UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • George Eustice – 2020 Letter to the Food and Drink Industry

    George Eustice – 2020 Letter to the Food and Drink Industry

    Below is the text of the letter sent by George Eustice, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 26 March 2020.

    To those working hard to feed the nation,

    In the face of what is perhaps the greatest health challenge this country has faced in our lifetime, I want to pay tribute to all those who are working around the clock to keep the nation fed – in our fields, processing plants, factories, wholesalers, stores and takeaways and all of those moving goods around the country and to our homes.

    The last three weeks have been stressful and difficult for everyone working to feed the country and provide them with other essential items. Food retailers have faced an unprecedented increase in demand and those working in food production and distribution have had to work harder than ever to ensure that food and drink are kept on the shelves.

    The Government has recently taken some unprecedented steps to close cinemas, leisure centres and other public venues and to instruct people to stay at home, protect our NHS and save lives.

    However, there are many key workers that are crucial to the resilience of our country. Our NHS staff will be working harder than ever in the weeks ahead. Those of you working to provide the nation with food and other essentials are also delivering an absolutely vital service.

    I am in regular dialogue with the food and drink industry and the Government has offered guidance to employers to ensure that when you do your job, you can do so safely. The advice of Public Health England is that there is very little risk of the virus being spread on food or packaging.

    Everyone working in the food and drink industry has rallied in an extraordinary way to respond to this unprecedented challenge. Having worked in the food industry myself, I am personally enormously proud and thankful for all the work that you have done in recent weeks, and will be asked to do in the weeks ahead. In many cases you are the hidden heroes, and the country is grateful for all that you have done.

    Yours sincerely,

    George Eustice

  • John Stanley – 1978 Speech on Snatched Children

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Stanley, the then Conservative MP for Tonbridge and Malling, in the House of Commons on 23 March 1978.

    I am glad to have the opportunity in the final debate before the recess to raise the subject of the problem of tracing snatched children. I acknowledge the very important help that I have had from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) in understanding the legal implications of the present situation. I am referring not to a child who is snatched by a passer-by but to the more complex and problematical matter of a child who is snatched by one parent from the other. The most difficult aspect is when the snatch takes place before divorce proceedings are finalised and there is no clear determination of arrangements for custody or access.

    I refer to a particularly distressing and heart-rending case that has occurred in my constituency—that of four-year old Mathew Allingham. Last summer his parents were in the process of getting a divorce. The divorce negotiations were proceeding perfectly amicably. Custody had been agreed in principle—Mathew was to go to Mrs. Allingham who would have custody, and access rights for Mr. Allingham had been agreed. Maintenance had also been agreed, as had the division of the proceeds of the matrimonial home.

    In June last year before the divorce arrangements had been completely finalised, Mr. Allingham requested to be allowed to take Mathew away for a week’s holiday. Mrs. Allingham agreed, ​ and there were no grounds whatever up to that point for suspicion on her part. She went away at the same time and when she came back she found a letter from her husband which read:

    “I have taken Mathew on an extended holiday. Do not worry. You know that I will look after him.”

    That was nine months ago. Despite the most exhaustive inquiries by the Kent police and others, and most rigorous, sustained and valiant efforts by Mrs. Allingham’s solicitor, Mr. Richard Dresner, whose contribution I cannot praise too highly, Mathew still has not been found. Both he and his father have disappeared without trace.

    This case has highlighted three major deficiencies in the arrangements for protecting what we all consider to be the fundamental rights of a child to preserve access to each of his or her parents. The first deficiency is the absence of mutual enforcement provisions, between this country and others, on wardship and custody orders. This is particularly relevant in this case. Mathew was made an interim ward of court almost immediately after the snatch occurred, but the wardship order was approved by an English court and was therefore only legally valid in England and Wales. It had no legal validity in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, let alone any Commonwealth countries, the United States or the EEC countries.

    The present situation is that if one parent snatches a child away from the other parent and is able to get that child out of England or Wales, he or she is reasonably certain of avoiding the English wardship order. We already have mutual enforcement provisions on maintenance orders between this country and others. It is high time that we extended that principle to wardship and custody orders.

    The absence of such arrangements at present are relevant to this sad and depressing case because Mr. Allingham has a brother in Canada and it may well be that he has taken Mathew there. The absence of any mutual enforcement provisions in regard to Mathew’s wardship order means that if he is traced and found in Canada it will be necessary for Mrs. Allingham to institute legal proceedings in a Canadian court to secure the return of her son to this country.

    I come to the second major deficiency in the system. I refer to the absence of any form of legal aid in legal proceedings overseas. I said that if Mathew were found overseas, perhaps in Canada, it would in theory be open to Mrs. Allingham to institute proceedings in a Canadian court for his return to the United Kingdom. But that is only a theoretical option open to her. She is in receipt of legal aid, but because under the rules such aid is not available to pursue cases overseas, she would have no means financially by which she could initiate an action in a Canadian court for the recovery of her son.

    Mrs. Allingham at present has the cards stacked against her. They are certainly stacked against Mathew’s chances of being reunited with his mother. Mrs. Ailingham’s son has been snatched and he might successfully be traced, possibly later this year or at some time in the future, in Canada. But if the present situation endures, Mrs. Allingham will find that her English wardship order has no legal force in Canada.

    Mrs. Allingham will find that the fact that she is unable to obtain legal aid for an action overseas will leave her with no means of instituting proceedings in a Canadian court. She is left with one option—a highly disagreeable and distasteful one and one which is emotionally traumatic for her, and even more so for the child. The option lies in trying to arrange, by stealth and subterfuge, a snatch-back or counter-snatch. Because of the inadequacy of the present arrangements, Mrs. Allingham’s solicitor has advised her that that would be the course to be followed if Mathew is identified overseas.
    I suggest that in the latter half of the twentieth century in a civilised country it is morally indefensible that we should put a mother or father in a position whereby, to secure the recovery of a child, he or she is unable to use the procedures in court but is forced to engage in a snatch-back.

    I suggest that, although I fully recognise that there are major problems to extend legal aid generally to matters overseas, in these circumstances the human considerations are so extenuated and fundamental that a special fund should be created to enable those parents who wish to have financial help to carry out pro- ​ ceedings in courts overseas for the recovery of their children who are subject to wardship or custody arrangements in the United Kingdom.

    Finally, there is a third deficiency, and that is the question of the tracing of snatched children. As I have discovered when examining all the ramifications of this case, it is surprisingly easy in Britain to disappear. One can change one’s name very easily. We have no system of identity cards, and Government Departments strictly enforce the principle of the confidentiality of personal information that is given to them. I in no way wish to abandon any of those practices. I believe that it is right and reasonable in a free society that if people want to embark on a new life, for whatever reason, they should be able, if they wish, to change their names.

    I certainly oppose the introduction of an identity card system and I attach the greatest importance to maintaining the principle of the privacy of personal information given to Government Departments. However, a case such as the one to which I am referring means that we need again to consider whether there are ways in which we can do more to protect the rights of snatched children and retain access for the parents from whom they have been snatched.

    I should like the Minister to look at three courses of action that might help the tracing process in this country. Will she have consultations within her Department to satisfy herself that the powers available to the police are adequate and give them all reasonable prospects of identifying and tracing snatched children? I fully appreciate that the Allingham case is not a criminal matter but a civil matter and that therefore assistance given by police forces is on an ex gratia basis rather than in fulfilment of their legal obligations.

    Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether it might be possible to do more through local education authorities to establish whether a snatched child is continuing to go to school in another area, perhaps under a different name? If Mathew is still in this country, he will shortly be of the age to start school, and this is another avenue which should be explored.

    I should also be grateful if the Minister would consult the Secretary of State for ​ Social Services, because the Department of Health and Social Security has access to the names and addresses of people receiving benefits and paying national insurance contributions. I understand that the Department regards the privacy of information given to it as a fundamentally important principle, but that it makes ex-exceptions when children have been snatched. I was glad to receive a letter from the Under-Secretary at the Department on 25th November. He said:

    “I can assure you, however, that it is the Department’s policy to help parents, guardians, courts or the police when they ask for the address of a missing child. Local social security offices have instructions that for this purpose they may make an exception to the normal rules of confidentiality and may provide the address of a child missing from home to the police or to a person known to be the child’s parent or guardian.”

    However, although that may be the official ministerial view, the exceptions on confidentiality may not have percolated through to local offices of the Department. Mrs. Allingham received a letter on 16th March from the North Fylde office of the Department. She had been making inquiries about a possible new address for her husband in this country. Mr. G. B. Duffy replied to her:

    “I must however, tell you that if then a later address was held in the Departments records we might not be able to let you have the address, such information being regarded by the Department as confidential. However while your son Mathew is the subject of wardship proceedings we would inform Tunbridge Wells County Court of the address at their request.”

    I am unhappy about the phrase “at their request”. The onus should be on the Department to make details available to the court as soon as it has any new information about the whereabouts of Mr. Allingham. The onus should not be on the court to make continuing applications to the Department. I should be grateful if the Minister would look into that.
    The case of Mathew Allingham highlights some glaring deficiencies in our arrangements for tracing snatched children. There are deficiencies certainly if a child is snatched and taken overseas, and possibly there are some deficiencies, too, in the tracing process in Britain. I believe that we owe it to every child to protect its right of access to its parents. I hope that the Government will accept that we shall be failing in our responsibility ​ towards children who are snatched in future if we leave the present situation unchanged.

  • Eric Varley – 1978 Statement on the British Steel Corporation

    Below is the text of the statement made by Eric Varley, the Secretary of State for Industry, in the House of Commons on 22 March 1978.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the British Steel Corporation.

    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 28th February, the Government have been conducting a study in depth of the medium and longer-term position of the British Steel Corporation. There has recently been much public concentration on the Corporation’s likely losses in 1977–78. As I have told the House, these losses result from the worst crisis in the world steel industry for more than 40 years and one ​ in which the BSC’s overseas competitors are suffering in common with the Corporation.

    Our review has now been completed. Close consultations have taken place with the Corporation and the TUC steel committee. We have also taken account of the reports of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. The Government’s conclusions are set out in a White Paper which is being published today. A separate White Paper will be published soon giving the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s recommendations.

    A modern steel industry is vital to an industrial nation. The Government will therefore ensure that a substantial bulk steel-making capacity is available in this country. The BSC plays a key role in supplying our manufacturing industries with the major part of their steel requirements. That must continue.

    Our examination has shown that the present world surplus of steel will last for many years and that the sales opportunities for BSC, both at home and overseas, on which the ten-year development strategy of February 1973 was based, are no longer realistic even on the most optimistic assumptions. In present market conditions, the Corporation has substantial over-capacity. In the next few years, considerable additional capacity will become available from large modernisation and expansion schemes already close to completion. A sufficient margin is essential to supply home and export needs when the world economy moves out of recession, and to provide for the unforeseen eventualities which have persistently invalidated previous forecasts. But neither the Corporation nor the country can afford the cost of the mounting overcapacity that would result from unchanged policies.

    Accordingly, the BSC has proposed, and the Government have agreed, the following policies. First, modernisation and expansion projects already approaching completion must be finished—for example, Redcar II B and Ravenscraig III. Secondly, substantial investment to improve product quality and so ensure competitiveness in the 1980s must continue. Subject to the conditions in the White Paper, the Corporation hopes to make a start on the installation of continuous casting facilities at Port Talbot in 1978–79.

    Very substantial improvements in productivity are also needed if the Corporation is to become viable. The trade unions and local workers’ representatives have a major role to play in this. The TUC steel committee has made clear its commitment to achieving this improvement. For their part, the Government are determined to give full, sustained and public support to steps to achieve improved productivity in BSC and will continue to promote this with both the BSC management and the TUC steel committee.

    Only by a common effort can we attain an internationally competitive British Steel Corporation that supplies the steel our manufacturing industries need, a Corporation that provides a secure livelihood for those employed in it while making a proper return on the resources invested by the taxpayer—the efficient, competitive and profitable British steeel industry that we need and are determined to achieve.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2020 Speech on the Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

    Jeremy Corbyn – 2020 Speech on the Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 25 March 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the emergency financial and social package needed to support people, families and business through the covid-19 outbreak.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for accommodating the change that we wanted to make to the Order Paper today to make for a more efficient debate, and to ensure that Prime Minister’s Question Time ran for the extra time that you gave it. In response to what the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) said, I join him in paying tribute to the life of Tristan Garel-Jones, whom I knew very well when he was a Conservative MP. He had an enormous knowledge of Latin America and central America, and spoke very fluent Spanish. He and I would often exchange pleasantries in Spanish in the Tea Room. I send my best regards to his family: “Siento la muerte de Señor Garel-Jones”.

    We are holding this debate amid a crisis unlike any other we have experienced in our lifetimes. I hope that the Leader of the House, whom I thank for the kind remarks he made about me, understands how important it is that, in this crisis, democracy is not closed down, but strengthened and enhanced. It is the job of Oppositions to hold the Government to account. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for the kind remarks she made and for the work that she is doing in her role as shadow Leader of the House.

    The coronavirus outbreak will have a lasting impact on our economy and our society. Life is never going to be the same again. The immediate task of the Opposition is to help to arrest the spread of the coronavirus and to support the public health efforts that are being made, while being constructively critical where necessary to ensure that there is an improved official response. I thank all hon. Members for the questions they put to the Leader of the House about how the House can continue to operate as it should, even during a recess.

    The advice and instructions are crystal clear, so people know precisely what they should and should not do to limit or slow the spread of the virus, but there needs to be detailed guidance to employers and workers about which workplaces should close. Clear communication from the Government is vital for everybody’s safety. The crisis exposes the vulnerabilities in our economy and our society. Underfunded public services, insecure work and a threadbare social security system all carry a heavy burden, which is usually hidden from public view, but has been thrust into a brutal light by a public health emergency.

    The crisis also shows just how dependent we are on one another, and on the many ties of mutual aid woven together that make up the fabric of our society and our communities. We can come out of the crisis with that fabric strengthened if we value and support one another. ​I pay tribute to all the fantastic people, many of them young people, who are volunteering now to help people going through stress and crisis. Indeed, I met a group last week who were leafleting in my constituency to ensure that everybody gets some help if they need it. Our first duty is to say to all of them: thank you.

    Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that although there are some excellent local initiatives, the announcement in the last two days of a national initiative is welcome? It would be great to have some co-ordination, however, to cut out any confusion about who should volunteer, when and where.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    My hon. Friend is right. There are lots of enthusiastic volunteers, which is great, but the initiatives need co-ordination and protection. We are dealing with assisting vulnerable people, so we have to be quite clear that the people who are volunteering are responsible and are doing it for all the right motives. All the volunteer groups that I have been in touch with and met are clear about that. They are well organised and responsible in the way that they are doing it, and I thank them for that. All those efforts will help us to overcome the crisis.

    It is also necessary to say thank you to those delivering essential public services, especially our national health service staff on the frontline: the medical professionals, healthcare workers, auxiliary staff, administrators, ambulance drivers, paramedics—the whole team in every health facility. They are already very stretched in normal times; now, they are coming under unimaginable pressure and stress at the same time as being vulnerable themselves to contracting coronavirus. We should acknowledge that and say thank you.

    We should also say thank you to those in our social care sector, who are so often unrecognised and ignored, and almost always badly paid. They are caring for the most vulnerable people in our society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) explained earlier, the problem of contracting the virus in a home where people have not been tested only gets worse the longer we delay.

    Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)

    I completely agree with my right hon. Friend’s approach and the fact that we should all give a socially distant hug to care workers, and to those in other parts of the economy with precarious employment and housing situations. Does he agree that, against the background of the biggest crisis we will ever know, we need a collective approach, and that policies such as nationalising the railways, providing economic stimulus to kick-start our economy, and free broadband do not look so outlandish after all?

    Jeremy Corbyn

    It was not so long ago that I was making lengthy speeches about those subjects, and I am quite prepared to hand a copy of our manifesto over to the Government. They are already being forced to implement a great deal of it because of the crisis and because of the deficiency in public services that we exposed during the election campaign.

    Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)

    On a much more granular point, a care home owner has been in touch with me to say that he is increasingly short-staffed ​because of infection among staff, yet he is aware of staff from overseas who have the qualifications but are unable to work because the Home Office has not moved quickly enough to allow him to give them jobs and to sort out the sponsorship requirements. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Minister to get this issue looked at quickly by the Home Office? I will write to the Home Office, but it would be good to flag that now.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. Indeed, that has been raised by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and others on many occasions. It is absurd that we have highly skilled people in our society who are awaiting a letter from the Home Office before they are able to contribute to our society. We are talking care workers, doctors, social workers—all sorts of highly skilled people. They want to contribute to help us out, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I strongly support the view that he is putting forward to the Home Secretary.

    We should also take a moment to say thank you to civil servants in the Department of Health and Social Care and other Departments. They are putting in incredibly long hours. I talk to local government workers in my local authority who are working really hard to try to ensure that the community and society are safe.

    We should thank teachers who are having to go into school to ensure that there are some facilities and teaching available for the children of essential care workers, as well as for children who have very special needs. Let us value them and the work they do, and thank the National Education Union and the other teaching unions for the work that they have put in to ensure that that takes place.

    Let us also thank those who deliver stuff—delivery workers, delivery riders and delivery companies, and also our postal workers—for what they do. Our postal workers suspended their industrial action—their wholly justified industrial action, I might say—to ensure that essential deliveries can carry on throughout this crisis. We should say thank you to the Communication Workers Union and to those workers for all of that.

    When we talk about key workers, it is not only those I have mentioned who keep society going. On Monday, the Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), said that

    “when we emerge from the crisis…there will be a general reassessment of who is important in this country and what a ‘key worker’ means.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 15.]

    He is absolutely right. We can all now see that jobs that are never celebrated are absolutely essential to keep our society going. Think of the refuse workers, the supermarket shelf stackers, the delivery drivers, the cleaners—those grades of work are often dismissed as low skilled. I ask the House: who are we least able to do without in a crisis—the refuse collector or the billionaire hedge fund manager? Who is actually doing more for our society at this very moment? Let us value people for the contribution that they make and respect the skill of the cleaner, the refuse worker, the postal delivery worker and all those others. Let us have respect for those who are part of the glue of our society. Right now, they need our help, and I hope that, as we look beyond this crisis, they will continue to get our respect, because people we respect should not be treated in the way they have been treated throughout the past decade of austerity.​
    Right now, we must guarantee for our NHS staff the personal protective equipment that they are crying out for. There must be no excuses: get it there and deliver it for NHS staff, care staff and all the others. Doctors have said they have had to go along to Screwfix to buy face masks. They need visors, long gloves, surgical gowns and hand sanitisers—and they need them now. It is not as if this crisis happened yesterday; the coronavirus broke out in China some months ago and has spread rapidly across the whole world. One doctor was quoted as saying:

    “I feel totally abandoned. We don’t have the protective equipment that we desperately need and our children are being treated like orphans and sent off to care camps.”

    NHS staff are putting themselves on the line for the rest of us; we must not let them down for a moment longer. It is a matter of their safety and the safety of their patients. For the same reasons, let us test all our NHS staff for the virus as quickly as possible. It is an absolute requirement to accelerate testing throughout the population—“test, test, test”, as Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organisation, instructed us all to do quite some time ago. I pay tribute to him and the World Health Organisation for their steadfast and calm leadership during this crisis, and for pointing out that a world pandemic is going on and some countries are better able to cope with it than others.

    As we look beyond this crisis, our NHS staff should be treated with respect, which means ensuring that the health service in which they work is well funded; bringing down their levels of stress, which are enormous; and ending the threat of the privatisation of their jobs and the outsourcing of services in NHS hospitals. Right now, can we ensure that our social care workers have the very best protective equipment that they need, and can we also have full testing for them? They also need financial security, an issue I raised at Prime Minister’s Question Time four weeks ago. A quarter of social care workers are on zero-hours contracts. Their job is, as we know, to travel from house to house, making contact with those often at the highest risk of death from this virus. They sometimes see 12 or more clients a day, spending time in their homes and potentially passing on the virus from one home to another and another. A lack of testing increases that danger all the time, so it is not just urgent, it is super urgent—like today, it has to be done. They need to be given the security to know that they can afford to stay off work if they have symptoms, yet none of them are included in the Chancellor’s scheme to pay 80% of wages. That must be addressed immediately. I pointed out in Prime Minister’s Question Time the situation for construction workers, and exactly the same applies to care workers.

    As we look beyond the crisis, we need to learn the lesson and end the scandal of paying so little to those entrusted with the care of our loved ones. Let us end the disgrace of 1.4 million people being denied the social care that they need. Right now, the Government can give peace of mind to all self-employed and insecure workers with an income protection scheme equivalent to the one devised for employees. The Prime Minister said he would work on this very quickly, and it has to be done very, very quickly indeed; otherwise, we are all put at greater risk and danger.​
    Freelancers, workers on zero-hours contracts and those with no recourse to public funds still have no support. From cabbies to childminders, actors to plumbers, people are being told to do something absolutely extraordinary: to stop earning a living. Having made that demand, the Government—yes, the Government—have an awesome responsibility to ensure that these people do not fall immediately into hardship and that they are able to do what is necessary for public health.

    Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has to be a crackdown on some employers? Constituents have contacted me this morning to tell me that employers are insisting that people go to work and telling them that if they do not turn up, they will not get paid. Even businesses that are clearly not on the list of key industries have done this. Does he think the Government should crack down on employers that are putting their employees at risk?

    Jeremy Corbyn

    If employers are putting us all at risk by forcing people to work in a non-essential industry or company or non-essential work, they should be sanctioned, and those sanctions should include fines. They have to understand that they have a responsibility as well.

    The Government should ensure the closure of any construction work that is not urgent or health and safety-related, just as Transport for London and the Scottish Government have already done—and remember, both have many major building projects going on at any one time.

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

    Having worked in the construction industry for the past two decades, I appreciate how critical that industry is. Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of the Government’s mixed messages and the lack of support for the many workers in that industry who are self-employed, freelance, working as consultants or on zero-hours contracts, they are left in the unenviable position of having to get on the tube and go to work, because they have no other source of income? That is why the Government must step in, give a clear and concise message and support the self-employed workers in the construction industry.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    My hon. Friend anticipates the point I was about to make. We have all seen the images this morning of construction workers packed on to the London tube and other trains all around the country, going on to site because it is the only way they can earn a living, and putting themselves and all of us at risk as a result. Action has to be taken now on this.

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

    Is there not also a responsibility on Government contractors? I am thinking of Atos, Adecco and those that have call centres, which are telling at-risk employees to attend their work. Is not that disgraceful, and should not the Government intervene?

    Jeremy Corbyn

    It is absolutely disgraceful and totally unnecessary. If someone feels they are at risk, the advice from the Department of Health is that they should self-isolate—and eventually get tested, but clearly the tests are not available immediately. If the employer then ​forces that person to go into work, we all know what the consequences will be. There is a responsibility on employers as well in all this.

    I hope that the Government will take action to close building sites, provide the workers with the necessary economic support and tell the companies that this should not be seen as an opportunity to cut their workers’ wages by 20%; they are getting 80% from public funds and they should make up the rest with the profits they make on big construction projects. Many people on construction sites are, sadly, self-employed, which is a slightly different issue that I referred to earlier.

    As we look beyond the crisis we should all give workers respect, with proper social security extending to the self-employed as well. We have to understand that we have a very different economy than we had 10, 20 or 30 years ago. A very large number of people are self-employed. They are making their contribution. They deserve respect, recognition and the necessary social security support: full rights for workers, including those in the gig economy.

    We must raise statutory sick pay to European levels. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said, honestly, that he could not survive on £94 a week. I suspect that most Members would not want to survive on £94 a week and most probably could not survive on £94 a week, so how can expect others to do so? We are saying that they have to survive on £94 a week and we cannot. It is up to us to say that in this crisis we have to increase it, so that people can have a survivable income. Looking beyond the crisis, no one should become poor just because they become ill. Many people have been shocked—I have spoken to self-employed people—to find just how low statutory sick pay is. They imagined statutory sick pay was something they could live on. They did not realise what it actually was. Even more shocking is that disabled people on employment and support allowance are expected to survive on £73 a week, as are those on jobseeker’s allowance. Those figures are disgraceful. People cannot live on that sort of money, so they will be forced to take risks and therefore put us all at risk. For carers, it is even less money. Carers allowance is just £66 a week. That is simply unacceptable.

    Right now, we have to give support and security to renters in the private rented sector. The Government promised 20 million of them a ban on evictions, but then broke their promise. Emergency legislation does not stop people losing their home due to coronavirus; it just gives them three months in which to pack their bags. This public health emergency will become a housing and homeless emergency if the Government do not change course now on the treatment of people in the private rented sector. All of us represent large numbers of people in the private rented sector, none more so than my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who I know represents a very large number.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real problem that rents might increase straight after this crisis is over? Many mortgage companies are offering not a mortgage holiday but a payment deferral, which will be rolled into mortgage payments later on. Landlords ​will likely pass that on to tenants and tenants will be evicted a month after this crisis is over. There needs to be control on rents expanding straight after this crisis finishes.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    My hon. Friend understands the issue and represents his constituency extremely well. I know that a lot of his constituents are in that situation. We have to have better regulation of the private rented sector, with security of tenure and realistic rent levels. We also have to have the spirit of what was said, which was that there would be protection for people in the future. The danger, as he points out, is the opposite: it will just put costs up in a few months’ time. Remember, if somebody has a mortgage and they rent privately, they will pass on the cost of the mortgage to the private renter. That is a problem he quite rightly emphasises.

    Shelter estimates that 20,000 eviction proceedings are already in progress and will go ahead over the next three months unless the Government act to stop them.

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is making a powerful speech. Just last week, the Prime Minister assured us that he was bringing forward legislation to protect private renters from eviction. Pauline, a 76-year-old in my constituency, received a letter two days later saying that she would be evicted on 13 May. She has been in that property for 13 years and has paid her rent every month on time. How on earth is she supposed to find another property if she is not even allowed out of the house?

    Jeremy Corbyn

    Exactly. How on earth can she go around looking at places if she is not allowed out of the house? It is absurd.

    Labour’s demands are very clear: ban evictions for six months and suspend rent for those affected by coronavirus. It is going to cost and it is the right thing to spend it on. It protects people in their housing. As we look beyond this crisis, let us give tenants greater rights and control exorbitant levels of rent. We need real solutions to the housing crisis, as the shadow Housing Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), has said on many occasions.

    Let us end rough sleeping and homelessness once and for all. We are the fifth richest country in the world. It is not necessary—in fact, it is a national disgrace—that there are so many people sleeping rough in our society. Again, the coronavirus has shown just how vulnerable is the health of the most desperate and poorest people in our society. I want to pay tribute to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, whose team have worked tirelessly to secure hotel accommodation for rough sleepers—well done Sadiq, and well done the team. They are aiming to get 3,000 hotel rooms for people who have been sleeping rough on the streets of London. I know that the Mayors of Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region and others are doing everything they can to do exactly the same. The Government can make a pledge today that anyone who was homeless before the pandemic will not be returning to the streets at the end of the pandemic. If we can house people in a crisis, we can keep them housed when it is over. Right now, we need to support all our public services as they face their greatest test.

    ​Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)

    Does my right hon. Friend share my concern for that particular group of victims who are people with no recourse to public funds? They cannot work in a situation where so much of the economy has been closed down, and they have no legal rights to benefits of any kind—even the paltry level of benefits that the Government are talking about. They are not the only group, but these people face destitution. I raised that with the Home Secretary on Monday. We have still not heard anything about what the Government are going to do to protect people and their children who have no recourse to public funds

    Jeremy Corbyn

    I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention and for what she is doing about that. There are people with no recourse to public funds all over the country. Typically, they are people who are seeking asylum, their case is going endlessly through Home Office processes, and they are not getting help or an answer. Many groups are doing their best to help them. I pay tribute to the north London liberal synagogue for its monthly drop-in sessions and the support that it gives those people, and to many others, but it should not be down to charities to do it. We need to ensure that those people and their families are supported throughout this crisis. This is yet another lesson about the dislocation of our society and the way in which we treat people.

    Every single person in this country can now see how important public services are, and looking beyond this crisis, they must never again be subjected to the damaging and counterproductive cuts that have taken place over the past 10 years. The hard truth is this: austerity has left us weaker in the face of this pandemic. We should not have gone into it with 94% of our NHS beds already full, with 100,000 NHS job vacancies or with a quarter of the number of ventilators per person that Germany has. Ventilators are our most precious resource in this crisis; we should not have begun with so few. We need more of them urgently, and we need the staff trained to use them urgently as well.

    We all have a duty to do what we can for the collective good, to come together and to look out for each other—for our loved ones, our neighbours and our communities. But we also need collective public action to be led by the Government. That is the only power that can protect our people from the devastation that coronavirus could wreak on us.

    This crisis demands new economic thinking. We cannot rely on the old ways of doing things. A major crisis we face as a society cannot and will not be solved by the market. Coronavirus, the climate emergency, huge levels of inequality, increasingly insecure patterns of work and the housing crisis can only be solved by people working together, not against each other.

    The corporations and giant multinationals that wield so much power in our economy and appear to have the ears of the Prime Minister and presidents worldwide will always put private profit ahead of public good. Just look at the actions of Tim Martin, the chair of Wetherspoon—he told his staff, who are paid very little while he has raked in millions, to go and work in Tesco, instead of standing by them in their hour of need. Look at the attempts of Mike Ashley to keep his shops open, putting his staff at risk. The insatiable greed of those at the top is driving another crisis, one even more dangerous ​as we look to the future: the climate emergency. Oil companies and fossil fuel extractors continue to damage and destroy our planet, our air and our wildlife, threatening the future of civilisation itself. We need to find the same urgency to deal with that threat as we now see working against coronavirus.

    The coronavirus crisis will not be solved by those driven by private profit and share prices. It will be solved by the bravery of national health service workers and those who are on the frontline. It will be solved by communities coming together in all their diversity. It will be solved by the Government and public institutions taking bold action in the interests of the common good. The crisis shows what government can do; it shows what government could have always done. We have found the money to give more support to people in financial hardship. We have found the money to increase investment in our national health service. We have found the money to accommodate the homeless in hotels. If we can do it in a crisis, why could we not have done it in calmer times as well?

    We are learning, through this crisis, the extent of the interdependence of each of us with each other. If my neighbour gets sick, I might get sick. If the lowest-paid worker in a company gets sick, it could even make the chief executive sick. If somebody on the other side of the world gets sick, as they did in Wuhan’s province¸ it makes us all sick. Indeed, the virus is now hitting Syria and the besieged Gaza strip. If the healthcare systems of Europe cannot cope, just imagine what it will be like for countries in the global south. Save the Children has warned of the

    “perfect storm conditions for a human crisis of unimaginable dimensions.”

    This virus knows no national boundaries, and neither should our capacity for compassion and care for our fellow human beings. The internationalism of the doctors from Cuba who have gone to fight the virus in Italy is inspirational, as is the action of the European Union, which has given €20 million to help tackle the crisis in Iran at the present time, despite the sanctions. It is a scandal that sanctions have prevented many Iranians from accessing vital medical supplies, putting each other at risk and, inevitably, putting all of us at risk. The old trade union slogan goes, “An injury to one is an injury to all, united we stand, divided we fall.”

    People across our country know that. So many are showing such compassion in the face of adversity, as we see when we look at how people are coming together. Mutual aid groups have been springing up all over the country, with thousands of people organising to protect their communities. It is inspirational to see people who have never spoken to each other before suddenly getting together in this time of crisis and realising that they live in the same street and they need that help and support for each other. It is that spirit which will take us forward. There is no doubt that after this crisis our society and our economy will be, and will have to be, very, very different. We must learn the lessons from the crisis and ensure that our society is defined as a society by solidarity and compassion, rather than insecurity, fear and inequality.

  • Kevin Foster – 2020 Statement on Immigration Rules

    Below is the text of the statement made by Kevin Foster, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the House of Commons on 25 March 2020.

    This Government are committed to creating a firm and fair immigration ​system that prioritises the skills people have to offer, not where their passport comes from, and restores public trust by ensuring the immigration system truly works for this country.

    The immigration rules form one of the foundations of our immigration system. So I am pleased today to publish our response to the Law Commission’s report and recommendations on simplifying the immigration rules. I am extremely grateful to the Law Commission for their detailed and constructive work.

    The first recommendation from the Law Commission is we should overhaul the immigration rules, consolidating and streamlining, based on the principles it has identified. I am pleased to announce we accept this recommendation. Our aim is to complete this overhaul by January 2021.

    Simplified rules will be at the heart of Britain’s new, global points-based immigration system.

    For far too long, users have struggled to understand the confusing and complex immigration rules. They create barriers for employers who want to bring skilled workers to the UK; to colleges who want to encourage international students to come to the UK, and to the brightest and best migrants from around the world who want to make a contribution to the UK.

    We will cut through the complexity and make the rules clear, consistent and accessible, to encourage those who have the skills or talent to benefit the UK, and to crack down on illegal migration and remove those who abuse our hospitality by committing criminal offences.

    In line with the Law Commission’s recommendations, I have already established a Simplification of the rules review committee to look at the drafting and structure of the rules. The committee will ensure the simplification principles put in place now continue to apply in future, while providing ongoing support to continuously improve and adapt the rules in our changing world.

    The Law Commission made 41 recommendations for change. We accept 24 of the recommendations, and partially accept the other 17 recommendations. Where we have not fully accepted a recommendation that does not mean we disagree with the ambition behind the recommendations; it generally means we want to explore how it can be delivered in practice.

    Simplification of the immigration rules, the global points-based immigration system, and the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill which will end free movement, will deliver the biggest shake-up of the immigration system in a generation.

    The Government’s response has been published on gov.uk and can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/simplifying-the-immigration-rules-a-response.

    A copy of the response will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • John Glen – 2020 Statement on Pension Reforms

    John Glen – 2020 Statement on Pension Reforms

    Below is the text of the statement made by John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 25 March 2020.

    The Government are developing proposals to address the unlawful age discrimination identified by the Court of Appeal in the 2015 reforms to the judicial and firefighters’ pension schemes.

    On 15 July 2019, the Government announced they would take steps to remove this discrimination retrospectively [HCWS1725]. It confirmed that this would apply to pension scheme members with relevant service across all those public service pension schemes that were introduced in 2014 and 2015, regardless of whether individuals had made a claim. This is a complex undertaking, and it is important to get it right.

    Since February 2020 relevant pension schemes have been conducting technical discussions with member and employer representatives to seek initial views on the Government’s high-level proposals for removing the discrimination.

    I am grateful for the constructive engagement of trade unions, staff associations, public service employers and other stakeholders in these discussions. The Government are considering the initial views of stakeholders and continuing to work through the details of the technical design elements of the proposals. Detailed proposals will be published later in the year and will be subject to public consultation. The Government will welcome views on these proposals.

    For the avoidance of doubt, members of public service pension schemes with relevant service will not need to make a claim in order for the eventual changes to apply to them.

    I would like to reassure members that their pension entitlements are safe. The proposals the Government are considering would allow relevant members to make a choice as to whether they accrued service in the legacy or reformed schemes for periods of relevant service, depending on what is better for them. The Government will provide more detail later in the year, but if an individual’s pension circumstances change as a result, the Government may also need to consider whether previous tax years back to 2015-16 should be reopened in relation to their pension.

    The Government will also set out their proposal to remove the discrimination for future service in the forthcoming consultation.

    In January 2019, the Government announced a pause to the cost control mechanism in public service pension schemes, due to uncertainty about benefit entitlements arising from the McCloud judgment. Alongside their proposals for addressing discrimination, the Government will also provide an update on the cost control mechanism.

  • Steve Barclay – 2020 Speech on the Self-Employed and the Coronavirus

    Steve Barclay – 2020 Speech on the Self-Employed and the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the speech made by Steve Barclay, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2020.

    We know that many self-employed people are in real distress, but we are working urgently to address this problem, and I say to the self-employed: we have not forgotten you—help is coming. But the policy and delivery are complex, and we cannot and should not rush to announce a scheme that gives rise to more questions than it answers. The Chancellor has held meetings this morning with representatives of the self-employed and will continue to meet them this afternoon.

    It is important to remember that covid-19 is an urgent challenge to our entire economy, affecting workers of all types. It is essential that we respond swiftly, so that people can keep their jobs and businesses can carry on. That is the basis of our coherent, co-ordinated and comprehensive plan. It is a plan that gives those on the frontline the tools they need to tackle the virus, with all the support the NHS needs, backed up by an initial £5 billion fund for public services. It is a plan that puts a shoulder behind business with a statutory sick pay relief package for small and medium-sized enterprises, business rates holidays for all retail hospitality, leisure and nursery businesses in England, and grant funding for small enterprises, as well as support through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ time to pay scheme. As of yesterday, businesses with cash-flow concerns are also able to access the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, offering up to £5 million for SMEs through the British Business Bank. For larger firms—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. It might be easier if Members pass notes down the line, rather than going round and speaking to everybody.

    Steve Barclay

    The coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, on which Members across the House have raised questions, is now available, offering up to £5 million for SMEs through the British Business Bank. For larger firms, the Bank of England is providing a new facility to help support liquidity.

    I urge all Members of the House to continue speaking—as I know many are doing—to the business leaders in their constituencies and ensure they are aware that they are not alone and that help is coming. In this House, we are all standing behind business and everyone who works in it. To encourage businesses to retain staff, we are deferring VAT, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced the job retention scheme to facilitate that.

    Taken together, this is a huge programme of support, and we will keep thousands of workers in jobs, but we know that there are thousands of self-employed people who have been wondering what the future holds for them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already set out a range of measures in support. Sole traders and freelancers will be able to access the business interruption loan scheme as long as activity is channelled through a ​business account. We are also removing the minimum income floor for the self-employed workers affected by coronavirus so that they too can access universal credit in full. That is not only the standard allowance, but a wider package of support for those with children, disabilities or, indeed, housing needs. At the same time, the next self-assessment income tax payments will be deferred until January 2021, helping those who have set money aside for those payments with immediate cash flow. That means there is a package on tax, on loans and, more widely, through universal credit, to support those with that safety net.

    Let me reassure everyone in this House and the self-employed people they represent that further help is indeed coming, but we have to make sure we get this right and that we target the right support to those who are most in need. The Chancellor will provide a further update on support for the self-employed in the coming days.

  • Chloe Smith – 2020 Statement on UK Parliamentary Boundaries

    Chloe Smith – 2020 Statement on UK Parliamentary Boundaries

    Below is the text of the statement made by Chloe Smith, the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2020.

    In the written statement of 19 March, “Postponement of electoral events” (HCWS174 and HLWS169), the Government outlined their proposals for urgent electoral legislation to postpone forthcoming elections as part of the wider steps to tackle the spread of the coronavirus.

    Working to ensure the health and safety of the British public is the Government’s top priority. We still however have a responsibility to govern, plan for the future and ensure that where possible, essential parliamentary business continues and legal obligations are met.

    The House of Commons may debate the Government’s policy stance on UK parliamentary boundaries on Friday 27 March, in light of the Private Members’ Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Peter Bone).

    I believe clearly setting out the Government’s emerging policy position would provide clarity for Parliament, the public and electoral administrators. Given this policy area is of direct relevance to the Commons, it is important that the first Chamber is properly informed.

    This is also pertinent because at present, the Government are legally required to give effect to the recommendations from the Boundary Commissions as set out in their 2018 reports—including reducing the number of constituencies to 600. In this statement I lay out the Government’s thinking on this matter.

    Need for equal and updated boundaries

    The Conservative Government committed, in our 2019 manifesto, to delivering updated and equal UK parliamentary boundaries with the essential aim of making sure that every vote counts the same—a cornerstone of democracy.

    The last boundary review to be implemented in England was based on data from 2000; the last to be implemented in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland used data from 2001-2003. In effect, our current constituencies reflect how the UK population was at the beginning of the century. Today’s youngest voters have been born since then: this disregards significant changes in demographics, house building and geographical migration.

    The Government have also taken into account representations from colleagues on all sides of the House, and from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

    When parliamentary time allows, the Government are minded to bring forward primary legislation to set the framework for future boundary reviews, including the next review due to begin in early 2021. Such provisions would cover the number of constituencies, the frequency of reviews, the boundary review process, and the process by which those recommendations are brought into legal effect.

    Maintaining 650 seats

    Legislation currently provides that, on implementation of the 2018 boundary review recommendations, the number of constituencies in the UK shall be 600. The ​Government are minded to instead make provision for the number of parliamentary constituencies to remain at 650. In doing so, we would also remove the statutory obligation to implement the 2018 boundary review recommendations and the statutory obligation on the Government to make arrangements to review the reduction in constituencies to 600 by 30 November 2020.

    Under current legislation the Boundary Commissions are required to report on their next review by October 2023. In order to meet this deadline they would have to begin that review in early 2021. Without changes to primary legislation, there would be a legal obligation for the Boundary Commissions to undertake that review on the basis of 600 constituencies.

    This is a change in policy from the position previously legislated for under the coalition Government. Since that policy was established in the coalition agreement, the United Kingdom has now left the European Union. The UK Parliament will have a greater workload now we are taking back control and regaining our political and economic independence. It is therefore sensible for the number of parliamentary constituencies to remain at 650.

    Electoral quota tolerance

    The Boundary Commissions are generally required to propose constituencies whose electorates vary in size by no more than +/- 5% from the average (“The electoral quota”). The Government are not minded to amend this tolerance level which achieves equal and fair boundaries while allowing the Boundary Commissions the flexibility to take account of other factors, such as physical geographical features and local ties, subject to the overriding principle of equality in constituency size.

    Equal representation

    Updated and equal boundaries will ensure that every constituent nation in the United Kingdom has equal representation in the UK Parliament, and deliver parity of representation across the United Kingdom’s constituencies.

    Under the existing legislation, passed in 2011, there are four protected constituencies where the electoral quota tolerance does not apply on account of their unique geography: Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an lar, and two seats for the Isle of Wight. The Government are not minded to make changes to these protected constituencies, or to propose any more protected constituencies given the need to ensure equal representation.

    Boundary review cycle

    Under the current legislation, boundary reviews must take place every five years. As the Government also intend to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, future boundary reviews will inevitably be decoupled from the cycle of general elections. We need to strike a balance between regularly updated parliamentary constituencies and the disruption caused to local communities and their MPs by boundaries changing at every general election.

    The Government are minded to consider that conducting boundary reviews every eight years strikes the right balance. An eight-year review cycle would generally ​allow for updated constituencies to be in place for two general elections before being reviewed in time for a third general election.

    Implementing the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions

    Currently, at the end of a boundary review, the Government lay the reports of the independent and impartial Boundary Commissions before Parliament. The recommendations contained in the reports are then brought into effect by way of an Order in Council that must be approved by Parliament by the affirmative procedure before it can be made.

    The Government are minded to continue to provide that the reports are still laid before Parliament (by the Speaker who is Chair of the Boundary Commissions) but would change the means of bringing the Boundary Commissions’ recommendations into effect. The new recommended constituency boundaries will be brought into effect automatically by the Order in Council.

    This change would provide certainty that the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions—developed through a robust and impartial process that is open to extensive consultation—would then be implemented without interference. Parliament, of course, would remain sovereign and can amend primary legislation as it sees fit.

    Engagement with political parties

    The Government are keen to establish the broad support of Parliament for such changes and will engage with the political parties represented in the UK Parliament on such proposals.

    This will include engagement with the Parliamentary Parties Panel on the technical measures planned. These include provisions relating to the length of time the Boundary Commissions have to conduct their reviews within the boundary review cycle and the process involved in the reviews, such as public hearings and consultation. I hope there is scope for broad cross-party agreement on such improvements.

    In due course, the Government hope that such reforms will strengthen democratic accountability of Parliament to the British people.

    I hope this provides clarity on the Government’s policy intent over this Parliament. Of course, as stated above, the Government’s immediate legislative priority will be taking the necessary steps to protect the health and safety of the British public.

  • Alok Sharma – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus Interruption Loan Scheme

    Alok Sharma – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus Interruption Loan Scheme

    Below is the text of the statement made by Alok Sharma, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2020.

    I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the details of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 March 2020.

    The coronavirus business interruption loan scheme will be facilitated by the Government-owned British Business Bank and delivered through its delivery partners. Lenders will offer loans of up to £5 million to support small and medium-sized businesses with a turnover up to £45 million that are affected by the coronavirus outbreak. There will be no limit on the number and aggregate value of loans that can be made under the scheme.

    The scheme is based on the British Business Bank’s existing Enterprise Finance Guarantee scheme, is available on a temporary basis and can be extended as required. The key parameters of the scheme are as follows:

    The percentage of the remaining balance of each loan that is guaranteed by the Government will be increased to 80% (currently 75% of each EFG loan is guaranteed);

    A cap on gross Government liability at the level of the lender’s whole CBILS portfolio of 75% of losses (currently the Government’s gross liability is capped at 20% of losses across the lender’s whole EFG portfolio);

    A Government grant (the business interruption payment) will be provided for the benefit of businesses, equal to the fees and interest incurred on the facility for the first 12 months. The maximum grant payable is capped at a level that will allow a significant majority of businesses to be compensated in full. A lower cap applies to businesses in some sectors;

    The lender must establish that the SME has a viable business proposition assessed according to its normal commercial lending criteria. However, where there are some concerns over the short-term business performance due to covid-19 impacts, provided the lender reasonably believes that the finance will help the business to ‘trade out’ of any short-term cashflow difficulty, then the business is considered eligible for the scheme; and

    Subject to the lender’s policy, businesses can access CBILS loans up to a value of £250,000 without the lender undertaking an assessment of their security position (currently, only businesses that have been assessed by the lender as having insufficient security can access EFG loans).

    The new scheme was launched on 23 March, will run for an initial period of six months, and will be extended as required. The Government will be subject to a greater contingent liability than is the case for the Enterprise Finance Guarantee, and I will be laying a departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.

    For more information on this and other support for business, please go to: https://www.businesssupport.gov.uk/.

  • Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on Rail Franchises

    Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on Rail Franchises

    Below is the text of the statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2020.

    In these uncertain times, the railway has a vital role to play in ensuring Britain’s key workers can travel and vital supplies are kept moving. My absolute focus is on making sure services continue so that journeys that are vital in tackling this crisis can continue. So today, to make sure our railways stay open, we are providing train operators on franchises let by my Department the opportunity temporarily to transition on to emergency-measures agreements.

    These agreements will suspend the normal financial mechanisms of franchise agreements, transferring all revenue and cost risk to the Government. Operators will continue to run day-to-day services for a small, pre-determined management fee. Companies entering into these agreements will see a temporary suspension of their existing franchise agreement’s financial mechanisms for an initial period of six months, with options for further extension or earlier cancellation as agreed.

    Today’s offer will provide greater flexibility to the train operators and the Government, and make sure the railway can continue to react quickly to changing circumstances and play its part in serving the national interest. It will ensure vital services continue to operate for key workers who are keeping the nation running and that we are able to reinstate a normal service quickly when the situation improves.

    In the longer term these agreements will also minimise disruption to the rail sector. The railways have already seen up to a 70% drop in passenger numbers—with rail fares revenue reducing as people increasingly work from home and adopt social distancing—and total ticket sales are down by two-thirds from the equivalent date in 2019. Suspending the usual financial mechanisms will not only guarantee that services can be sustained over this difficult period, but provide certainty for staff working ​on the railways, many of whom are working hard every day in difficult conditions to make sure we keep the railway running.

    This is not a new model; it is a temporary solution, taking the steps necessary to protect services now in a cost-efficient way, and ensuring current events have as little impact as possible on the railway in the longer term. Allowing operators to enter insolvency would cause significantly more disruption to passengers and higher costs to the taxpayer.

    Fees will be set at a maximum of 2% of the cost base of the franchise before the covid-19 pandemic began, which is intended to incentivise operators to meet reliability, punctuality and other targets. The maximum fee attainable will be far less than recent profits earned by train operators. In the event that an operator does not wish to accept an emergency-measures agreement, the Government’s operator of last resort stands ready to step in.

    Alongside our focus on keeping the railways open to support key workers, we recognise there will be many who have heeded Government advice and chosen not to travel. We do not want people to lose money for doing the right thing, so I am also announcing today ​that passengers will be able to get refunds for advance tickets they are not able to use while the Government advise against non-essential travel.

    We have agreed with all the train operators that passengers who have already purchased an advance ticket will be eligible for a refund without any charge. Those holding a season ticket that they no longer wish to use will also be eligible for a partial refund, determined by the amount of time remaining on the ticket. Ticket holders should contact their operator for further details.

    Given the significant timetable changes that have put been in place we are also asking operators to use discretion to allow passengers with advance tickets to travel on an alternative train at a similar time or date if their ticket is technically no longer valid as a result of cancellations but they still wish to travel.

    We are operating in extraordinary times, but today’s announcement will make sure key workers who depend on our railways are able to travel and carry on their vital roles, that hard-working commuters, who have radically altered their lives to combat the spread of coronavirus, are not left out of pocket. It will also provide certainty to the industry’s staff who are still working hard every day to make sure the railway plays its part in tackling this crisis.