadmap for the next phase, along with the conditions for reaching each milestone.

    That way we can provide the country with a better understanding of what lies ahead, we can offer reassurance that we will adjust the restrictions to the minimum necessary to prevent a second spike in the virus, and we can give people the confidence that we’re doing it in a way that will protect life and preserve our way of life.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus (07/05/2020)

    Nicola Sturgeon – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus (07/05/2020)

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 7 May 2020.

    Good afternoon. Thank you very for joining us again today.

    I want to start with the usual statistical update on COVID-19 in Scotland.

    As at 9 o’clock this morning, there have been 12,924 positive cases confirmed – which is an increase of 215 since yesterday.

    A total of 1,587 patients are currently in hospital with either confirmed or suspected COVID-19 – that is a decrease of 45 since yesterday.

    A total of 86 people last night were in intensive care with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. And that is a decrease of three since yesterday.

    I am also able to confirm today that since 5 March, 2,954 patients who had tested positive and been admitted to hospital for the virus have been able to leave hospital, and I wish all of them well.

    Unfortunately though I also have to report that in the last 24 hours, 59 deaths have been registered of patients who had been confirmed through a test as having the virus – and that takes the total number of deaths in Scotland, under that measurement, to 1,762.

    As always, let me stress that these numbers are not statistics – or just statistics. They represent real people whose loss is being felt and mourned by many. And I want again to send my deepest condolences to everyone who has lost a loved one to this virus – we are all thinking of you.

    I also want to thank again our health and care workers for the extraordinary work that you are doing in these most difficult of circumstances.

    And I want to thank all of you watching at home, for the sacrifices you are continuing to make as you follow our very clear advice to stay at home, save lives and help us to continue to protect the NHS.

    Now I have one main point that I want to update you on this afternoon.

    As I have indicated previously this week, the Scottish Government is legally required to review the regulations giving effect to the lockdown every three weeks, and the latest review falls due today.

    Our assessment of the evidence leads me to the conclusion that the lockdown must be extended at this stage. More detail of our analysis will be published alongside today’s daily statistics at 2pm. But let me say this now.

    We are – together – making really significant progress in our efforts to get this virus under control. I have reported today a further reduction in the number of patients in intensive care. And yesterday, National Records of Scotland reported the first weekly decline in the number of registered deaths related to the virus since this outbreak began.

    All of that gives us real hope and real encouragement.

    But we also know that progress remains fragile. Our estimates suggest that there are still significant numbers of people in Scotland infected with this virus.

    And we are not yet confident that the all-important R number is comfortably below 1 – and I’ve explained and set out before why it is so important to get it and keep it comfortably below 1. Indeed, we think it could still be hovering around 1 just now – which means that any significant easing up of restrictions at this stage would be very very risky indeed.

    Also, we think the R number may still be a bit higher here than it is in other parts of the UK – perhaps reflecting the fact that our first cases came later than England’s and so we may be at a different – and slightly later – stage of the infection curve.

    Now, all of that tells me that extreme caution is required, at this critical juncture, to avoid a rapid resurgence of the virus.

    Before we can judge that it is safe to begin any significant, albeit gradual, easing of the restrictions, we want to see data in the days ahead that confirms a very clear downward trend.

    In particular, I want to see what our estimates of new cases and the R number look like a week from now.

    And I will be looking very carefully, as I’m sure all of us will be, to see if next week’s NRS figures show a continued fall in the number of deaths.

    And it is to allow for such further careful assessment that we have concluded that the lockdown – and the associated regulations – must remain in place for now.

    The legal deadline for the next review of these regulations will be three weeks from now – which is the 28 May.

    But I want to be very clear again today that we can make changes to the regulations before then if the evidence suggests it is safe to do so.

    And let me say again, I am as anxious as anyone to restore some degree of normality to our lives as soon as possible and to reduce the harms that we know lockdown itself is doing.

    It is also open to us to amend the supporting guidance if we think that is possible – and indeed there is one very limited, specific change to the guidance that we are considering already, and I want to come back to that shortly.

    But, first of all, I want to address reports that you might have seen in today’s media that the Prime Minister might be planning on Sunday to announce changes to the lockdown in England. I should stress that these are only media reports – I do not know yet how accurate they are.

    And before I go any further here, I want to take the opportunity to remind you that none of the decisions I am taking just now – absolutely none of them – are driven by politics. They are driven only by doing what is right to tackle this virus and to save lives. And I believe that is true for all leaders across the UK.

    However, I have to be clear with you that the potential changes that are reported in the media today have not yet been discussed with the Scottish Government or, as far as I know, with the other devolved governments.

    I hope we will have discussions in the next few days. We had expected a COBRA meeting today or tomorrow but it seems now that it might not take place until Sunday – which of course is the day the Prime Minister is due to make his statement.

    However, in the last half hour I understand that the Prime Minister has requested a call with the devolved governments later today, and I very much welcome that.

    And if and when those discussions do take place I will make very clear – as I have all along – that it is my preference, if possible, for all four UK nations to make changes, together, at the same pace. Because that certainly helps us give clear, consistent messages to you, the public.

    However, for that approach to work, we must agree to make changes only when all four governments are satisfied that they don’t risk a resurgence of the virus.

    And – again, let me be clear – if the Prime Minister decides that he wants to move at a faster pace for England than I consider is right for Scotland – that is of course his right. I will respect that and I will not criticise him for doing that.

    But I hope you understand, and indeed I hope you agree, that I must make judgments, informed by the evidence, that are right and safe for Scotland.

    I will not be pressured into lifting restrictions prematurely, before I am as certain as I can be that we will not be risking a resurgence of infection rates.

    Now, of the changes that are floated in the media today, there is only one I may – and I would stress at this stage, may – be prepared to agree to in the immediate future – and that is a change to the guidance limiting outdoor exercise to once a day only.

    That is currently, as you know, one of the limited number of reasons that you are permitted to leave home.

    As I alluded to earlier in the week, we are already considering whether it would be possible now, without increasing the R number, to permit you to exercise outdoors more often than once a day – but on the strict conditions that you still stay within your own household group, stay two meters away from others, and stay reasonably close to your own home.

    It would – and let me stress this point – it would not change the overall message to stay at home except for the limited reasons of exercise, food and medicine.

    We will report back on our consideration and indeed any four nation discussion of that over the next few days. In the meantime however, let me be clear that the once a day rule does remain in place.

    The other possible changes that are reported in the media today – such as encouraging more people back to work now or opening beer gardens or encouraging more use of public transport – would not, in my judgement, be safe for us to make yet.

    And I particularly strongly believe that for us to drop the clear, well understood ‘Stay at Home’ message right now could be a potentially catastrophic mistake.

    Now, there’s discussion in many countries about the timing of lockdowns.

    All along we have taken the decisions we considered right and at the time we thought right. And that’s what we will continue to do. And of course, none of us have the benefit of hindsight when we make those decisions.

    But right now we do have the benefit of foresight. And what I do not want a few weeks from now is for us to see a resurgence of this virus and for you to be asking me this – why on earth did you start to ease lockdown a week, or a couple of weeks, too early?

    It’s not an exaggeration to say that the decisions we take now are a matter of life and death. And that is why they weigh so very, very heavily. And it’s why they must be taken with great care. And it is why, as I take them, I will continue to err on the side of caution.

    Now I will keep you updated of any and all discussions with the UK governments – other UK governments – over the weekend.

    For now though, the advice remains the same as it has been.

    It is easier for us to start emerging from lockdown, the lower the R number is, and the fewer infectious cases that there are.

    And so for all of us, the way in which we emerge from lockdown that bit more quickly, is to stick with the current restrictions now.

    So please, stay at home except for essential purposes such as exercise, or buying food or medicines.

    Stay more than two meters from other people when you are out, and do not meet up with people from other households.

    Wear a face covering if you are in a shop or on public transport. And isolate completely if you or someone else in your household has symptoms.

    I know that these restrictions are very tough – and I also know and worry that any talk of easing the lockdown might make it more tempting to go out that bit more often.

    But please, resist that temptation. Stick with the current rules. We must – absolutely must – protect the progress that we have all made together so far. Because it is by doing that that we will continue to slow down the spread of the virus, continue to protect the NHS, and continue to save lives.

    Thank you very much indeed for listening. I’m going to hand briefly to the Cabinet Secretary for Health before her, I, and of course the Chief Medical Officer take questions from journalists.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus (05/05/2020)

    Nicola Sturgeon – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus (05/05/2020)

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 5 May 2020.

    Good afternoon, thank you for joining us today.

    I want to start with the usual statistical update in relation to COVID-19.

    As at 9 o’clock this morning, there have been 12,437 positive cases confirmed – which is an increase of 171 since yesterday.

    A total of 1,656 patients are currently in hospital with either confirmed or suspected COVID-19 – that is a decrease of 64 since yesterday.

    A total of 104 people last night were in intensive care with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, and that is an increase of five since yesterday.

    I can also confirm that since 5 March, 2,847 patients who had tested positive and been hospitalised for the virus have now been able to leave hospital, and that of course is positive news

    Sadly, though, in the last 24 hours, 44 deaths have been registered of patients who had been confirmed through a test as having the virus – which takes the total number of deaths, under that measurement, to 1,620.

    Now, as I always say, we must never ever think of these numbers as just statistics. They represent individuals whose loss is a source of sorrow to many, and I again want to send my deepest condolences to everyone who has lost a loved one to this virus. We are all thinking of you.

    I also want to again thank our health and care workers for the extraordinary work that you continue to do for us in the most challenging and difficult of circumstances

    Now I have one substantive issue that I want to discuss today. And forgive me if I do so at slightly greater length than normal.

    This follows my update yesterday on our plans for “test, trace, and isolate”.

    Today, I want to set out for you our latest data on the level of infection and the important R number that you have heard us talk about before, and I also want to describe the work that we are doing now to prepare for careful and gradual changes to the lockdown restrictions – I must stress only when we judge it is safe to make them, which I am afraid is not right now.

    Now you’ll find more detail on what I am about to cover today in a new document that we have just published on the gov.scot website – it updates the one we published a couple of weeks ago and, again, I’m asking you please to have a look at that.

    I also want to encourage you to use the new online tool that we are launching today, which gives you the chance to offer ideas on how we should move forward.

    I’ve said before but it is worth repeating that the decisions on how we come out of lockdown will affect each and every one of us, perhaps for some considerable time to come, and so I am determined that I and the Scottish Government make those decisions as openly and as collaboratively as we possibly can.

    Now, as I said yesterday, by Thursday this week, we have to formally assess whether any lockdown restrictions should be lifted at this stage. The other UK governments will also be making an assessment on or around that date.

    As we move forward, we will continue to discuss and, where appropriate, reach decisions on a four nations – UK – basis. It remains my intention to have UK-wide alignment where the evidence supports it, though obviously my overarching responsibility is to reach evidence based decisions that are right for Scotland.

    As I indicated yesterday, I think it is highly unlikely that the Scottish Government will be able to make any significant changes to the current restrictions on Thursday. And I think it’s important that I’m frank with you about that now.

    Today’s paper sets out in detail the data that underpins that conclusion.

    In short, we are seeing progress – real progress, particularly in the number of people admitted to intensive care – but that progress is still fragile.

    That means any increase in the physical interactions we have with other people could quickly see transmission of the virus increase again.

    We estimate that there are currently around 26,000 people with COVID-19 in Scotland. I stress these are estimates, but that is still too high a number to consider that the virus is under control.

    I have also spoken before about the vital importance – the critical importance – of keeping the R number below 1.

    Now we know the R number is higher in care homes, but our best estimate is that the R number in the community is currently between 0.7 and 1. But we cannot be sure that it’s not closer to 1 than 0.7.

    There is also some evidence that the R number in Scotland might be slightly higher at this point than in the rest of the UK – although the modelling that is based on is subject to a high degree of uncertainty.

    But in any event, the R number is not yet far enough below 1 to be confident that any changes to current restrictions wouldn’t quickly send it over 1 again – and if that happened, the virus would start to increase exponentially again.

    That could overwhelm our health service; force us to re-impose restrictions; and it would lead to many more deaths.

    Now as an illustration of this, we include in the paper a chart which is based on recent Danish data, and we are looking at experiences in other countries all the time. What this chart suggests is that that if we were to fully re-open nurseries and primary schools now, the most likely scenario would be a resurgence in the virus that would overwhelm our hospital capacity in a matter of weeks.

    Now, the fact is that any easing of restrictions, whenever we introduce them, will have an impact on the R number. But if we get our baseline lower than it is now, we will have more headroom to cope with that – and be able to avoid outcomes like the one I’ve just highlighted.

    So the hard fact is that we must see further reductions in new cases, hospital and ICU admissions and deaths to be sure that the overall level of infection and the R number are lower than they are now.

    And that means, for the moment, we do need to stick with the current lockdown restrictions .

    However I am acutely aware that the severity of restrictions we are living under now cannot continue indefinitely – we know that lockdown is doing its own damage.

    So we also need to be preparing to make changes as soon as it is safe to do so.

    The next three week period of lockdown, after this Thursday 7 May, is due to end on the 28 May.

    Now, let me stress, that doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t make any changes before then if the evidence suggests it is safe to do so. If we can, we will.

    For example, I’m particularly keen as soon as possible, for the sake of mental health and wellbeing, to enable people to be outdoors more. And obviously we are all keen to get the economy moving again as soon as we can.

    So today’s paper sets out some options that we are working on – both in terms of assessing their impact and on the practicalities of implementation – so that we will be ready to make changes when the evidence tell us that it is safe to do so.

    Now to be clear with you, because I have to make sure I am setting this out clearly, this is not a list of things we will definitely do by certain dates.

    Indeed, we might not be able to take all of these steps even at the end of May.

    This is going to be a long process with different phases along the way.

    And we will only implement these changes when we are as certain as possible that it is safe to do so – and when we can also assure you of that.

    In the meantime, it is vital that we stick rigorously to the current rules.

    But as I said a moment ago it is important that we are preparing now.

    So I want to briefly set out the options that we are working on. Though, again, I must stress that none of these are changes we are implementing as of right now.

    But we are considering, firstly, if and how we could safely change our advice on spending time outdoors – to allow exercise outside to happen more than once a day, so long as we continue to stay apart from people outside our own households.

    But second, we are also considering if a slight relaxation in the rules to allow meeting up with a small, defined group of people from other households – in a sort of bubble – might be possible, even if initially that was only possible out of doors and not indoors.

    This is, of course, one way in which we could start to interact a bit more with family or friends – which I know is so important to all of us.

    However, we also have to consider carefully the impact on the spread of the virus. And we have to think through how such an approach could be implemented in practice – and also how the limitations of it could be enforced if necessary.

    It’s also not something that would be possible for those who are currently shielding – so we have to think also about the fairness of it.

    The third area we are looking at is when and in what order we can resume some NHS and community care services. As you know, we stopped some services – for example, screening programmes and non-urgent elective procedures – to ensure that the NHS could cope with the virus. But these postponements also have implications for health, so we must consider how services can be restarted as soon as possible – and that is what we are currently doing.

    The fourth area relates to how we carefully, gradually and safely allow businesses to re-open. That is a major area of work, for obvious reasons.

    We need to work with business and with trade unions to consider the practical arrangements for different work environments to start up safely – that’s changes to working practices, physical layouts of workplaces, the appropriate use of PPE and the operation of public transport. On this, we are looking carefully at the work the UK government is doing and consulting our own stakeholders on that.

    Initially, we are giving particular consideration to businesses in the construction, retail and manufacturing sectors – and also to some outdoor and rural businesses.

    However, where home working is possible, we are very likely to insist on that for the foreseeable future.

    And I want to be very clear that as of now current guidance to business remains in place.

    Finally, I have said before that one of the hardest decisions I have ever taken was the closure of schools. I know the impact this is having on young people – and I want to thank all of you watching today again for your patience – and it also has an impact on family routine.

    The Deputy First Minister is chairing the Education Recovery Group, which is considering options for how pupils might gradually return to school.

    Now, again, I need to be clear – a return to school might not be possible at all this side of the summer holidays.

    But we are considering whether some groups of students – such as vulnerable children, children who are making the transition from primary to secondary school, or who are studying for national qualifications – could return to school ahead of others.

    And any initial return to school – when it does happen – is of course likely to require a mixture of time in school and learning at home.

    For example it’s possible that different groups could attend school part-time in blocks of a few days – or a week at a time – to enable physical distancing and deep cleaning schools between sessions. In all of this, we are trying to find the right balance between children’s educational and wider needs, and public health imperatives.

    But I want to be crystal clear that while we will of course take the greatest care in all of this, that that is particularly the case with schools. We will not compromise the safety of your children.

    Now as you will understand from the detail I have just given, and more so if you read the paper that has published today, none of these decisions are easy. There are no absolute certainties in any of this and complex judgments will have to be made.

    As I’ve said before, ‘lifting the lockdown’ will not be like flicking a switch.

    It will be a gradual process which will happen in phases.

    What we are seeking to do is find a path to a new normal – one which is less restrictive than the current lockdown, but which doesn’t risk the virus running rampant again.

    Now we have not yet put definite dates on any of what I’ve just set out. But I will update you on an ongoing basis in the days ahead as our evidence, assessments and planning develops.

    And as soon as we can start to attach even tentative dates, we will do that.

    In parallel, we will continue to build the ‘test, trace, isolate’ capacity that I spoke about yesterday.

    But let me end on this point – the most important task for all of us in the here and now is to get the virus under more control than it is right now. And I cannot stress that enough. We really are at a critical stage, and what I’ve set out today about our assessment of the R number in particular tells us how critical this stage is and also how easy it would be to go in the wrong direction.

    So that means asking you again to stick rigorously to the current rules. It means asking you to think hard about your own compliance – and tightening that if anything now, not easing up on it. If you have been going out a bit more than you should, please rectify that.

    Please stay at home except for essential purposes – and remember, at this stage, essential purposes means only essential food supplies, medicines and daily exercise.

    And you should ask yourself if, for example, going for a drive-through coffee is really an essential journey.

    Stay two metres from others when you have to be out.

    Don’t meet up with people from other households.

    Isolate completely if you or anyone else in your household has symptoms.

    Wash your hands regularly, and wear a face covering if you are in an enclosed space with other people – like a shop or public transport.

    All of this is tough – it is really tough – and I know and understand that.

    But I want to stress again – right now we are going in the right direction. If all we keep doing all of the right things, we will keep going in the right direction, and we will get there. Our light at the end of the tunnel that I keep talking about will get brighter as the days go on. And we will find a way through.

    So please keep doing the right things, and thank you for everything that you are doing to comply.

    Now I’m going to hand over to the Chief Medical Officer who is going to say a few more words about the evidence that is before us before I open up to questions.

    Was this helpful?

  • Jim Shannon – 2020 Speech on the Census

    Jim Shannon – 2020 Speech on the Census

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

    May I first declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief? I have been asked to raise an issue by a group of people within a religious minority—the Sikhs—as other Members have done, including the hon. Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). I also want to thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who I call my friend, for all that she has done for the Sikhs over the years.

    Sikhs have been legally recognised as an ethnic group for nearly 40 years, since the Mandla v. Dowell-Lee House of Lords ruling of 1983. The ONS has stated that the ethnic group question was introduced in 1991 to help public bodies to assess equal opportunities and to develop anti-discrimination policies—all good stuff. Census ethnic group categories are used by 40,000 public bodies to assess legal responsibilities under equalities legislation, so the group data—not the religious data—is used by public bodies to make decisions on the allocation of resources and provision of public services.

    The Prime Minister’s last 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. What does this actually mean? Well, if Sikhs do not have a ​Sikh ethnic tick-box response option, they will continue not to be properly monitored by public bodies, and to face potential discrimination in relation to schools, the health sector, where there are known disparities, housing and across the public sector.

    The covid-19 crisis has shown that there is no systematic collection of data on the number of Sikhs tested as positive or the numbers who have tragically died. That means something to this group of people, it means something to me, and it should mean something to everyone in the House. In the 2011 census, more than 80,000 Sikhs—20%—rejected the 18 existing ethnic tick boxes and chose instead to tick “Other” and write “Sikh”. I believe that this provided the ONS with the strongest indication possible that Sikhs who completed the census form in 2011 did not find the ethnic tick boxes offered acceptable and wanted an additional Sikh ethnic tick box. It is clear that there must be change and I am asking for that change.

    I have four questions for the Minister. Why was the May 2018 online quantitative survey—which had 1,412 responses and showed 93% support, from those who understood the question, for the inclusion of a Sikh ethnic tick box—not published and referred to the census White Paper of December 2018? Why was there no reference in the census White Paper and the associated equality impact assessment to research and modelling by the ONS that showed that more than 53,000 Sikhs—or 12%—were missed in the 2011 census? In the interests of data collection, honesty and evidence, this gap has to be addressed.

    Do Ministers appreciate that the management committees of 112 large and small gurdwaras across the UK, with an official membership of over 107,000 and an estimated congregation—or a sangat—of over 460,000 should be considered, as well as 53 individual Sikhs in focus groups? Can the Minister explain why the ONS has requested and received the individual returns from the all-party parliamentary group for British Sikhs in August 2018, and yet, it would appear, has made no attempt to conduct any independent validation; and why the deputy national statistician appears to have kept no notes or minutes of meetings that he attended at gurdwaras to consult Sikhs?

    I look to the Minister for an adequate, suitable and helpful response. I understand that some of my questions may not be answerable today, but I would appreciate a response. More than that, I would appreciate a change to include Sikhs in the census in their own right in order to ensure that they have protection against discrimination and the recognition that they rightly deserve. Better late than never.

  • Matt Western – 2020 Speech on the Census

    Matt Western – 2020 Speech on the Census

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Western, the Labour MP for Warwick and Leamington, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

    It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). Let me start by saying that I welcome the order. I am sure that there is almost universal support for a census. Although I support it, I am interested to know more about the decisions the Government have made in arriving at it.

    The purpose of the order is simply to provide direction for next year’s census on the population of England and Wales. It includes the date of the census, the area to be covered, what is required in the return, who is included and the particulars that may be requested and from whom. I remember my first census back when I was eight years old, and just how excited I got. I do not understand quite why, but I just appreciated the scale of this enormous exercise.

    Given the fact that we have one coming up next year, we must recognise the importance of this data collection in giving some snapshot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said, of the nature of our society and the people that we are. For a nation and for the purposes of good governance, I have always believed this data to be of huge importance and believed in the value of the continuity of measurement decade after decade.

    What is also important, beyond the standard information, is the ability to use the census to update it and ensure its relevance in relation to social and economic change. Ten years is a long time to wait for these changes, and I suggest that a few that are being proposed are long overdue, given that we are now in the third decade of the 21st century. Let me come to identity in a moment, but may I just say that it is good to see the introduction of a new question capturing past service in the UK armed forces, which has been added? It should go some way in recognising the lives of our fabulous forces personnel.

    On identities, I want to support the addition of two new voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity. At last, LGBTQ people will be acknowledged, and that is most welcome. However, I also see there will be the continuation, for those not included in the existing tick boxes, to allow that to be expressed through the write-in option on both paper and online questionnaires. Interestingly, for the first time, an additional response option of Roma will be included under the ethnic group question, which is also welcome. In addition, the national identity question allows respondents to record multiple ​identities across the tick boxes and write-in box. But other than those changes, the proposed questions appear to be much as in the previous census 10 years ago.

    Perhaps surprisingly, there has been no inclusion of a Sikh tick box, despite the House of Lords ruling in the Mandla v. Dowell Lee case of 1983 that Sikhs are an ethnic group, not simply a religion. The Sikh community is important to the UK in every sense, and I commend the speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and for Erith and Thamesmead. In my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, the community accounts for a significant and welcome share of our population and our community.

    The Minister will be aware that there has been a long-running campaign by the Sikh Federation and, indeed, the whole British Sikh community for this change to be introduced. The concerns among the community, as has been widely shared this afternoon, are that, if Sikhs do not have a Sikh ethnic tick box response option, they will continue not to be properly monitored by public bodies and face possible discrimination in schools and the health sector, where there are known disparities, as well as in housing and across the public sector more generally. As has been evidenced in the current covid-19 crisis, there is no systematic collection of data on the number of Sikhs tested as positive or the number that, tragically, have died, despite the significant number who are actually working on our frontline.

    I appreciate that this is a statutory instrument and is unamendable as such, so there will not be any opportunities to change the proposals. I simply want to ask the Minister why the decision was reached to exclude the Sikh identity as a tick box and what steps the Government will take to ensure the Sikh community is properly accounted for in data collection, ensuring the fair allocation of resources and provision of public services.

  • Wendy Chamberlain – 2020 Speech on the Census

    Wendy Chamberlain – 2020 Speech on the Census

    Below is the text of the speech made by Wendy Chamberlain, the Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

    We live in a multicultural society that is full of self-expression, and a census provides a snapshot of that diversity. The questions in a census, therefore, are themselves important; if we do not ask the right ones, the picture of our country is distorted. Making sure that all people count is important.

    On census night 1911, Emily Wilding Davison hid illegally in a broom cupboard in the Palace of Westminster, to ensure that a woman would be recorded as being in the House of Commons that night. Clearly, the contents of a census take on their own intrinsic value, which is another reason to ensure that we take care how the questions are worded and what responses they enable people to give. That is one of the reasons why the addition of questions about sexuality and gender identity are so important: it demonstrates that we regard sexual and gender identity as a core part of people’s lives. For LGBTQ people, who often suffer so much discrimination, recognition in itself can mean a great deal.​
    Such care must also carry over to how members of the Government express themselves. I know that many Members were very concerned by the excluding comments of the Minister for Women and Equalities when she appeared before the Women and Equalities Committee. How politicians, as representatives of their constituents, use their language matters to the people they represent.

    We should take care in how we word our questions. If different groups and people are not carefully consulted, we risk generating questions that people do not want to answer. For some communities, their religion is also how they express their ethnicity, and in order to be truly inclusive we must work to ensure that the census reflects that. If a large number of individuals from a particular community, such as the Sikh community, feel that filling in a free-text box is the only way to express their identity, then we have failed to be truly inclusive.

    These questions of identity also matter practically. The census directly informs how Government go about delivering public services. One of the great benefits of the new questions on sexuality, gender identity and veterans is that, over the next decade, hopefully, we can ensure that those groups of people who have historically lacked support and provision can get the services they need. Having previously worked in military resettlement, I am pleased that the Government are recognising that community’s contribution. The census will help to ensure that the public services we provide meet the duties under the Equality Act 2010, one of which is to eliminate discrimination. I wholeheartedly support that.

    However, it seems strange to me that, while public service delivery is determined by the number of people in the census, for constituency boundaries we seem interested only in the number of people on the electoral roll. MPs provide a public service too—I think that is very obvious at this time. We are often the people our constituents turn to when all other public services have failed. It is electors who determine boundaries, but it should be the number of people who require services.

    It is not just about the questions on the census; it is also about who answers them. Looking forward to the next steps in the process, it will be the census regulations that will deal with the operational practicalities. Although 2021 will be the first time that the vast majority of responses will be made online, the census has to capture everyone in our society. We must ensure that the most vulnerable in particular are represented. I would welcome representations from the Minister on how the census will reach deprived and disadvantages communities and individuals, such as the homeless and rough sleepers.

    It is good that the Office for National Statistics is considering British Sign Language support, alongside Braille, large-print and easy-read versions of the census. I would like to see such measures in the UK Government’s daily covid briefings too.

    According to the White Paper on the census regulations, at least 17,000 census field officers are being recruited to support those who cannot complete the census online. Of course, with the census taking place in March 2021, the covid-19 outbreak might continue to pose a particular challenge. It is certainly not unforeseeable that we will still be in this state of social distancing by next March. Can the Government confirm what steps they and the ONS are taking now to ensure that, if social distancing is still in place, the census can still reach people who are not able to take part in it online?​
    This census represents a huge commitment of resources. We must take every opportunity to ensure that the results returned are truly reflective of all corners of British society.

  • Steve Double – 2020 Speech on the Census

    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?

  • David Amess – 2020 Speech on the Census

    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.

  • Hywel Williams – 2020 Speech on the Census

    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.

  • John Spellar – 2020 Speech on the Census

    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.