UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • John Silkin – 1978 Statement on Spillers French Bakery Closures

    Below is the text of the statement made by John Silkin, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the House of Commons on 10 April 1978.

    Spillers Limited announced last Friday that it had decided to withdraw from bread baking. We understand that over the last six years its losses on bread making have amounted to £28 million. Spillers has decided that the only way in which it can continue as a sound and viable group is to give up bread baking altogether. The company is selling 13 bakeries to Rank Hovis McDougall and Associated British Foods. This will ensure that the jobs of 5,100 employees are maintained. But the closure of the remaining 23 bakeries means the loss of 6,370 full-time and 1,620 part-time jobs.

    In order to complete this transfer the companies concerned needed to know whether a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be made. Immediately before Easter, therefore, Spillers approached the Government in strict confidence, through the Bank of England, on this question.

    After following the statutory procedures and in the light of the advice of the Office of Fair Trading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection decided, on the information before him, not to make such a reference. This decision took account of discussions between the Ministers concerned and the major baking companies in the course of which various points were clarified and a number of assurances given.

    In particular RHM and ABF have given assurances that they will keep open the bakeries transferred to them for at least a year. They have said that they are taking over all the Spillers bakeries for which they can see a profitable future. They also expect, subject to agreement with the unions on working procedures, to recruit the equivalent of over 2,000 additional employees at their existing ​ bakeries, including those in Liverpool, Glasgow and the North-East.

    The companies have said that the closures will not endanger bread supplies. ABF and RHM have stated that they do not expect to pre-notify a further price increase before late 1978.

    It is clearly a matter for serious concern that the measures now taken involve sudden large-scale redundancies in a single firm. The Government greatly regret that they have not had more notice of the closures. But, having regard to the substatial over-capacity in the baking industry and Spillers’ financial difficulties, Ministers concluded in the circumstances that the reorganisation proposed is probably the least unattractive of all the unattractive courses of action available.

  • Greville Janner – 1978 Speech on Currency Reform

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greville Janner, the Labour MP for Leicester West, in the House of Commons on 7 April 1978.

    As the value of our currency declines, so inevitably does the value of the pound note and of each of the coins that represent that value in the hands, in the pockets and in the wallets of the ordinary user. I am happy to have this opportunity to ask the House to consider whether the time has now come for a complete review of our coins and our notes in the light of the decline in the value of money, in the light of inflation, and in the light of the weight of the coins that exist. In particular, I shall suggest that the time has arrived for the introduction of a £1 coin, for the introduction of a crown—that is, a 25p coin—and for a change in the type, size and, in particular, in the weight of the coins that are used at present.

    The value of currency has dropped in the last 20 years by four times. That is to say, £1 in 1957 would have bought as much as £4 today, 20 years later. Yet we still do not have a coin to represent the 1978 value of a 1957 pound. Indeed, the speed at which the value of the pound has dropped has increased, as we all know. Since decimalisation, when the last major changes in our currency took place, on 15th February 1971, there has been a drop in value of just under 60 per cent. Yet this drop is in no way reflected in the coins and in the notes that are in current use.

    It is clear, therefore, that a review is necessary and that steps ought reasonably to be taken so that people can have coins and notes that are convenient to handle, light in weight, last a reasonable time in the wallet or in the pocket, do not deteriorate so fast, and are easily recognisable by those who use them.

    I deal first with the question of the £1 coin. The Financial Times today carries a splendid cartoon suggesting that I should let nature take its course and the pound note will disappear anyway. If we allow it to go on long enough, I dare say that that will be so. In spite of the tremendous reduction in the inflation rate from nearly 30 per cent. about three ​ or four years ago to under 10 per cent. today, the pound still faces a change which is inevitable and which is continuing along with the world financial situation.

    What we now need is a coin which is convenient in use and which will last indefinitely. I am informed in answer to a Question that the average life of a £1 note today is 10 months, the life of a £5 note, which is used less, is 18 months, the life of a £10 note is two years and the life of a £20 note—which I do not think that some of us have ever seen—is two and a half years. A coin would be expected to have a life of at least 25 years. Therefore, even if the introduction of a coin were expensive at first, it would certainly be justified and much cheaper in the long run.

    Given that it would be possible to produce coins, the question then would be whether this introduction would mean the end of the pound note. Here I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in many other countries both coins and notes exist in the same denominations without causing any difficulty, so that those who prefer to use coins can handle coins and those who prefer to handle notes can handle notes. In France, for example, there are 50 franc and 10 franc notes and coins. As the value of the pound in France is about 9 francs, this means that the French have the equivalent of a £1 and a £5 coin, although the latter is not in common use.

    In West Germany they have 10 deutschemark and 5 deutschemark notes and coins. As the pound is equivalent to approximately 3·7 deutschemark, that means that Germany has coins worth about £1·30—an overlap in both places.

    In the United States there is a silver dollar and there is a dollar note. Those of us who have had the occasion to visit such centres of civilisation as Las Vegas have seen that the coins have a use in machinery which is never approached by notes. In this country there were some complaints, which perhaps my right hon. Friend will deal with in his reply, when the size of the pound note went down about whether the new pound note would be usable in, for example, the machinery at service stations.

    In Australia there is an almost complete coverage of notes and coins from ​ 50 Australian dollars down to one Australian dollar, in both cases with notes and coins.

    When the 50p piece was introduced at the time of decimalisation, Lord Fisk said that he recognised that introducing a coin of even 50p—or 10s. as it had been in value—would seem rather strange at first. He pointed out that many countries have coins to the value of the same amount as 50p or more.

    There would appear to be no good reason in common sense or in finance or in economics why there should not be a £1 coin. I noted that in the other place earlier this week Baroness Birk indicated that the matter was under review.

    Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to give an answer to a question which people are reasonably asking, which is why there is not to be a £1 coin very swiftly. Perhaps he will explain at the same time who makes the decision about whether there shall be. Is it him? Is it the Government? Is it the Bank of England? Who is it? Who decided that the £1 note should be reduced in size? Did he know about it before that decision was taken? If not, why not? Who is consulted? Was the House consulted? If not, why not? Decisions regarding our currency are of importance to our constituents and we are entitled to know what is to happen, what has happened, and why.

    I turn next to the crown coin. There is no coin available and in use between the 10p coin and the 50p coin. This is a gap about which shopkeepers complain. There would appear to be no good reason why this gap should not be plugged so that there can be an easier denomination in the giving of change. There is no need for the size to be too large.

    The White Paper issued at the time of decimalisation, specifically stated that the 50p coin
    “should be of such a shape and size that a 20p or 25p could be provided in the same tier later if the need should arise….

    The Board and the Royal Mint soon concluded that the 50p would have to be a fairly large coin so that it would be possible later to fit into the same tier a 20p or 25p in weight-value relationship”.

    Clearly, although the Jubilee crown was a splendid souvenir which is treasured by many of us and many of ​ our constituents, it is too bulky for everyday use. It is a souvenir and not a coin for use in the market place and there would appear to be no reason why we should not have a coin which is half the size or half the weight for a crown or, if the Government saw fit and the Bank of England thought it preferable to have a 20p piece, it would be one in the same relationship and one, I hope, which would be hexagonal—it should have many sides—unlike the ordinary round coins to which the 50p piece is the only exception.

    I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is no good reason in logic, economics or finance why there should not be a crown coin and why there should be this continued gap between the 10p and the 50p piece. Certainly the only answer that I have received has been that we do not want more coins because they are heavier. I repeat that if we were to have more coins, the notes could be continued, in so far as they exist, and that if there were coins of a higher denomination, fewer coins of the smaller denominations would need to be used.

    I turn to my next suggestion, which I hope has already been considered. It certainly should be if it has not. It is that our coins should be looked at in the light of the coinage of other countries to see whether there is any need for them to remain as bulky, and whether there really is any sensible reason why our coins should continue to drive holes through our pockets when they could be made from lighter and more convenient material, as they are in so many other countries.

    I suggest that there is very good reason for changing the shape of the coin. It is not only blind people who are concerned with the shape of the coinage. People who have to handle coins in conditions of poor light are also concerned, and we all like to know, from the feel of a coin in the pocket, what it is.

    There is no reason why we should remain, as we have done, so stagnant in our approach to coinage, and so old, fashioned. There is no reason why we should not have a radical change, even if, as was pointed out by Lord Fisk at the time of decimalisation, such a change is unpopular at first. It takes a while for people to get used to changes. I do not believe that this change would be ​ unpopular. I believe that it would be a very popular change to have lighter weight coinage of different shapes, which people could recognise readily and use readily. It would enable them, despite the lowering of the value of money, to have coins which are readily usable and changeable.

    It is quite plain that, even if these mild and, I suggest, modest and reasonable suggestions are to be taken into account, someone has to perform a general review. I presume that it would be my right hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Treasury. It may be that this would be together with the Bank of England but, whoever is involved, the review is now needed.

    From a reply given to me by my right hon. Friend earlier this year, I understand that there are periodical reviews and a balance between notes and coins, for example, but that no date has been fixed for the next periodic review. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that the time has come when the date ought to be fixed.

    Fortunately, the value of the coinage and the value of our notes is going down by “only” something under 10 per cent. per year, but the decrease in the value of the coinage means that there is an increase in their number. There is also an increase in the need for coins of convenient shape and size, an increase in the need for coins which cover the denominations in most common use—that certainly includes 25p—and an increase in the need for a coin which would reach the mighty level of the pound.

    I suggest that the time has come for us to have a silver pound, just as there is a silver American dollar. I hope that as the rate of inflation continues to decline the silver pound, which I would be very happy to hear the Minister announce, would retain its value for a very long time to come.

  • John Evans – 1978 Speech on Economic Problems in the North of England

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Evans, the then Labour MP for Newton, in the House of Commons on 7 April 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That this House believes that it is time a Minister with special responsibility for the North of England was appointed to the Cabinet.

    When I turned my thoughts to putting a motion on the Order Paper, my natural first thought, as a Member with a constituency partly in Merseyside, was to put down a motion about Merseyside and the appalling problem there, where thousands of redundancies have been declared in a number of industries in the past few weeks. They will add to the already appalling level of unemployment there But, as a Member with a constituency that is also partly in Greater Manchester and partly in Cheshire, I recognise only ​ too clearly that the problems of Merseyside cannot be settled in isolation from the rest of the North-West. The North-West has many appalling problems, particularly in the textile, boot and shoe, clothing and manufacturing sectors of industry.

    My second thought was to put down a motion in relation to the North-West of England, but, as someone who has lived and worked all his life on Tyneside and knows only too well that the appalling problems in the North-West of England also apply to the North-East of England, I realise that any solutions could be arrived at only on the basis of the North of England.

    I should like to define what I mean by “the North of England” in the motion. I would define it as those areas covered by the North-West Economic Planing Council, the Northern Economic Planning Council and the Humberside and Yorkshire Economic Planning Council. That is a fairly easily defined area where the problems thoughout the area stem from a common source.

    That area was once the heart of the British Empire—indeed, the heart of the world—with great industries turning out great wealth, to the benefit of all. But all those industries—steel, textile, shipbuilding, manufacturing and mining—are now in a state of considerable crisis. Many hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in that region in the past 20 years.

    We have had debates in the House on the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, which I believe will be established in the not too distant future. Those of us from the North must see what the position will be once the Assemblies are set up. We must appreciate that they will be very powerful bodies. They will have a great deal of muscle and will have powerful secretariats with a great deal of money to spend, looking around the world for industry. I believe that the Assemblies will be listened to with a great deal of respect in Whitehall and in the Cabinet, whatever party is in power.

    The people of Scotland and Wales will still have representation in this House. They will still have their separate Question Times and their Grand Committees. More important, they will have in the Cabinet a Secretary of State for Wales ​ and a Secretary of State for Scotland. I believe that that is the key to the issue, that they have a voice in the Cabinet, so that whenever issues are discussed the voices of Scotland and Wales are heard where it matters most.

    I believe that we have lost out in this respect. The voice and the feelings of the North of England have not been heard as loudly as they should have been in the Cabinet because we have not had one Minister representing our interests. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry is on the Government Front Bench now and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) is on the Opposition Front Bench. As there are only a few minutes left for debate, they cannot reply to me, but I shall be grateful for their written observations on that matter.

    The last local government reorganisation was truly disastrous in a wide variety of fields. Sooner or later we shall have to have a further round of local government reorganisation. My own constituency is a classic example. It is split across three county councils and four district councils, and there is even a new town in my constituency, which is part of the problems that have been heaped upon the people of that region.

    I believe that the next round of reorganisation, which will undoubtedly take place, will be the establishment of regional councils. That is essential for England. I believe that if we had those regional councils, which would take over all the functions of the metropolitan counties, the present county council structure being abolished, they would be able to establish their own development agencies.

    The Government would then be able to get rid of the present structure of regional grants and aids, many of which are manifestly unfair. Certainly they are grossly unfair to the North-West, where we are in competition with the other regions of Great Britain and of Europe. Only one small part of our region is covered by a special development area. The rest of the North-West, where we have such tremendous problems, enjoys only assisted area status. I believe that we shall never be able to solve

    [sitting suspended]

  • Nicholas Fairbairn – 1978 Speech on Being Excluded from HMS Caledonia

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicholas Fairbairn, the then Conservative MP for Kinross and West Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 6 April 1978.

    I am grateful to the Chair for being able to raise a matter which I consider raises important principles for the House and for the people of this country. Although it appears to be a personal issue, I have no personal hurt or feelings about it and it is not my intention to harass the Minister or his Department in any way. I hope that the Minister understands that. I am obliged to him for being present to reply to the debate. It raises grave matters for the House to which we need an answer which is not only truthful but which appears to be truthful and which can stand scrutiny.

    I shall give the facts of the matter. In May 1977 I was invited by the president of the mess of HMS “Caledonia” in Rosyth dockyard, which is near to my home, to address a mess dinner in July ​ of that year. On 23rd June I was informed that that dinner had been cancelled. I accepted that explanation but I wrote in the following terms to the president of the mess.

    “Being an advocate and an episcopalian and a Scot I have a naturally suspicious mind and I would like to be assured that there was a genuine reason for the cancellation of that dinner and that somewhere along the line I was not regarded as persona non grata personally or politically. The effect of a new date of course would confound my suspicions.”

    I was assured that that was true. Thereafter I discovered that the dinner had been held and that another person had been asked to speak at it. Therefore, I felt it right to raise the matter with the Minister.

    On 7th December 1977 I wrote a letter which inter alia included the following remarks:

    “This refusal caused gross embarrassment to my host and to the naval commanders of the base including C-in-C Northern Command and the Admiral in Scotland who were bidden by your Department to silence. My host was required to explain to me that dinner had been cancelled, which it had not. Will you please kindly explain to me for what reason I was held to be politically unacceptable to address wardroom dinner and also inform me on whose instructions the letter was written to the Captain informing me that the invitation to me was to be rescinded?”

    The letter is on file.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

    Outrageous.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    On 30th January I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State. What I am about to say is important. The Minister was ill. He had a most unfortunate illness, as we all have from time to time. For a period he was ill, but he graciously undertook his duties, and I pay tribute to that fact. I do not therefore wish to prey on the question of the delay.

    Nevertheless, on 30th January I received a detailed letter signed by the Minister which read inter alia:

    “As you know Ministers vet all invitations for Members of both Houses of Parliament to visit defence establishments for whatever purpose, and we thus have a good idea of those who have a genuine interest in defence matters. In particular I make it my personal concern to ensure that those Members invited to ‘social functions’ do indeed have a sustained interest in defence and have demonstrated such. My inquiries lead me to believe you have not paid any visits to HM ships or establishments, or to any Army or Royal Air Force establishment since your election to Parliament.

    Furthermore, I do not recall your ​ attendance at the two Navy debates I have fielded as Navy Minister, or for that matter any of the defence debates when I have been in attendance. Finally I arranged, with attendant publicity, for the Royal Navy presentation team to visit the House of Commons on 30th December 1977. As I had received your letter I made a particular point to check on your attendance. Unless you slipped in and out during the presentation while the room was in darkness I did not notice your presence among the 30 or 40 Members who were there. When I am confident that an hon. Member has demonstrated a genuine interest in defence matters I may feel much better disposed to encourage social visits.”

    Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)

    Is that really true?

    Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

    What arrogance!

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    Disgraceful.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    None of the allegations in that letter was accurate or true. But, forgiving that, what I find unacceptable is that that was not a genuine, although much researched and time consuming, answer. In other words, it was an utterly false and untrue explanation of why I had been excluded from that dinner.

    I had the courtesy of meeting the Minister and his superior, the Secretary of State. Following that I received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman himself, in which he said that

    “the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy had declined to issue an invitation as being outside the guidelines for visits by Members.”

    It went on:

    “He asks me to confirm in writing what he has already told you personally “—

    which the Minister had the courtesy to do—

    “that he completely withdraws the explanation offered in his letter and any suggestion of a lack of genuine interest in defence matters on your part, and that it was quite erroneous to suggest that such was the reason for not approving your visit.”

    In other words, the explanation given, which took six or seven weeks to contrive and which took eight paragraphs to express, was a deliberate falsehood. That is something that causes me concern—

    Mr. Gow

    And the country.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    As a result I wrote to the Prime Minister, and it was because of that that I had the meeting which resulted in a letter. My right hon. Friend ​ the Member for Amersham and Chesham (Sir I. Gilmour) wrote thereafter to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend has asked me to express his regret for his absence tonight owing to public duty abroad. I regret that my right hon. Friend is not present.

    But my right hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State, and the answer that we now have is still that I fell without a guideline on procedure. But if I fell without a guideline on procedure, I think that the House of Commons has a right to know upon what basis a Minister of the Crown is entitled to say that a Member of the House of Commons can be excluded from a visit to a defence establishment or any other establishment on the basis of his interest or his disinterest. If there are guidelines, we are entitled to know what they are. What was the circumstances in which I fell without them?

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    Is my hon. and learned Friend a security risk?

    Mr. Fairbairn

    The Minister said in his letter that I was not a security risk.

    What are the guidelines which I or any other Member, or any Cabinet Minister or Shadow Cabinet Minister, fall without? Also, if so reasonable, so determinable, so explicable, so obvious and so agreed an explanation was the explanation, why did the Navy have to be told to tell a lie to me? If the Navy was not told to tell a lie to me, as the Navy did tell a lie to me, why did the Navy feel it to be its duty to tell a lie to me?

    I accept the Minister’s word in his letter that the Navy was not required to tell a lie to me. Indeed, I accept the Minister’s word as often as he changes it. But it is important to know why the duty was put upon the Navy to deny it, and why the Minister thought it necessary, if there was so innocent an explanation as guidelines, that he should contrive over seven weeks a letter in eight paragraphs which gave an explanation which he is required to withdraw as totally false.

    Others might say that it was a lie. I cannot say that it is a lie. All that I can say is that I cannot conceive an explanation as to why the Navy was required to give one explanation, the Minister gave another, and his superior has required him to withdraw it and give a third.

    The House of Commons is being told that Members of it, unlike members of the public, cannot visit defence establishments if they fall outside the guidelines on procedure.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    Unpublished.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    Unpublished. Those are guidelines and procedures about which no one knows.

    Unless the Government wish to have the words “tyrant” and “truant”—

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    Dictator.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    —and “dictator”—put upon their coat tails tonight, they must give us an explanation, and a true explanation, not only as to why I was banned and was given false explanations but as to who else will be and has hitherto been banned.

    Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)

    I think that we have here a case of great importance, because the Government are clearly in a complete and utter muddle over the guidelines that they may or may not have.

    I should like to give evidence to the House of a position that has gravely affected me. I received an invitation to attend a weekend reserve officers’ course to address the officers and was told that I would not be allowed to do this. I then took the matter further with the Secretary of State, who told me that had they offered to give me dinner I could have attended happily.

    It appears that, on the one hand, I would have been allowed to address those officers on a full stomach, and, on the other hand, if perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) had gone on an empty stomach, he might have been allowed to address the officers of HMS “Caledonia”.
    Therefore we have a great muddle here. The Government do not know which way they are going. We look to the Minister to clarify the situation tonight.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on Testing Positive for the Coronavirus

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on Testing Positive for the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement issued by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 27 March 2020.

    Hi folks.

    I want to bring you up to speed on something that’s happening today which is that I’ve developed mild symptoms of the coronavirus. That’s to say – a temperature and a persistent cough.

    And, on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, I’ve taken a test. That has come out positive.

    So I am working from home. I’m self-isolating. And that’s entirely the right thing to do.

    But be in no doubt that I can continue, thanks to the wizardry of modern technology, to communicate with all my top team to lead the national fightback against coronavirus.

    And I want to thank everybody who’s involved, I want to thank, above all, our amazing NHS staff. It was very moving last night to join in that national clap for the NHS.

    But it’s not just the NHS, it’s our police, our social care workers, teachers, everybody who works in schools, DWP staff.

    An amazing national effort by the public services. But also by every member of the British public who’s volunteering, an incredible response – 600,000 people have volunteered to take part in a great national effort to protect people from the consequences of coronavirus – I want to thank you.

    I want to thank everybody who’s working to keep our country going through this epidemic.

    And we will get through it.

    And the way we’re going to get through it is, of course, by applying the measures that you’ll have heard so much about.

    And the more effectively we all comply with those measures, the faster our country will come through this epidemic and the faster we’ll bounce back.

    So thank you to everybody who’s doing what I’m doing, working from home, to stop the spread of the virus from household to household.

    That’s the way we’re going to win, we’re going to beat it, and we’re going to beat it together.

    Stay at home, protect the NHS, and save lives.

  • Luke Hall – 2020 Letter to Local Authorities on the Homeless and the Coronavirus

    Luke Hall – 2020 Letter to Local Authorities on the Homeless and the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the letter sent by Luke Hall, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to local authorities on 27 March 2020.

    Dear Local Leaders,

    Thank you for your continuing work in response to the COVID-19 crisis. This scale of the challenge we all face is unprecedented. I know this is a particularly challenging time and that you and your staff are going above and beyond to help support your communities at this time.

    Last week, the Government asked Dame Louise Casey to lead the Government’s response to COVID-19 and rough sleeping to help make sure that we bring everyone in. It is our joint responsibility to safeguard as many homeless people as we can from COVID-19. Our strategy must be to bring in those on the streets to protect their health and stop wider transmission, particularly in hot spot areas, and those in assessment centres and shelters that are unable to
    comply with social distancing advice.

    This approach aims to reduce the impact of COVID-19 on people facing homelessness and ultimately on preventing deaths during this public health emergency. Given the nature of the emergency, the priority is to ensure that the NHS and medical services are able to cope and we have built this strategy based on NHS medical guidance and support.

    The basic principles are to:

    focus on people who are, or are at risk of, sleeping rough, and those who are in accommodation where it is difficult to self-isolate, such as shelters and assessment centres

    make sure that these people have access to the facilities that enable them to adhere to public health guidance on hygiene or isolation, ideally single room facilities utilise alternative powers and funding to assist those with no recourse to public funds who require shelter and other forms of support due to the COVID-19 pandemic mitigate their own risk of infection, and transmission to others, by ensuring they are able to self-isolate as appropriate in line with public health guidance

    This should be done by taking the following programme of actions:

    1. Convening a local coordination cell to plan and manage your response to COVID and rough sleeping involving the local authority (housing, social care and public health) and local NHS partners together. This would then report in to wider local COVID structures.

    2. Seeking to stop homeless people from congregating in facilities such as day centres and street encampments where there is a higher risk of transmission

    3. Urgently procuring accommodation for people on the streets if you have not already done so – MHCLG will support you to do so if you are struggling to procure sufficient units

    4. Triaging people where possible into three cohorts driven by medical advice:

     those with symptoms of COVID19;
     those with pre-existing conditions but without symptoms; and
     those without any of the above.

    Attached to this letter is additional guidance on the approach that agencies should be taking to triaging agreed with NHS England and Public Health England.

    5. Getting the social care basics such as food, and clinician care to people who need it in the self-contained accommodation. It is likely that you will need to utilise your commissioned homeless services to provide support to people in this accommodation and we urge you to work with the commissioned and non-commissioned sector to make sure there are adequate levels of support provided.

    6. If possible, separating people who have significant drug and alcohol needs from those who do not.

    In the longer term it will of course be necessary to identifying step-down arrangements for the future, including the re-opening of shelter-type accommodation.

    Given the Prime Minister’s announcement on Monday night that the public should be staying in their homes wherever possible, it is now imperative that rough sleepers and other vulnerable homeless are supported into appropriate accommodation by the end of the week. Dame Louise is spearheading all of our efforts to get everyone in. As she has said ‘it won’t be perfect but all of us together will do our best’.

    We know that this requires funding. Last week, the Government announced £1.6bn for local authorities to respond to other COVID-19 pressures including for services helping the most vulnerable, including homeless people. This grant will cover all costs incurred in the first phase of the response, but we will keep future funding need under review. To support our understanding of what authorities or additional funding is likely to be required we will be working with local authorities to develop an ongoing assessment of costs.

    Thank you very much for everything you are doing to save lives and provide care for some of the most vulnerable in our society.

    Luke Hall MP

  • Les Huckfield – 1978 Speech on Viewdata and Teletext

    Below is the text of the speech made by Les Huckfield, the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry, in the House of Commons on 4 April 1978.

    I thank the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) for raising this important subject tonight. The CEEFAX and ORACLE systems of the BBC and the IBA respectively, and the Viewdata system of the Post Office, mark important advances in communications. I commend the hon. Member for the constructive way in which he made his points. He quite rightly commended the organisations concerned and their staffs directly concerned with the projects. These are fine British achievements, which have given this country a world lead, and on behalf of the Government I offer my congratulations to all concerned. I shall certainly pass on to Sir William Barlow and his staff the hon. Gentleman’s very kind words of praise.

    The hon. Gentleman has gone into some of the differences between the two systems, but I know that he will understand that the BBC and the IBA come within the areas of responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who I am sure will take very careful note of what he has said tonight, particularly in relation to the CEEFAX and ORACLE services. My own Department is, of course, responsible for the Post Office and for the well-being of British ​ manufacturing industry in general. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I tend to concentrate a little more on Viewdata and the set manufacturers, though I assure him that I shall attempt to cover the CEEFAX and the ORACLE aspects in my remarks as well.

    Let me make it clear that the setting up of the Viewdata service and its running come within the operational powers of the Post Office, as defined by the Post Office Act 1969. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is kept very closely informed of progress.

    As the hon. Gentleman says, the French authorities are developing their own teletext system, ANTIOPE, which, together with an associated system, is planned to provide services comparable with Viewdata and CEEFAX and ORACLE. I understand, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the technical specifications are rather different.

    The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred to the Post Office’s embarkation on a public trial for the Viewdata service in June this year. Some 1,500 subscribers in London, Birmingham and Norwich will take part. Over £8 million has already been invested by the Post Office in the project, and in February it announced that it had brought forward by one year the start of a full Viewdata service to the first quarter of 1979. It is allocating a further £18 million for the service in 1979 alone, which is, I think, a reflection of the confidence that the Post Office has in its system.

    By comparison, I understand that the French are not quite as advanced in setting up the commercial version of their ANTIOPE service.

    On the matter of exports, Viewdata has already achieved a major break-through by the sale of Viewdata know-how to the German Post Office. I believe that this should provide an important bridgehead into establishing Viewdata with foreign telecommunications administrations.

    There have also been a number of private demonstrations abroad, as well as seminars and public demonstrations at fairs and exhibitions, the latest of which have been in Zurich and Hong Kong. As a result, a number of countries, including European countries, have shown a great ​ deal of interest in purchasing the Viewdata software. In the United States, the New York offices of Insac Data Systems Limited, which is a subsidiary of the National Enterprise Board, already have an operational Viewdata terminal, which is linked to the computer centre in London, for demonstration purposes. The Post Office hopes that an agreement will be concluded in a few months’ time for Insac to market Viewdata in the United States of America, where there is already a considerable amount of interest being shown. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, therefore, that these opportunities are also holding great promise for British television set manufacturers and are very encouraging for them.

    On the question of international discussions, to which the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred, the question of standards for Viewdata-type and CEEFAX and ORACLE systems is already under discussion. The Post Office has informed me that it and the German Post Office are already in touch with the French authorities for ongoing discussions on the matter of standards to see what common areas exist between the Viewdata and ANTIOPE systems.

    On the multilateral level, the question of harmonising Viewdata-type services is being examined by a study group within the Conference of European PTT Administrations, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of which the Post Office is an active member. The international telegraph and telephone consultative committee of the International Telecommunication Union is also turning its mind to this type of wired service, as well as the broadcast teletext services.

    In fact, the ITU’s international radio consultative committee, on which the Home Office, BBC, IBA and the set manufacturers are represented, has been discussing the broadcast teletext services for some time and it is now coming together with the international telegraph and telephone consultative committee to take the discussion further.

    Although that committee’s interest lies mainly in line transmission standards and alphabet standards, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Post Office will take a very active part in the work concerned. Certainly we in the Government will keep a ​ close eye on the progress of such international discussions to ensure that should any Government-to-Government intervention appear helpful, such opportunities will be grasped firmly.

    Mr. Warren

    I should like an assurance that the Minister understands that at the moment there are two authorities speaking in these international conferences on behalf of the United Kingdom, whereas the French speak with one unified voice. But they are trying to make the running with a system which is later than ours and which has major problems which they are glossing over.

    Mr. Huckfield

    I am very much aware of what the hon. Gentleman says about the activities of the French, and we shall take it to heart.

    It would probably be helpful if I explained that the Post Office has made it clear that it will maintain the current Viewdata standards for the foreseeable future. At the same time it recognises that there may eventually be a need for a second generation of Viewdata service, at which time matters of compatability both for the television set manufacturers and the information providers will have to be considered.

    The hon. Member mentioned that there was some concern among the manufacturers that there should be closer co-operation among the various parties concerned on the line to take in international discussions. The Post Office assures me that it is fully seized of the need for very close co-ordination on this. It points out that, through the Viewdata liaison group, which comprises representatives of the Post Office, set manufacturers and information providers, the British Radio Equipment Manufacturers Association study groups, which include Post Office, BBC and IBA officials as well as the set manufacturers and its bilateral discussions with the BBC and IBA, it strives to present the most convincing and co-ordinated case in the various international discussions.

    The Home Office, which also takes part in international discussion on this, keeps closely in touch with the British parties involved. It does all it can to promote the British system vigorously in the international forums to which it is a party.

    As for the Government’s attitude, the fact that the Post Office is prepared to ​ commit funds now to a public Viewdata service, and bring forward the start of the service by one year, demonstrates the Post Office’s confidence in Viewdata and in the ability of all concerned to market it effectively. The Post Office is not in need of, and has not asked for, financial support from the Government to run the Viewdata programme; but my officials are in discussion with it to see whether there are any ways in which the Government can help.

    I noted what the hon. Member said about the industry’s desire to improve its promotional activity for Viewdata in Europe. I ask that representatives of the industry—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has contacts with it—make contact with my officials in the Department through the normal channels so that we may consider how the Government might lend support. I should perhaps mention that, through the micro-electronic support scheme, my Department is providing financial support totalling about £300,000 to two British companies involved in the manufacture of semiconductors to assist them in the development, production and marketing of custom-designed integrated circuits for Viewdata and broadcast Teletext. So there is some activity in that area. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to use his contacts with the representatives of the industry to ensure that we have more.

    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has authorised the broadcasting authorities to continue the development of their broadcast Teletext services. My right hon. Friend, while recognising that the development of Teletext raises a number of other important issues—particularly the implications for other communications media, particularly the newspaper industry—has made it very clear to the manufacturers that in his view the Teletext services are here to stay and has expressed his hope that that indication of the Government’s attitude will encourage the industry to provide the necessary equipments at a price which will bring them within the reach of the public at large. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, if we are to get this system accepted widely in public, we have to concentrate particularly on bringing down the cost of the receiving sets.

    I should like to deal with two points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the first of which was the idea that the Government should demonstrate their support of the Viewdata service by placing substantial orders for receivers for their own use. The Post Office and the set manufacturers are already in touch with those responsible for the procurement of communications equipment for central Government, and introducing them to the potentialities of Viewdata in an office environment. Clearly, the Government’s own procurement decisions must be guided primarily by efficiency and economy in carrying out their functions, but I am sure that Viewdata is being evaluated with a sympathetic awareness of its national importance. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of the right quarters.

    The hon. Gentleman’s other point concerned doubts raised recently about the maintenance of standards by advertisers using Viewdata. The Post Office is conscious of this problem and is discussing with the Advertising Standards Authority ways in which it can be tackled. The Post Office has adopted a policy under which editorial control rests firmly with the information providers, and matters of advertising standards have to be considered against this background.
    Finally, I once more thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what I think is a very significant British achievement. He sought the Government’s endorsement. I have tried to give him the Government’s endorsement tonight. I gladly, willingly and joyfully give it to him. I take this opportunity to reassure all concerned that it is the Government’s view that the standards presently being used for the Viewdata, CEEFAX and ORACLE services are effective and well proven. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government give their full backing and encouragement to the promotion, within Europe and elsewhere, of the international acceptance of these British standards.

    We have a great British achievement. We can be proud of that achievement. We want to extend that achievement elsewhere.

  • Kenneth Warren – 1978 Speech on Viewdata and Teletext

    Below is the text of the speech made by Kenneth Warren, the then Conservative MP for Hastings, in the House of Commons on 4 April 1978.

    Tonight I should like to raise the subject of Government support for the Viewdata and Teletext projects. These are means of transmitting information by both television and telephone to the public, industry and the community. They are brilliant British inventions. I think that they rank with the inventions of the jet ​ engine and radar in this country and that they are superb examples of British technical genius in action. Of particular importance is that they are two years in advance of any foreign rival. They are now on test and are not only proving that they work but that with good will they will meet the great expectations of the engineers who have developed them.

    I have nothing but praise for the way in which a dozen British companies, including the Post Office, have worked together in harmony but quietly in developing these new communications systems. More is the pity that in the quietness of the House we shall be told a story of British achievement, bearing in mind that the House is so often filled to hear the story of a British industrial disaster. Perhaps it is a reflection on all of us that we have become too used to failure and are not used to success when we see it.

    Our need tonight is to talk of the way in which we can bring this project, which is on the threshold of success, to the reality which I am sure both sides of the House want to see.

    I particularly praise the inventor of the system, Mr. Sam Fedida, who was once in the Post Office, and also the entrepreneurial style of Sir William Barlow and Dr. Alex Reid, who in the Post Office have shown a vigour, enthusiasm and entreprenuerial style which has been too long invisible in the Post Office. Praise also goes to those who worked on CEEFAX and ORACLE in the IBA and the BBC, who in parallel are leading the world—and my superlatives are carefully gauged—in this “first” in information technology. As a technologist myself, from what I have seen to date I believe that we have here a brilliant system, which will be a winner.

    The problem to which I wish to address myself tonight is the role that should now be played by the Government to ensure that the systems developed to date achieve the success that they deserve. For too long this country has failed to harvest the fruits of its own technology. For too long we have suffered industrial policies which have subsidised failure rather than stimulated success.

    The beauties of Viewdata and Teletext are that they are simple and will help ​ all the people of this country, and I hope, the world to gain a new freedom of access to information, not only across their own nations but across the frontiers of the world. They can be signal contributions to understanding between peoples.

    The clever parts of Viewdata and Teletext are translations of the concepts that started off as thoughts, drawings and views in the minds of people which now have been translated into systems that are proving that they are real and reliable. They are—I hope that the Government will recognise this—the first recognition in this country that a world information revolution is upon us. They are both systems which are built by venture capital from private industry and from the Post Office. Ranges of work have been done by companies such as Mullard, GEC, ITT, Rank, Decca—a dozen companies which make up the forefront of British communications technology.

    I have no doubt that the Minister will dispute my view, but I must say that I am delighted that the heavy hand of Whitehall has not been on the motive power of the project. On the other hand, I will be the first to say that if any Government are needed in an industrial project their presence in specific areas where help is required needs to be timely and of sufficient strength to complete the job properly.

    I should like to propose certain ways in which the Government could and should now help. The first is to endorse the systems as viable ways in which information can be conveyed between people. This may sound an unusual proposal to put before a House or to a Government—that all they have to do is to shout “Hurrah”—but this is such a wonderful invention that an endorsement by a British Government would be tremendous, timely and completely fair and reasonable.

    Secondly, I believe that the Government should give leadership in establishing that the viable and reasonable international standards for all these systems can be achieved.

    Thirdly, I ask that the Government should recognise that these systems are means of improving the process of government at all levels of government in the United Kingdom, whether it be at ​ national, county or district level, or within the national corporations of the State.

    To enlarge briefly on each of these proposals, taking endorsement first, a public expression by the Government of good will towards the project would not only be a spur to those who have quietly given so much of their time and their effort but also would be a tremendous help, I understand, to export sales projects. Be fore I came to the House, I knew what it was like to try to sell electronic goods in a very competitive market in the United States and the difference it makes or does not make to have the support of a British Government. I did not have it and it was like going up the north wall of the Eiger. Why not give these people the chance of a smoother ride round the softer side?

    I understand that the Post Office export division is all ready to go. I think that it should be assisted.

    We must also, I hope, look to the Government to ensure that any necessary legislation—this needs to be examined—is on line on time.

    On the question of leadership, to put it bluntly the French came in two years after we had started, and now, as is too often the case with our French allies, they are unwisely, from a technical viewpoint—I do not think it is my place in the House tonight to give way any technical secrets to which I might have become privy—trying to force through international specifications in favour of their equipment without the authority of technical backing which they should have.

    The Government could give leadership and I believe should give leadership in the relevant international authorities such as the Conference of European Posts and Telecommunications to make our systems and their systems acceptable rather than to find a situation where the French are trying to make our system unacceptable and theirs acceptable. We must speak through the Government with one authority for telecommunications and broadcasting at the debating tables where these international standards are agreed.

    Thirdly, I think that the Government should explore immediately, in collaboration perhaps with the central computer authority of the Civil Service Department which I recognise is another Department ​ from that of the Minister who is kindly replying to the debate tonight, the use of this breakthrough in information processes to improve the process of government. I have absolutely no doubt that the Viewdata and Teletext could bring to the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Department of Trade, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Minister’s own Department, new ways in which information could be gathered and exchanged.

    I hope that it would help the market surveys of the Department’s own requirement boards, which, I was told in a parliamentary reply, are unable to carry out their own surveys through a lack of expertise. I hope it would help the Foreign Office in the United Nations debate on direct satellite broadcasting, because these systems provide a means of supporting the British contention that we can supply world-wide freedom of access to information across frontiers.

    However, the Luddites are at work, and it is not unusual with new technologies to find people speaking sourly of something that looks like progress. I understand that the National Union of Journalists is already in dispute over one of the systems about who should get the jobs involved. But this is a new project which offers more than enough jobs for everyone, and everyone should welcome the chance of many more jobs. I hope that all the unions will look upon this development as an opportunity for new employment.

    I understand that the Advertising Standards Association feels that someone should censor what is available. The deputy director of that authority believes that Viewdata could become

    “a haven for all sorts of crooks and misleading advertisers who could not find a home in the existing media”.

    That Luddite attitude must be dismissed rapidly, so that it does not present an obstacle to what should be a great British venture. To achieve that I should be happy to give Mrs. Whitehouse the chance of acting as a temporary censor.

    In this century we have seen two great revolutions in communications. The first was that of the Wright brothers, who opened the door to Concorde, by which ​ the world can be spanned in a day. The second has been the revolution in communications by which we have literally moved from smoke signals to Viewdata and Teletext. We have changed communications so that instead of people having to travel to find facts they simply use television and the telephone. It would not be going too far to say that here for the first time in 20 or 25 years since the world first saw the computer we can look to a new world of communications which is dawning before us.

    The systems are a world of enterprise for industry. New jobs will replace old and more jobs will be waiting. We are only one year away from the systems being available in the High Streets of Britain, yet their names have never before been mentioned in Parliament. We now need a combined effort by industry and Government to reach out for the international success that these systems truly deserve, and I look forward to the Government tonight meeting me in that request.

  • G20 – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    G20 – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by the G20 leaders on 26 March 2020.

    The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic is a powerful reminder of our interconnectedness and vulnerabilities. The virus respects no borders. Combatting this pandemic calls for a transparent, robust, coordinated, large-scale and science-based global response in the spirit of solidarity. We are strongly committed to presenting a united front against this common threat.

    We are deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life and the suffering faced by people around the world. Tackling the pandemic and its intertwined health, social and economic impacts is our absolute priority. We express our gratitude and support to all frontline health workers as we continue to fight the pandemic.

    The G20 is committed to do whatever it takes to overcome the pandemic, along with the World Health Organization (WHO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank Group (WBG), United Nations (UN), and other international organizations, working within their existing mandates. We are determined to spare no effort, both individually and collectively, to:

    Protect lives.

    Safeguard people’s jobs and incomes.

    Restore confidence, preserve financial stability, revive growth and recover stronger.

    Minimize disruptions to trade and global supply chains.

    Provide help to all countries in need of assistance.

    Coordinate on public health and financial measures.

    Fighting the Pandemic

    We commit to take all necessary health measures and seek to ensure adequate financing to contain the pandemic and protect people, especially the most vulnerable. We will share timely and transparent information; exchange epidemiological and clinical data; share materials necessary for research and development; and strengthen health systems globally, including through supporting the full implementation of the WHO International Health Regulations (IHR 2005). We will expand manufacturing capacity to meet the increasing needs for medical supplies and ensure these are made widely available, at an affordable price, on an equitable basis, where they are most needed and as quickly as possible. We stress the importance of responsible communication to the public during this global health crisis. We task our Health Ministers to meet as needed to share national best practices and develop a set of G20 urgent actions on jointly combatting the pandemic by their ministerial meeting in April.

    We fully support and commit to further strengthen the WHO’s mandate in coordinating the international fight against the pandemic, including the protection of front-line health workers, delivery of medical supplies, especially diagnostic tools, treatments, medicines, and vaccines. We acknowledge the necessity of urgent short-term actions to step up the global efforts to fight the COVID-19 crisis. We will quickly work together and with stakeholders to close the financing gap in the WHO Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan. We further commit to provide immediate resources to the WHO’s COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation (CEPI) and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, on a voluntary basis. We call upon all countries, international organizations, the private sector, philanthropies, and individuals to contribute to these efforts.

    To safeguard the future, we commit to strengthen national, regional, and global capacities to respond to potential infectious disease outbreaks by substantially increasing our epidemic preparedness spending. This will enhance the protection of everyone, especially vulnerable groups that are disproportionately affected by infectious diseases. We further commit to work together to increase research and development funding for vaccines and medicines, leverage digital technologies, and strengthen scientific international cooperation. We will bolster our coordination, including with the private sector, towards rapid development, manufacturing and distribution of diagnostics, antiviral medicines, and vaccines, adhering to the objectives of efficacy, safety, equity, accessibility, and affordability.

    We ask the WHO, in cooperation with relevant organizations, to assess gaps in pandemic preparedness and report to a joint meeting of Finance and Health Ministers in the coming months, with a view to establish a global initiative on pandemic preparedness and response. This initiative will capitalize on existing programs to align priorities in global preparedness and act as a universal, efficient, sustained funding and coordination platform to accelerate the development and delivery of vaccines, diagnostics and treatments.

    Safeguarding the Global Economy

    We commit to do whatever it takes and to use all available policy tools to minimize the economic and social damage from the pandemic, restore global growth, maintain market stability, and strengthen resilience.

    We are currently undertaking immediate and vigorous measures to support our economies; protect workers, businesses—especially micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises—and the sectors most affected; and shield the vulnerable through adequate social protection. We are injecting over $5 trillion into the global economy, as part of targeted fiscal policy, economic measures, and guarantee schemes to counteract the social, economic and financial impacts of the pandemic.

    We will continue to conduct bold and large-scale fiscal support. Collective G20 action will amplify its impact, ensure coherence, and harness synergies. The magnitude and scope of this response will get the global economy back on its feet and set a strong basis for the protection of jobs and the recovery of growth. We ask our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors to coordinate on a regular basis to develop a G20 action plan in response to COVID-19 and work closely with international organizations to swiftly deliver the appropriate international financial assistance.

    We support the extraordinary measures taken by central banks consistent with their mandates. Central banks have acted to support the flow of credit to households and businesses, promote financial stability, and enhance liquidity in global markets. We welcome the extension of swap lines that our central banks have undertaken. We also support regulatory and supervisory measures taken to ensure that the financial system continues to support the economy and welcome the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) announced coordination of such measures.

    We also welcome the steps taken by the IMF and the WBG to support countries in need using all instruments to the fullest extent as part of a coordinated global response and ask them to regularly update the G20 on the impacts of the pandemic, their response, and policy recommendations. We will continue to address risks of debt vulnerabilities in low-income countries due to the pandemic. We also ask the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to monitor the pandemic’s impact on employment.

    Addressing International Trade Disruptions

    Consistent with the needs of our citizens, we will work to ensure the flow of vital medical supplies, critical agricultural products, and other goods and services across borders, and work to resolve disruptions to the global supply chains, to support the health and well-being of all people.

    We commit to continue working together to facilitate international trade and coordinate responses in ways that avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade. Emergency measures aimed at protecting health will be targeted, proportionate, transparent, and temporary. We task our Trade Ministers to assess the impact of the pandemic on trade.

    We reiterate our goal to realize a free, fair, non-discriminatory, transparent, predictable and stable trade and investment environment, and to keep our markets open.

    Enhancing Global Cooperation

    We will work swiftly and decisively with the front-line international organizations, notably the WHO, IMF, WBG, and multilateral and regional development banks to deploy a robust, coherent, coordinated, and rapid financial package and to address any gaps in their toolkit. We stand ready to strengthen the global financial safety nets. We call upon all these organizations to further step up coordination of their actions, including with the private sector, to support emerging and developing countries facing the health, economic, and social shocks of COVID-19.

    We are gravely concerned with the serious risks posed to all countries, particularly developing and least developed countries, and notably in Africa and small island states, where health systems and economies may be less able to cope with the challenge, as well as the particular risk faced by refugees and displaced persons. We consider that consolidating Africa’s health defence is a key for the resilience of global health. We will strengthen capacity building and technical assistance, especially to at-risk communities. We stand ready to mobilize development and humanitarian financing.

    We task our top relevant officials to coordinate closely in support of the global efforts to counter the pandemic’s impacts, including through proportionate border management measures in accordance with national regulations and to provide assistance where necessary to repatriate citizens. We value the efforts to safeguard our people’s health through the postponement of major public events, in particular the decision by the International Olympic Committee to reschedule the Olympic Games to a date no later than summer 2021. We commend Japan’s determination to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games Tokyo 2020 in their complete form as a symbol of human resilience.

    We stand ready to react promptly and take any further action that may be required. We express our readiness to convene again as the situation requires. Global action, solidarity and international cooperation are more than ever necessary to address this pandemic. We are confident that, working closely together, we will overcome this. We will protect human life, restore global economic stability, and lay out solid foundations for strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2020 Statement on the Self-Employed and the Coronavirus

    Rishi Sunak – 2020 Statement on the Self-Employed and the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 26 March 2020.

    Good afternoon.

    Today I can announce the next step in the economic fight against the Coronavirus pandemic, with new support for the self-employed.

    Our step-by-step action plan is aiming to slow the spread of Coronavirus so fewer people need hospital treatment at any one time, protecting the NHS’s ability to cope.

    At every point, we have followed expert advice to be controlled in our actions – taking the right measures at the right times.

    We are taking unprecedented action to increase NHS capacity by increasing the numbers of beds, key staff and life-saving equipment on the front-line to give people the care they need.

    That is why it is absolutely critical that people follow our instructions to stay at home, so we can protect our NHS and save lives.

    Our action plan to beat the pandemic is the right thing to do – but we know people are worrying about their jobs and their incomes.

    Working closely with businesses and trade unions, we have put together a coherent, coordinated and comprehensive economic plan – a plan which is already starting to make a difference:

    big employers like Brewdog, Timpsons and Pret have already said that our Coronavirus Jobs Retention Scheme means they can furlough thousands of staff, rather than laying them off. And we are publishing this evening detailed guidance on how the scheme will operate so that other businesses can take advantage, too

    small businesses are already benefiting from Coronavirus Business Interruption Loans of up to £5 million, which are interest free for 12 months – with 30,000 enquiries in just four days

    local authorities are already informing more than 700,000 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that they will pay no business rates this year

    and the new hardship grants scheme, providing cash grants of up to £25,000 for the smallest businesses, is now up and running

    So if any business is struggling, and worrying they may need to lose staff, I would urge you to log on to businesssupport.gov.uk, and look very carefully at what support is available before deciding to lay people off.

    I’m proud of what we’ve done so far, but I know that many self-employed people are deeply anxious about the support available for them.

    Musicians and sound engineers; plumbers and electricians; taxi drivers and driving instructors; hairdressers and childminders and many others, through no fault of their own, risk losing their livelihoods.

    To you, I say this: You have not been forgotten. We will not let you behind. We are all in this together.

    So, to support those who work for themselves, today I am announcing a new Self-Employed Income Support Scheme.

    The government will pay self-employed people, who have been adversely affected by the Coronavirus, a taxable grant worth 80% of their average monthly profits over the last three years, up to £2,500 a month.

    This scheme will be open for at least three months – and I will extend it for longer if necessary.

    You’ll be able to claim these grants and continue to do business.

    And we’re covering the same amount of income for a self-employed person as we are for furloughed employees, who also receive a grant worth 80%.

    That’s unlike almost any other country and makes our scheme one of the most generous in the world.

    Providing such unprecedented support for self-employed people has been difficult to do in practice.

    And the self-employed are a diverse population, with some people earning significant profits.

    So I’ve taken steps to make this scheme deliverable, and fair:

    to make sure that the scheme provides targeted support for those most in need, it will be open to anyone with income up to £50,000.

    to make sure only the genuinely self-employed benefit, it will be available to people who make the majority of their income from self-employment

    and to minimise fraud, only those who are already in self-employment, who have a tax return for 2019, will be able to apply

    95% of people who are majority self-employed will benefit from this scheme.

    HMRC are working on this urgently and expect people to be able to access the scheme no later than the beginning of June.

    If you’re eligible, HMRC will contact you directly, ask you to fill out a simple online form, then pay the grant straight into your bank account.

    And to make sure no one who needs it misses out on support, we have decided to allow anyone who missed the filing deadline in January, four weeks from today to submit their tax return.

    But I know many self-employed people are struggling right now, so we’ve made sure that support is available.

    Self-employed people can access the business interruption loans.

    Self-assessment income tax payments, that were due in July, can be deferred to the end of January next year.

    And we’ve also changed the welfare system so that self-employed people can now access Universal Credit in full.

    A self-employed person with a non-working partner and two children, living in the social rented sector, can receive welfare support of up to £1,800 per month.

    The scheme I have announced today is fair.

    It is targeted at those who need it the most.

    Crucially, it is deliverable.

    And it provides an unprecedented level of support for self-employed people.

    As we’ve developed the scheme, I’m grateful for the conversations I’ve had with the Federation of Small Businesses, the association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, and a range of trade unions, including the Trades Union Congress.

    But I must be honest and point out that in devising this scheme – in response to many calls for support – it is now much harder to justify the inconsistent contributions between people of different employment statuses.

    If we all want to benefit equally from state support, we must all pay in equally in future.

    These last ten days have shaken our country and economy as never before.

    In the last two weeks we have put aside ideology and orthodoxy to mobilise the full power and resources of the British state.

    We have done so in pursuit of a single goal: to protect people’s health and economic security, by supporting public services like our NHS, backing business, and protecting people’s jobs and incomes.

    What we have done will, I believe, stand as one of the most significant economic interventions at any point in the history of the British state, and by any government, anywhere in the world. We have:

    pledged that whatever resources the NHS needs, it will get

    promised to pay 80% of the wages of furloughed workers for three months up to £2,500

    deferred more than £30 billion of tax payments until the end of the year

    agreed nearly 17,000 Time to Pay arrangements for businesses and individuals

    made available £330 billion of loans and guarantees

    introduced cash grants of up to £25,000 for small business properties

    covered the cost of statutory sick pay for small businesses for up to two weeks

    lifted the incomes of over four million households with a nearly £7 billion boost to the welfare system

    agreed three-month mortgage holidays with lenders and nearly £1 billion more support for renters through the Local Housing Allowance

    and today we’ve announced one of the most generous self-employed support schemes in the world

    Despite these extraordinary steps, there will be challenging times ahead. We will not be able to protect every single job or save every single business.

    But I am confident that the measures we have put in place will support millions of people, businesses and self-employed people to get through this, get through it together, and emerge on the other side both stronger and more united.

    Thank you.