UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    The text of the speech made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That this House calls for the Government to abandon its one-size-fits-all withdrawal of the Coronavirus Job Retention and Self-Employment Income Support Schemes, and instead offer targeted income support to businesses and self-employed people in those sectors of the economy that have been hardest hit by the virus and are most in need of continuing assistance, and in those areas of the country which have been placed under local restrictions due to rising rates of infection.

    Our country is in the grip of a jobs crisis—a crisis that will intensify if the Conservative Government do not change course. Between April and June this year, the number of people in work fell by the largest amount in over a decade. By July, there were nearly three quarters of a million fewer employees on the payroll than there were just four months earlier. We know that these are extraordinary times. That is why Labour has acted as a constructive Opposition, working with the Government, businesses and trade unions to do all we can to save lives and livelihoods. But it is not enough for the Government now to say simply that this is an unprecedented crisis and that only so much can be done to mitigate the damage. In their amendment to this Opposition day motion, the Conservatives maintain that

    “any deviation”—

    I repeat, any—

    “from this Government’s proposed plan will cause damage to the United Kingdom economy.”

    Some humility, willingness to listen and flexibility is desperately required here.

    Under this Government, the UK has suffered the highest number of excess deaths in Europe. It has experienced both the worst quarterly fall in GDP in Europe and the worst quarterly fall among all G7 nations. The evidence suggests that the number of job vacancies in the UK has fallen further than in any comparable economy and that it will take us many months to get back to pre-crisis levels.

    Our people have suffered a double whammy: a health crisis coupled with a jobs crisis, both made worse, I regret to say, by the Government’s unwillingness to listen, learn and accept that they do not always know best. But there is still time to change course. Around 4 million people are still furloughed under the Government’s coronavirus job retention scheme. Another 2.7 million people have so far made claims under the self-employment income support scheme, the second and final phase of which has just opened. Many more people have not yet had any support from this Government at all and have fallen through the gaps between the various schemes.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    The hon. Member is making a really powerful point. Does she agree that a huge injustice is being done to the self-employed, many of whom have gone for six months without any support whatsoever? These are our small business owners who take some of their salary and dividends for perfectly ​good reason. Does she agree that the Government should take their fingers out of their ears and start listening to the self-employed?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree with her. We have repeatedly raised that issue with the Government. Repeatedly we have been told that the computer says no—that no response is possible. That does not appear to be the case given the evidence. There would be means to assess people’s previous income. If there is a concern around fraud, ultimately additional deterrents can be added to the system to prevent any such fraud.

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

    Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will give way, but I am aware that there are many, many speakers for this debate, so I wish not to do that too frequently.

    Mr Dhesi

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Given the importance of the aviation sector, which has been particularly hard hit, the likes of myself have been calling for an extension of the furlough scheme and a sector-specific deal. However, due to Government inaction and procrastination, thousands of individuals within my Slough constituency are now being made redundant, or are on the verge of being made redundant. Does she agree that it is now time for the Government to act before we lose those jobs for good?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The jobs crisis that we are talking about is particularly intense in many of those communities impacted by the withdrawal of support for industries critical for the future of our country. Of course, as he mentioned, we were promised a sector-specific deal for aviation. We have not received it. We have not had the Government sitting down with the sector to work through the different scenarios and how we can plan for the future in that case. And we are not seeing the targeted wage support in aviation or, indeed, in other industries critical for the economic future that we desperately need.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will take one final intervention, given that it is from the Government Benches, but then I will make some progress.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    I am grateful. On a sector-based approach, I think that, in an interview with The Guardian, the hon. Member said that such an approach would pose challenges. Has she yet published the solution to those challenges?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I fear that the hon. Member may have missed off the end of the sentence, which is that, while it poses challenges, ultimately that does not mean that those challenges should not be stepped up to—they should be faced up to by the Government. His Government have accepted the need for some targeted support for hospitality and retail with the grants. There is also the Eat Out to Help Out scheme. Yes, there will be boundary issues. We fully accept that, but, ultimately, to govern is ​to lead. It is to take difficult decisions. The Government trumpet the fact that they worked with industry, with trade unions and with other stakeholders in creating the furlough scheme. They need to do that again to work through these challenges and to create the targeted system of support that is needed.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will make some progress if the Member will permit me. He may find the answers to his questions—any further ones—in what I am going on to say.

    In addition to those groups of people who I have just mentioned, we know that there are many others who are concerned about their futures working in parts of the UK that are still subject to local restrictions, or that may be subject to additional restrictions in the future. We also have huge numbers of people, as we have just been discussing, who work in sectors that are still not back to business as usual, despite their critical importance for our economic future—whether we are talking about highly skilled manufacturing or the creative industries—yet the Chancellor is ploughing ahead with this one-size-fits-all withdrawal of the income support schemes, pulling the rug from under thousands of businesses and millions of workers all at the same time, irrespective of their situation. He is doing so without any analysis, it appears, of the impact of this withdrawal on unemployment levels and the enormous long-term costs of so many people being driven out of work.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    One of the categories that comes under severe pressures, as the shadow Minister and others in this House will know, is local councils. Their staff have been furloughed and they are having to take them back but their budgets are squeezed. Does she support my plea that additional help must be given to those councils to protect and retain jobs, because people are operating as a skeleton staff for almost a standard level of service provision, and it is just not possible to deliver that?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. The Government promised local authorities that they would meet their calls to back-fill not just the spending that they have incurred during this period but the income that was lost. What do we have instead? We have a resiling from that promise. That is problematic because of the huge impact it will have on employment in different areas—local authority employment can be a critical part of many economies—but it is also an enormous issue for the economic development in those areas, where ultimately the lack of local leadership will be a huge problem. The Government need to hold to their promise in that regard.

    Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)

    The shadow Chancellor says that she wants to extend the furlough scheme, but the key question is: how long for? The Chancellor said when he announced it that it would end in October. If it is October, the shadow Chancellor says it should be November; if it is November, then she says December. If she wants a sector-specific scheme, when does it end—at the end of the crisis, as some of her colleagues have said? Is that when the virus is eradicated? What is the solution?

    ​Anneliese Dodds

    With all due respect to the hon. Member, he may have missed what I said. We believe that the Government need to sit down and talk to exactly the stakeholders they trumpeted so much about working with when they created the furlough scheme, so that it can provide the system of support that is necessary to protect jobs and protect our economic capacity. As I have said time and again, we do not believe that a continuation of the furlough scheme precisely as it stands now is what is required. We need a targeted wage support scheme, which is exactly the approach being taken by huge numbers of other countries but which this Government are turning their face against.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will make some progress because I am aware that so many Members want to speak on this critical subject.

    For some businesses and staff well on their way back to normal, it is absolutely right and proper that wage support ends. As I said, we are not arguing for a continuation of the furlough scheme exactly as it stands across every sector of the economy, but for others, many of which are sectors crucial to our country’s economic future, additional targeted support could be the difference between survival and going under.

    The Chancellor says that he wants to pick winners, but the necessary public health measures that his Government have enacted have created losers. Across the economy as a whole, about one in 10 workers are still furloughed. For the transport sector, it is closer to one in five. For arts and entertainment, it is one in two. Yet he is stubbornly insisting on treating every part of the economy as if it is in exactly the same situation, and in doing so putting the recovery and millions of people’s livelihoods at risk. A targeted extension of Government wage support to enable short-hours working does not mean extending support for everyone forever; it means targeting it at where it is needed most.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    With respect, I will not give way as I have done so many times and I am aware of the time pressure with many Members wishing to participate in this debate.

    We need support that is targeted to the sectors of our economy that have been hardest hit by the virus but are critical to our country’s economic future; to areas of the country that are subject to local restrictions because of this Government’s failure to get a proper grip on the health crisis; and to businesses that would be viable in ordinary times, employing people doing jobs they love, but just need a little more help to get through this crisis. These are people like those I spoke to over the summer in north Wales working in advanced manufacturing. They do not want a permanent handout from Government, just more support while the economy is still in dire straits to help them get back on their feet. Without that support now, jobs like theirs will take years to come back. Jobs in the supply chain linked to their plant will vanish too, and with them the economic prospects for their communities.

    I called on the Chancellor to be more flexible when he gave his summer economic statement in this House two months ago. What do we get instead? A panicked ​handout of £1,000 bonuses to any business, anywhere, that brought back a furloughed employee. That is too much public money to dole out to a business that was going to bring back workers anyway. The Chancellor allocated £9.4 billion for that bonus scheme. Let us just imagine how much more effectively that money could be spent if only he had thought flexibly about how to respond to the crisis. Let us imagine how many of those at-risk jobs could be saved. The economic reality simply does not support the approach the Chancellor is taking, and he should have the courage to recognise that and change course.

    The Chancellor may not wish to take our word for it that a targeted, flexible form of wage support is the right way to go, but he could at least be persuaded by the examples of other countries, such as Germany and France, which have each extended their schemes to last for two years; the Netherlands, which has extended its scheme for a further nine months; or Australia and Ireland, both of which have committed to support furloughed workers until March next year. Of course, in our own United Kingdom the devolved Governments have called for targeted wage support to be continued, not snatched away at the same pace across all sectors of our economy.

    If that is not good enough for the Chancellor, he could listen to trade unions or think-tanks—after all, he trumpeted working with trade unions to create the furlough scheme in the first place. He could listen to the TUC, which has proposed a job retention and upskilling scheme; the Institute for Public Policy Research, which has advocated a coronavirus work sharing scheme; or the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has suggested a covid-19 job support scheme.

    If that is not compelling enough, perhaps the Chancellor could heed the voice of business. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that

    “businesses across the UK are going to need further support to weather uncertainty over the coming months.”

    Make UK has called for

    “an extension of the Job Retention Scheme to those sectors which are not just our most important but who have been hit hardest.”

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    If I may, I will finish this point and then take one more intervention; I do not want to frustrate all those colleagues who wish to speak in this debate. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that

    “it is time for the Government to bring forward a rescue package for those who have been left out.”

    The Institute of Directors has said that the Chancellor’s bonus scheme would

    “do little to prevent job losses”—

    and that—

    “some form of an extension to the furlough scheme should remain on the table.”

    The CBI has been clear:

    “It’s too soon to pull business support away at the end of October.”

    The Chancellor likes to think that he has the ear of business, but it is clear that he is just not listening when business tells him to change course.

    ​Kevin Hollinrake

    The shadow Chancellor makes some fair points, particularly about working constructively with government. On that basis, should she not constructively set out her solution to these problems, rather than simply saying that the Government should solve them? Obviously, she has ideas of how to solve them, so why does she not publish solutions?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I would love it, frankly, if the Chancellor and his team wished to open talks with the Opposition, with business, with trade unions, looking at the different options that I have just set out. I know the hon. Gentleman is one who does look at detail. I have just set out a variety of different models that have been set out by business, trade unions and think tanks. We want to work with government on this. If he is signalling that he wishes that discussion to happen, I hope that his Front-Bench colleagues will take that invitation up as well. It is not just he who wishes to have that discussion with his Front-Bench team. I note that a huge number of Conservative Members want to participate in this debate, and I am keen to hear their thoughts on it. Some of their colleagues have already pronounced on it. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) has said that there should be

    “targeted extensions to the furlough scheme beyond October.”

    The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has said that he can see the case for it, too. How many more Conservative Members are worried, privately, about the impact on their constituents of this Chancellor pushing stubbornly ahead with his plan to take support away from everyone, all at once?

    Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

    I recall the Chancellor saying that he would do “whatever it takes”. The hospitality and tourism sector, which covers a quarter of the jobs in my constituency, is now entering its third winter in a row, as the sector puts it. Should not support be targeted at that sector, too?

    Anneliese Dodds

    My hon. Friend has been such a champion for those jobs in York and, indeed, for jobs throughout the country. I say to her exactly what businesses in tourism right across the UK have been saying to me when I have spoken to them: they do not want a handout; they just want a fair chance. If they end up having to close their businesses—if they end up having to lay off staff—it will take a very long time to build those businesses back up again. The Government should be listening to them.

    Indeed, the Government should be listening, as I said, to the Government Members who are concerned about the withdrawal of the scheme. More than half a million at-risk jobs belong to people living in the constituencies of the Chancellor’s newest colleagues on the Government Benches—over 18,000 in Burton, more than 20,000 in Watford and in excess of 21,000 in Milton Keynes North—but so far, the Chancellor is not listening. Of course, he has not come to the Chamber today to hear what Members have to say about the very real fears of their constituents. We have not heard him speak in the House since the summer recess, despite the fact that our country is in the grip of a jobs crisis.

    The Labour party, trade unions, think-tanks, business and even the Chancellor’s own Back Benchers can all see that what the Government are doing will make our ​jobs crisis worse and lead to untold misery for millions of people, as well as reducing our economic capacity for the future. We are all sounding the alarm; the question is: what will it take for this Government to listen?

  • Ian Levy – 2020 Speech on Houses in Multiple Occupation

    Ian Levy – 2020 Speech on Houses in Multiple Occupation

    The speech made by Ian Levy, the Conservative MP for Blyth Valley, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation; to increase penalties for the contravention of such licences; and for connected purposes.

    The private rented sector is an important part of our housing market. As we see large premises in town centres being vacated by businesses, there is a growing demand for them to be turned into housing. The introduction of high-quality residential units to town centres may be a great way to bring life back into town centres, but a worrying trend is developing in such units: they are subdivided into poor-quality houses of multiple occupancy, which are aimed at the very poorest and most vulnerable in society. The problem affects not only my constituency in Blyth Valley, but other towns up and down this wonderful country of ours.

    Houses in multiple occupancy, or HMOs as they have become known, are a useful part of the housing sector, providing cheap accommodation for people whose housing options are limited. Although standards need to be met in large HMOs, these mainly relate to fire and building safety, as well as ensuring that facilities such as bathrooms are available. However, no consideration is given as part of the regime for the welfare of the residents or the impact that subdividing large properties into HMOs can have on the local community.

    The standards set out a minimum accommodation size, but this makes appalling reading. Two adults are permitted to live in a space of just 10.22 square metres, which is nothing—the size of a reasonably-sized garden shed. According to the regulations, a child under 10 requires an additional 4.6 metres, or the size of a double bed—space not merely to sleep in, but to live, play, learn and eat in. Even more appalling is that, until the last Conservative Government introduced it in 2018, there was no minimum room size at all. The mental welfare of those forced to live in such conditions must be a concern for us all in 2020.

    But however woeful the standards required for licensing HMOs across the country, in my home town of Blyth only one such premises is licensed as a house of multiple occupancy. Others are listed as hotels or marketed as Airbnbs or bed and breakfasts, creating a multitude of problems. When a property is not registered as a house in multiple occupancy, it falls through the gap, which means that local authorities such as the council and the police do not have the right of access and cannot implement boundaries, restrictions or measures to support the safeguarding of the clients living there.

    The very nature of the accommodation provided by HMOs often means that those living in them have fallen on hard times or are suffering from mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse, and, in a lot of cases, as reported to me by the police, domestic abuse. These are vulnerable people, whom we have a duty to safeguard. Allowing HMOs to exist by disguising them as hostels, hotels or bed and breakfasts not only denies tenants security of tenure, but means that the accommodation does not face the true scrutiny it should. ​With no help or support, living in a community can be hard for people who are not well equipped to live on their own.

    Many of these are young people. I worked for years in the NHS in a mental health capacity, and on a few really sad occasions I heard of clients forcibly being taken to cashpoints by drug dealers or loan sharks, where they were forced to empty their bank accounts of the benefits that had been paid in. This would leave the vulnerable client with no money left in their account to buy the basics to live for the next two weeks. Alone in a room with no support is no way for our vulnerable people to live in 2020.

    You and I, Mr Speaker—and, I am sure, everybody in this House—are fortunate that we can take for granted being able to go to the fridge and have fresh milk, along with food to make a sandwich, clothing to put on our backs and a warm bed to sleep in. But when people are in a vulnerable position, it is hard when their finances are taken away from them. Just getting by, day to day, impacts on the trauma that some of these vulnerable people are already having to deal with.

    It is vital that a stricter regime of checks and measures is imposed on landlords to ensure that safeguarding of clients is kept at the forefront. However, there are other issues that need to be addressed. For example, I find it concerning that, as things stand, the police are not consulted on planning applications for large HMOs. However, they are often called upon to deal with the issues that can arise from such dwellings. These houses cause concern in local communities that the inhabitants are likely to cause problems due to antisocial behaviour and other social problems. It is vital that the public living in and around the vicinity feel that they can live and integrate with the residents of houses in multiple occupancy safely and that community values are respected.

    I would like to see, as a result of this legislation, greater powers to local authorities to deal with both the development and governance of houses in multiple occupancy. Requiring large HMOs to provide a nominated person to be responsible for the residents living there on a 24/7 basis would allow a point of contact for the authorities and the local community to highlight issues and, where possible, address them in a way that safeguards both the individuals and the local community.

    I understand that not all HMOs exploit their tenants, and I also understand that there are other reasons why, for people wanting to live in small, cheap units close to facilities, they may be attractive. But I wish to ensure that they are not used as a method of housing vulnerable people in substandard accommodation with no regard for their mental or physical wellbeing or the needs of the local community. I want to ensure that someone being able to buy a house in a sub-prime area and divide it into multiple bedrooms, while showing absolutely no care for the individual or the local residents, becomes a thing of the past. I would like to see a balance given to the community, so that clients feel safe and part of that community, and the public living in and around the vicinities of houses of multiple occupancy feel that they can live and integrate with the clients, with respect and safeguarding for all.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 9 September 2020.

    Good afternoon,

    Welcome back to Downing Street for an update on coronavirus as we enter autumn and approach winter.

    I will first hand over to Chris to take us through the latest data before I set out how we are responding to it.

    ***

    Thank you Chris. It is clear from that very powerful graphic that we must act.

    The most important thing every one of us must do is remember the basics.

    First, wash your hands, regularly and for 20 seconds. Don’t get back into old habits, it is so vital.

    Second, wear a face covering over your mouth and nose if you are in an enclosed space and in close contact with people you don’t normally meet. I know wearing a face covering feels odd to some people and I understand that. But face coverings do make it harder for the virus to spread – so please, wear one to protect others.

    Third, make space. Always stay 2 metres away from people you don’t live with – or 1 metre with extra precautions, like extra ventilation, screens, or face coverings.

    Fourth, if you have COVID symptoms, get a test and self-isolate. We are now processing 1.2 million tests a week. To date we have carried out 15.4 million antigen tests – that’s more than any other country in Europe, and more per head than other European countries like Germany and Spain.

    We are increasing our testing capacity further to meet rising demand. You can help by only booking a test if you have a fever, a new continuous cough, or you’ve lost your sense of taste or smell – if you don’t have those symptoms and haven’t been asked to book a test, please don’t.

    So those are the basics – hands, face, space – and get a test if you have COVID symptoms.

    Since the pandemic began, we have asked you to reduce your social contact and limit your interactions with friends and family.

    I know that, over time, the rules have become quite complicated and confusing. We have spoken to police officers about what they need for an effective enforcement regime and of course, listened to the feedback from you, the public.

    In response, we are simplifying and strengthening the rules – making them easier for you to understand and for the police to enforce.

    I should stress that if we are to beat the virus then everyone, at all times, should limit social contact as much as possible and minimise interactions with other households. It is safer to meet outdoors and you should keep your distance from anyone you don’t live with, even if they are close friends or family.

    So in England, from Monday, we are introducing the rule of 6. You must not meet socially in groups of more than 6 – and if you do, you will be breaking the law.

    This will apply in any setting, indoors or outdoors, at home or in the pub.

    The ban will be set out in law and it will be enforced by the police – anyone breaking the rules risks being dispersed, fined and possibly arrested.

    This single measure replaces both the existing ban on gatherings of more than 30 and the current guidance on allowing 2 households to meet indoors. Now you only need to remember the rule of 6.

    There will be some limited exemptions. For example, if a single household or support bubble is larger than 6, they can still gather.

    COVID Secure venues like places of worship, gyms, restaurants and hospitality venues can still hold more than 6 people in total. Within those venues however, there must not be individual groups larger than 6, and groups must not mix socially or form larger groups.

    Education and work settings are unaffected, COVID Secure weddings and funerals can go ahead, up to a limit of 30 people, and organised sport will still be able to proceed.

    As we have found on previous occasions, this rule of 6 will of course throw up difficult cases. For example, two whole households will no longer be able to meet if they would together exceed the limit of 6 people.

    I am sorry about that and I wish that we did not have to take this step. But, as your Prime Minister, I must do what is necessary to stop the spread of the virus and to save lives.

    We will of course keep the rule of 6 under constant review and only keep it in place as long as it’s necessary.

    I also want to see – and the public wants to see – stronger enforcement of the rules which are already in place. So I’ve have tasked the Cabinet with increasing enforcement and I would like to thank the police, as always, and other authorities for the work they are doing to keep us all safe.

    In future:

    Premises and venues where people meet socially will be legally required to request the contact details of a member of every party, record and retain these details for 21 days, and provide them to NHS Test & Trace without delay when required.

    We will support local authorities to make further and faster use of their powers to close venues that are breaking the rules and pose a risk to public health.

    Fines will be levied against hospitality venues that fail to ensure their premises remain COVID Secure.

    We will boost the enforcement capacity of local authorities by introducing COVID Secure Marshalls to help ensure social distancing in town and city centres, and by setting up a register of Environmental Health Officers that local authorities can draw upon for support.

    We will simplify the Passenger Locator Form needed for travelling to the UK, and take measures to ensure these are completed and checked before departure.

    Border Force will step up enforcement efforts at the border to ensure arrivals are complying with the quarantine rules.
    We will also restrict the opening hours of premises, initially in some local areas.

    At the present time we must also, I’m afraid, revise plans to pilot larger audiences in venues later this month and review our intention to return audiences to stadiums and conference centres from 1 October. That doesn’t mean we’re going to scrap the programme entirely it just means we are going to review and abridge it, and the Culture Secretary will say more shortly.

    Let me be clear – these measures are not a second national lockdown – the whole point of them is to avoid a second national lockdown.

    By bearing down on social contact and improving enforcement, we can keep schools and businesses open, in the knowledge they are COVID Secure.

    I have always said schools and colleges should only ever be shut again as a very, very last resort. As the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser have said, the long term risks to children’s life chances of not going to school are significant and far greater than the health risks of going back to school.

    Indeed it’s been fantastic to see so many children back in school this term and I want, once again, to thank all our teachers, and to reassure parents and pupils that schools are safe.

    University terms will also begin soon. Opening universities is critical, again, for students’ life chances and, again, the health risks to individuals are low.

    Of course, many university students are in the age bracket where we have seen the infection rates rise recently as Chris was just explaining. My message to students is simple. Please, for the sake of your education and your parents’ and your grandparents’ health: wash your hands, cover your face, make space, and don’t socially gather in groups of more than 6, now and when term starts.

    Today the Department for Education is publishing updated guidance for universities on how they can operate in a COVID Secure way, including a clear request not to send students home in the event of an outbreak, so as to avoid spreading the virus across the country. I am very grateful to universities for their continued cooperation and planning for the return of students.

    The measures I have set out today will help us control the virus but won’t, on their own, be enough to allow a more significant return to normality.

    Patrick is going to set out in a moment where we are on vaccines and treatments in a moment, but we are not there yet and there are no guarantees.

    So over the summer, we have therefore been working up an alternative plan which could allow life to return closer to normality. And that plan is based on mass testing.

    Up to now, we have used testing primarily to identify people who are positive – so we can isolate them from the community and protect high risk groups. And that will continue to be our priority. We are working hard to increase our testing capacity to 500,000 tests a day by the end of October.

    But in future, in the near future, we want to start using testing to identify people who are negative – who don’t have coronavirus and who are not infectious – so we can allow them to behave in a more normal way, in the knowledge they cannot infect anyone else with the virus.

    And we think, we hope, we believe that new types of test which are simple, quick and scalable will become available. They use swabs or saliva and can turn round results in 90 or even 20 minutes. Crucially, it should be possible to deploy these tests on a far bigger scale than any country has yet achieved – literally millions of tests processed every single day.

    That level of testing would allow people to lead more normal lives, without the need for social distancing:

    Theatres and sports venues could test all audience members on the day and let in those with a negative result, all those who are not infectious. Workplaces could be opened up to all those who test negative that morning and allow them to behave in a way that was normal before COVID. Those isolating because they are a contact, or quarantining after travelling abroad, could after a period be tested and released. Now that is an ambitious agenda, but we are going to pilot this approach in Salford from next month, with audiences in indoor and outdoor venues. And then we hope to go nationwide.

    There are a number of challenges. We need the technology to work. We need to source the necessary materials to manufacture so many tests. We need to put in place an efficient distribution network. And we need to work through the numerous logistical challenges.

    And as I say, we are not there yet, and I should repeat that, as we manage this period of high demand, it is especially important that if individuals don’t have symptoms, and have not been specifically advised to take a test, they should not be coming forward for a test – because they could be taking a test away from someone who really needs it.

    Our plan – this moonshot that I am describing – will require a giant, collaborative effort from government, business, public health professionals, scientists, logistics experts and many, many more.

    Work is underway – and we will get on at pace until we get there, round the clock.

    We are hopeful this approach will be widespread by the spring and, if everything comes together, it may be possible even for challenging sectors like theatres to have life much closer to normal before Christmas.

    But as I have said before, all this progress is contingent on continued scientific advances and though we’re hopeful, I cannot 100% guarantee that those advances will be made.

    That is why it is so important that we take these tough measures now.

    I believe we will continue to drive this virus down and that we will beat this virus before too long.

    So let’s work together and follow the rules: meet in groups of no more than six. Wash your hands, cover your face, and make space.

    I will now hand over to Patrick to set out the latest on vaccines and treatments, and then we’ll go to questions from the public and the media.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Comments on New Coronavirus Cases

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Comments on New Coronavirus Cases

    The comments made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 6 September 2020.

    Today’s increase in Coronavirus cases is deeply concerning and a stark reminder that there is no room for complacency in tackling the spread of the virus.

    This increase, combined with the ongoing testing fiasco where ill people are told to drive for miles for tests, and the poor performance of the contact tracing system, needs an explanation from Ministers.

    Matt Hancock must come to the House of Commons tomorrow to set out what is being done to get testing back on track and bring case numbers down.

  • Louise Haigh – 2020 Comments on Brexit Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland

    Louise Haigh – 2020 Comments on Brexit Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland

    The comments made by Louise Haigh, the Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, on 6 September 2020.

    These reports, if true, show what we have long feared – that the ‘oven-ready’ Brexit deal the Prime Minister promised the British people was yet another example of his fluid relationship with the truth.

    Just 10 months after signing a treaty promising to implement the Northern Ireland protocol, Boris Johnson’s government is already threatening to renege on the UK’s legal obligations.

    This would be an act of immense bad faith: one that would be viewed dimly by future trading partners and allies around the world and make it more difficult for us to hold other governments to account.

    It beggars belief that the Government is – yet again – playing a dangerous game in Northern Ireland and sacrificing our international standing at the altar of the Prime Minister’s incompetence.

    It is in the interest of all parties to reduce the burden on businesses and the economy in Northern Ireland, but these practical solutions must be agreed on the basis of trust – trust which Ministers have now jeopardised.

  • Sarah Jones – 2020 Comments on the Grenfell Inquiry

    Sarah Jones – 2020 Comments on the Grenfell Inquiry

    The comments made by Sarah Jones, the Shadow Policing and Fire Minister, on 6 September 2020.

    Over three years after Grenfell, it is shameful how little progress has been made. The Government has continuously broken their promises, while tens of thousands of people across the country are stuck living in unsafe flats. The victims and survivors of Grenfell are still waiting for justice. This is completely unacceptable.

    Labour’s amendment to the Bill is an attempt to force the Government to deliver the recommendations of the Grenfell Inquiry’s Phase One Report. Every measure necessary should be put in place to prevent a fire like Grenfell from ever happening again. We urge the Government to honour their promises and back the amendment and get the work done.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2020 Comments on Net Zero Emissions

    Matthew Pennycook – 2020 Comments on Net Zero Emissions

    The comments made by Matthew Pennycook, the Shadow Climate Change Minister, on 7 September 2020. The comments were made with reference to an Institute for Government report on the Government’s approach to achieving net zero emissions.

    This report lays bare the Government’s failure to put the country on a path to net zero emissions.

    If Ministers were determined to end the UK’s contribution to global heating by mid-century they would have a clear roadmap to achieve that goal, it would be pursued relentlessly from the centre, the institutional architecture would be put in place to coordinate and drive progress across all departments, and emissions reduction would be woven throughout government policy.

    Until this Government gives emissions reduction the status it requires and acts accordingly, the UK is destined to remain off track for the net zero target, legislated for just over a year ago.

  • Stephen Morgan – 2020 Comments on Armed Forces Recruitment

    Stephen Morgan – 2020 Comments on Armed Forces Recruitment

    The comments made by Stephen Morgan, the Shadow Armed Forces Minister, on 7 September 2020.

    The worrying increase of over seven thousand application withdrawals this year continues this Government’s decade of decline in failing to support our country’s Armed Forces and its recruits.

    Whilst the Minister claims to be looking to improve the Armed Forces ‘offer’, its failing recruitment contract is clearly not working.

  • Jim McMahon – 2020 Comments on Grant Shapps and Government’s Quarantine Policy

    Jim McMahon – 2020 Comments on Grant Shapps and Government’s Quarantine Policy

    The comments made by Jim McMahon, the Shadow Transport Secretary, on 7 September 2020.

    When there are so many unanswered questions around the Government’s quarantine measures it is astounding that this statement failed address them. Passengers and the aviation industry need confidence that Ministers aren’t simply making it up as they go along.

    This seemed to be an exercise in deflecting attention. We are still yet to see the scientific evidence for the Government’s decision making and why, unlike in Scotland and Wales, those returning from Portugal don’t need to self-isolate.

    After the mess we’ve seen it is vital that the Government undertakes a review into quarantine policy, to report as soon as possible. It should include outlining options for a robust testing regime in airports, and related follow up tests, that could help to safely minimise the need for 14-day quarantine.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Comments on Blockade of Newspapers

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Comments on Blockade of Newspapers

    The comments made on Twitter by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 5 September 2020.

    A free press is vital in holding the government and other powerful institutions to account on issues critical for the future of our country, including the fight against climate change.

    It is completely unacceptable to seek to limit the public’s access to news in this way.