UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Robin Walker – 2020 Statement on Payments to the Victims of the Troubles

    Robin Walker – 2020 Statement on Payments to the Victims of the Troubles

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robin Walker, the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, at the House of Commons on 4 June 2020.

    The Secretary of State has asked me to pass on his apologies for not being able to answer this urgent question in person, as he is currently in Northern Ireland engaging in discussion on these and other matters and was unable to return to the House in time for it. I hope that the House will not mind, therefore, if I answer on his behalf. He has written to the hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and the Victims’ Commissioner on this matter today.

    Last summer, the House agreed that in the continuing absence of an Executive, the Government should make regulations establishing a troubles victims payment scheme. There was cross-party support for establishing the scheme, which was intended to provide much needed acknowledgement and a measure of additional financial support to those most seriously injured during the troubles. We made regulations establishing a victims payment scheme in January and did so, yes, to fulfil our legal obligation under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, but also because we are committed to doing what we can to progress a scheme that has been too long delayed by political disagreements. Having spoken personally to a number of victims’ groups and the Victims’ Commissioner in recent weeks, I am very aware of how long many people have waited for an acknowledgement of the physical distress and emotional trauma caused by injuries to themselves or loved ones during the troubles.

    Much has been made in the media of the suggestion that funding is holding up the establishment of this scheme, but that is not the case. Funding is not preventing the Executive from being able to take the vital steps to unlock implementation; rather, the key step to unblocking the process is the designation of a Northern Ireland Executive Department to provide administrative support to the Victims’ Payments Board. I am afraid to say that despite this decision being the subject of discussion by Executive Ministers for some time and one on which the Secretary of State is currently engaging them in Northern Ireland, they have not yet designated a Department to lead on the implementation of this scheme. The Justice Minister is prepared to lead on the scheme, but Sinn Féin has been clear that it wants to reopen the criteria by which eligibility for the scheme will be determined. That is already set in legislation and provides a fair basis for helping those who suffered most throughout the troubles. It is therefore imperative that Sinn Féin, along with all the parties, enables the scheme to move forward, as the time for delay is gone.

    The Government take this matter very seriously, and we are extremely disappointed by the current delay. It is because of the high priority we place on this issue that the Secretary of State has written to and had meetings with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. ​We have been offering and providing all appropriate support to help progress the implementation of this scheme. I assure all right hon. and hon. Members that the UK Government are committed to seeing this matter progress; victims have waited too long for these payments. The Northern Ireland Executive committed to finding a way forward on this issue in 2014. The UK Government have provided that way forward, through the regulations made in January, following public consultation. The Executive must now set aside their political differences and deliver for victims.

  • Rebecca Pow – 2020 Speech on Flood Defences at Tenbury Wells

    Rebecca Pow – 2020 Speech on Flood Defences at Tenbury Wells

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rebecca Pow, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 3 June 2020.

    I do not know whether I should say I am delighted to be back, but this is the first time, apart from voting, that I have set foot in the Chamber. It is very good to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on securing this important debate, and indeed on her persistence, because she is right that this has been postponed twice because of the situation we have found ourselves in. I know that Tenbury Wells has suffered extensive flooding on a number of occasions, most recently in November 2019 and February 2020, when the levels were just below those that occurred in the devastating year of 2007, as we have heard. I do appreciate how difficult that must have been for both the residents and the businesses. My hon. Friend has also written to the Secretary of State recently on this matter. She is absolutely assiduous in this respect on behalf of her constituency, and rightly so.

    Flood and coastal risk management is a high priority for this Government, and it has continued to be a priority despite the challenges brought by the pandemic. I know very well the impacts that flooding can have on lives and on communities, as I experienced in Somerset in the floods of 2013-14. As my hon. Friend mentioned, a few months ago we saw the same devastating impacts once again. I would like to take this opportunity, as my hon. Friend did, to pay tribute to all the emergency services that helped, as well as the Environment Agency, the local authorities, the Army, government officials, and particularly those volunteers—my hon. Friend referred to them—who stepped in to help during that time of the floods.

    I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend acknowledges that upwards of £9 million has so far been devoted to flood schemes in her area, and that the scheme for Severn Stoke is now fully funded and progressing through the planning stage. This is heartening, as I hope she will agree. I am sure that everyone will welcome the construction of the earth embankment to reduce flood risk, which could begin later this year.

    As my hon. Friend has explained, however, there is still the challenge of delivering the scheme for Tenbury Wells, which is complex, as the community is susceptible to flooding from both the River Teme and the Kyre brook, with direct impacts on homes and businesses. The local economy also suffers indirectly with several transport links and commuter routes through the town being adversely affected when flooding occurs. I understand that a technically viable scheme exists, as we have heard, for this ancient market town of Tenbury Wells to better protect 82 residential properties and some 80 businesses, and that work is currently under way to review and update that proposal.

    As I have said, this is a complex problem in the area of Tenbury Wells—there is not just one simple solution—and it needs wide-ranging interventions, which include floodwalls, gates and bunds that can be worked into the fabric of the town. I am pleased to hear that the Environment Agency is continuing to work hard with partners and the local flood action group in Tenbury to further progress this work. I have obviously been in touch with them ahead of this debate to hear what is going on.​

    I must also recognise the work that has been done so far to reduce flood risk in Tenbury Wells, which includes the property-level flood resilience measures that were installed between 2010 and 2012. This has provided some protection to properties from floods of lesser depths, but I appreciate that this does not offer protection against the larger floods we have seen in recent times. I know that the Environment Agency has considered the provision of temporary flood defences to reduce flood risk in Tenbury Wells. However, as my hon. Friend mentioned in her speech, the variable terrain combined with the flood depths and the length of the barrier required means that temporary barriers would not provide an effective or robust solution for Tenbury Wells.

    An economic appraisal of the feasibility of this complex scheme is now complete, and is progressing towards the outline business case stage. This has provided greater certainty on the costs, with current estimates that its delivery would be in the region of £6 million. Early indications suggest that the scheme would be eligible for approximately £1.2 million of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs flood defence grant in aid under the new rules—I will say a bit more about them in a minute—leaving the remainder of the total cost to come from partnership funding contributions.

    I can assure my hon. Friend that I do appreciate the challenges that this can bring. The Government are currently investing £2.6 billion in flood defences to better protect 300,000 homes, and that programme of work will run until 2021. However, the twin pressures of climate change and population growth mean that further action is needed. The recent Budget announcement confirmed that the Government will double the amount that they invest in flood and coastal defence programmes in England to £5.2 billion over the six years from 2021, better protecting a further 336,000 properties, which includes 290,000 homes. We understand that the proposed scheme for Tenbury Wells is in the future flood defence programme for after 2021. Although the scheme is eligible for a contribution from Government, I do appreciate that it still leaves a funding gap of £5 million.

    In April this year, DEFRA and the EA published an update to the partnership funding policy, which I referred to just now, which included updating the payment rates in line with inflation, changes to better take account of properties that will become a risk due to climate change, the impact on mental health, an additional risk band in what we call the lower return periods—periods when there are smaller floods, not huge ones—and a new approach to encouraging environmental benefits into flood schemes, all of which, I hope my hon. Friend will agree, are helpful additions to how the money is calculated. Those changes will come into effect from April 2021, and early indications from the Environment Agency suggest that that has increased that Government contribution for the scheme from £1 million, which I think my hon. Friend mentioned, to £1.2 million.

    At the time of announcing these changes to the partnership funding policy, we also announced our intention to launch a public consultation on floods funding policy, to gather insights from across the country. The Government are committed to ensuring that our approach to funding is fit for purpose, and the recent floods highlight the challenges with the current policy, which we want to endeavour to address. I will be happy to share further details of that consultation with my hon. Friend.​

    The £5.2 billion capital programme will continue to be allocated in accordance with DEFRA’s partnership funding policy. That policy clarifies the level of investment that communities can expect from DEFRA, so that it is clear at what level a partnership funding project would need to go ahead. Our programme of investment aims to maximise the economic benefits and the number of homes protected, in terms of potential damages avoided as a result of flooding or coastal erosion. Investment also takes account of local choices and priorities, and funding decisions will continue to be made based on a rigorous assessment of local needs and the value for money of proposed schemes. I do have to point out, though, that it would be contrary to the aims of the partnership funding policy for DEFRA to fill funding gaps for individual projects, and we have made no provision to do so.

    That said, both the Secretary of State and I are closely monitoring the operation of the partnership funding policy. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are aware of both the advantages and the limitations of the current formulation. Indeed, given the recent dramatic, devastating flooding incidents across the country, it was not long ago that I was in my wellies, with my Barbour and my hat on, out in all those floods, because I wanted to have a close look. I did go, and I did learn a great deal from it, which is now informing some of the things we hope will happen in future.

    The Government and the EA remain committed to helping reduce the risk and impact of flooding in Tenbury and increase the town’s resilience, whilst also enhancing the environment and the economic prosperity of the community. I know that the EA has recently met with partners at the National Flood Forum, as well as the wider community, to examine all the options, including those that have gained interest from the Heritage Lottery Fund, in line with the Government’s partnership funding approach. I welcome that aspect, although I must say, sadly—I am sure my hon. Friend knows—that due to the impacts of the ongoing pandemic, heritage lottery funding involvement has been put on hold. The EA is working to demonstrate, though, how the scheme would benefit the economic growth of the town and the surrounding area, and as such, provide an investment opportunity for partners such as the Worcestershire local enterprise partnership.

    The EA has also identified businesses that are affected when the road network in Tenbury is flooded. I know that they have plans to work in partnership with local economic growth teams in Malvern Hills District Council and Shropshire Council to engage with those local businesses and build intelligence on the impact of flooding. I fully support my hon. Friend’s suggestions for bringing ​in all available funding partners. She is clearly doing a great deal of work to try to secure those partnership contributions. I appreciate the clear challenge that that will bring, and I welcome the opportunities that she has identified—for example, the Woodland Trust and its work on a catchment-based approach—and the potential to involve farmers through the forthcoming environmental land management schemes.

    There could be much wider opportunities opening up with funding streams for land management and other options. The Government are committed to getting the most for people and the environment from our investment, including securing wider environmental benefits from flood defence spending. We are determined that natural flood management solutions are fairly assessed and supported where they offer a viable way of reducing the damaging impacts of flooding.

    My hon. Friend, alongside other local elected representatives, is a keen advocate of the proposed scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) is constantly contacting me about flooding issues, and rightly so. They are all supporting one another. We do this in Somerset—we have to do these things. Both the Environmental Agency and I welcome and encourage all support for these endeavours, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire to continue to engage with all interested parties. The Government and the Environment Agency understand the challenges in Tenbury Wells and will continue to support my hon. Friend and local partners in working towards a viable flood scheme. I am sensitive to the challenges that the partnership funding policy can bring, as I have mentioned, but I hope that the changes we have already made, and the opportunity for engagement through the public consultation later this year, will give some reassurance on the importance of the issues that are being considered.

    Finally, my Department is working closely with the Environment Agency and Her Majesty’s Treasury on investment needs and the Government’s role in supporting community resilience, particularly in rural areas such as the one where my hon. Friend lives and the area she represents. I take on board what she has said and thank her enormously for her input. Would it not be great, Madam Deputy Speaker, if perhaps together we could go to the mistletoe festival one day, or to Tenbury agricultural show, when everything opens up again, and visit this ancient market town?

  • Harriett Baldwin – 2020 Speech on Flood Defences at Tenbury Wells

    Harriett Baldwin – 2020 Speech on Flood Defences at Tenbury Wells

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriett Baldwin, the Conservative MP for West Worcestershire, in the House of Commons on 3 June 2020.

    Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for allowing this twice-postponed debate to be held on flood defences for Tenbury Wells. We have just gone through the driest May on record and the pandemic is taking so much of the country’s bandwidth, so it is hard to believe that less than four months ago, we suffered some of the worst flooding in recent years in the Severn valley and elsewhere. We were very badly affected by Storm Ciara and Storm Dennis, and many people, homes and businesses were and indeed still are affected.

    In West Worcestershire, we have the confluence of the River Severn, the River Teme and the River Avon, so we are used to regular winter flooding. After particularly bad floods in the summer of 2007, I started campaigns to build more flood defences in our area. Since 2010, we have had seven new flood defence schemes built with the help of the excellent team at the Environment Agency. Those schemes are in Uckinghall, Pershore, Powick and Kempsey, with two schemes in Upton-upon-Severn. The seventh, a community-based scheme, is in Callow End. Throughout the regular winter floods that have continued to affect the area, these flood defences have proved their worth time and again, and protected many homes on many occasions. The Upton-upon-Severn permanent flood defences alone have been called into service over 30 times and have allowed the town’s shops and pubs to remain open for residents at almost all normal times. The cumulative amount spent on these schemes has been over £9 million. They have largely been funded by the local flood levy budgets, with the flood wall in Upton-upon-Severn calling on about £4 million of the billions in capital spend on flood defences in this country in the last decade.

    I am pleased that, since the February floods, the Environment Agency has committed to reviewing the Powick flood defences, as they were overtopped then. It would be good to see whether they can be raised without having a detrimental effect elsewhere. However, I will not stop campaigning until two further schemes are built in West Worcestershire. One is a bund in Severn Stoke, which is progressing well and has reached the planning permission stage. The cost is significantly lower than at Tenbury Wells and has been further reduced through the local supply of the material needed to build the bund. That leaves the final scheme—the big challenge —at Tenbury Wells. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who was the Member for Tenbury Wells at the time of the 2007 floods, here to support my request today.

    Tenbury Wells is a wonderful market town on the River Teme. A market has been held there since 1249. The town has always been prone to flooding. The current bridge was built in 1795 by Thomas Telford, after the older one was washed away. The town is built on a flood plain and water can rush down incredibly quickly from the hills in Wales and Shropshire. The Kyre brook also flows right through the town and can fill up very quickly.​
    After the 1947 floods, which are still the worst on record, plans were drawn up to protect the town with flood defences, which would have cost less than £200,000, albeit in 1947 money, which I believe would be worth about £2.4 million today. Sadly, that scheme never went ahead.

    During the three summer floods in 2007, the town’s toilets were washed away. They have since been replaced by an award-winning scheme, and a lot of further work has been done, with individual property-level protection, new culverts and some work on the drainage. The Environment Agency is making sure that the Kyre brook vegetation is regularly cut back and has recently drawn up a feasible and deliverable scheme for a full flood defence around the town. I know that exhibits are not allowed in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have with me a copy of what the Environment Agency has drawn up.

    Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)

    I would like briefly to share with the House the misery caused by the flooding in 2007, when the residents of Tenbury Wells were hit three times by something that was evil in its outcome. I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent campaigning and wish her every success and more power to her elbow in a wonderful place that has suffered so badly.

    Harriett Baldwin

    I very much appreciate my hon. Friend and neighbour’s support for the campaign.

    The Tenbury Wells scheme is feasible and deliverable, incorporating some wall around the church and a bund around the burgage and in other key places. Under the existing cost-benefit rules, the scheme would attract only about £1 million of flood defence grant in aid. Sadly, it was not built in time for the floods that struck this February, which were the worst for 13 years. The community did a remarkable job. They helped everyone affected, as did the local councils—the town, district and county councils—the local emergency services and the highways and waste collection teams. They were all outstanding, but the fact remains that 190 homes and businesses were again damaged and many closed, including the newly opened post office. As there was no time to repair the flood damage before the lockdown started, some people have had to spend the lockdown in flood-damaged homes. Central parts of the community’s fabric were also badly damaged, including the famous Chinese gothic pump rooms where the town council meets, the town’s swimming pool and the beautiful Tenbury Regal Theatre. In fact, the only thing that was not damaged was the amazing, resilient spirit of the town.

    So we need to act. This wonderful market town serves a rural area for miles in every direction. It cannot help the fact that hundreds of years ago it grew up on a floodplain. If we want Tenbury Wells to thrive for hundreds of years to come—and we do—it needs a permanent flood defence. The temporary barriers that are deployed in Bewdley will not suit Tenbury Wells because the flood waters rise too suddenly and unpredictably. The Environment Agency says in its own report that the variable terrain, combined with the flood depth and the length of barrier required, mean that temporary barriers would not provide an effective or robust solution. Of course, the cost has risen to nearer £5 million, although I am sure that, just as in Severn Stoke and Callow End, ​local farmers and builders would be happy to help to bring down the cost of the booms. Because Tenbury Wells is a small town of fewer than 4,000 inhabitants, it will never meet the national formula, which puts so much weight on houses protected. It is a formula that cannot capture the key role that this market town plays in the much wider area around it.

    So Minister, let us agree a plan of action tonight. The Environment Agency should start a consultation on its already drawn-up plans. They have been widely welcomed, but there are those whose objections and suggestions must be heard. And let us do it in a socially distant way—remotely, even: by post and internet if need be. I also welcome the interest shown in the scheme by the Woodland Trust, which has some good ideas about building leaky dams at the source of the Teme and planting trees along the catchment—the kind of natural upstream solutions that will be the kind of public goods that the Agriculture Bill will enable farmers to be paid for. The evidence is that, while these measures will not stop the flooding, they can reduce the peak of flood events by about 20%, although they would clearly only complement a permanent flood defence.

    Let us bring together all the sources of funding: the county council capital budget, the local flood resilience levy fund and the £120 million in capital announced for schemes that do not meet the formula. I would welcome some clarification from the Minister this evening on how to bid for that fund. This is something that the town itself would be prepared to contribute to, and the Heritage Lottery Fund is going to be approached to help to protect the town’s heritage. There will be section 106 money from the new housing in the town and, of course, that help in kind from local farmers and builders. The Environment Agency does a wonderful job of supporting this process, and then we can put the scheme in for planning permission—this year, I hope. Once that process is complete, I believe that it is ambitious but feasible for the scheme to be shovel-ready next year. So Minister, I urge you to ask your officials—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I cannot let the hon. Lady do that twice. I have let her do it once. We have a lot of new Members who, during this unusual time, seem to think that the normal procedures, courtesies and rules should be flouted, but the hon. Lady knows how to behave in the Chamber. She cannot address the Minister directly. She knows she cannot do that, and I implore her please to get it right so that I can use her as an example for Members who do not behave so well.

    Harriett Baldwin

    Thank you so much for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you will recall, it has been some time since I held an Adjournment debate and I am grateful for the refresher course on etiquette. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge the Minister to ask her officials to back this plan, and to back a solution that has eluded all her ministerial predecessors so that she can make her illustrious mark on the hundreds of years of history of this wonderful market town. Then, whether it is at a future mistletoe festival, Applefest celebration or Tenbury agricultural show, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and through you the Minister will be given a garlanded welcome for the rest of your lives, whenever you choose to visit the beautiful town of Tenbury Wells.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 3 June 2020.

    First let me first run you through the latest data on our coronavirus response.

    4,786,219 tests for coronavirus have now been carried out or posted out in the UK, including 171,829 tests yesterday.

    279,856 people have tested positive, and that’s an increase of 1,871 cases since yesterday.

    7,485 people are in hospital with COVID-19 in the UK, down 16% from 8,921 this time last week.

    And sadly, of those tested positive for coronavirus, across all settings, 39,728 have now died. That’s an increase of 359 fatalities since yesterday and once again we are with their families in mourning.

    Now that the rate of transmission in the UK has significantly fallen from its peak, we need to take steps to manage the flare-ups and stop the virus re-emerging in the UK.

    I want to update you on the progress we are making on three fronts to prevent a second wave of infections that could overwhelm the NHS.

    First, we have set up NHS Test and Trace in order to identify, contain and control the virus in the UK, thereby reducing its spread.

    As we move to the next stage of our fight against coronavirus, we will be able to replace national lockdowns with individual isolation and, if necessary, local action where there are outbreaks.

    NHS Test and Trace will be vital to controlling the spread of the virus. It’s how we will be able to protect our friends and family from infection, and protect our NHS.

    It does this by identifying anyone who has been in close contact with someone who has tested positive, and asking them to isolate for 14 days in order to avoid unknowingly infecting others.

    The system clearly relies on everyone playing their part.

    So I want to stress again today: we need you to get a test if you have coronavirus symptoms – a high temperature, a new, continuous cough, or a loss of taste or smell.

    There is plenty of capacity and everyone with symptoms is eligible, everyone with symptoms, so please order a test from nhs.uk/coronavirus as soon as you develop symptoms.

    And we need you to isolate yourself if a contact tracer tells you that you have been in contact with someone who has tested positive.

    NHS Test and Trace started operating a week ago. And already thousands of people are isolating who wouldn’t have been doing so before this service was introduced. They are thereby protecting others and reducing the spread of the virus.

    So while we are going to all these efforts here in the UK to control the virus, we must also ensure we don’t reimport the virus from abroad.

    So the second action I want to update you on is the introduction of public health measures at the border.

    Today the Home Secretary has brought forward the legislation needed to establish the new regime from Monday.

    And I want to explain the reasons for introducing these measures now.

    When coronavirus started to spread around the world, first from Wuhan and then from northern Italy and other areas, we introduced enhanced monitoring at the border in an attempt to stop the virus from gaining a foothold in the UK.

    These measures applied, at various different times, to arrivals from China, Japan, Iran and Italy, and required people with symptoms travelling from those countries to self-isolate for 14 days.

    However, once community transmission was widespread within the UK, cases from abroad made up a tiny proportion of the total. At the same time you’ll remember that international travel plummeted as countries around the world went into lockdown. So as a result, measures at the border were halted because they made little difference at the time in our fight against the virus.

    Now that we’re getting the virus under control in the UK, there’s a risk cases from abroad begin once again to make up a greater proportion of overall cases. We therefore need to take steps now to manage that risk of these imported cases triggering a second peak.

    So just as we are asking people already in the UK to isolate for 14 days when contacted by NHS Test and Trace, we’re also asking those arriving from abroad to isolate so that they don’t unknowingly spread the virus.

    There will be some exemptions for a limited number of people who need to cross the border, such as those engaged directly in the fight against coronavirus or who provide essential services.

    And we will review how the policy is working after three weeks. And of course we will explore the possibility of international travel corridors with countries that have low rates of infection – but only when the evidence shows that it is safe to do so.

    The third point I want to make today is we need effective international action to reduce the impact of the virus across the globe.

    This is the moment really for humanity to unite in the fight against the disease.

    Health experts have warned that if coronavirus is left to spread in developing countries, that could lead to future waves of infection coming back and reaching the UK.

    While our amazing NHS has been there for everyone in this country who needs it, many developing countries have healthcare systems which are ill-prepared to manage this pandemic.

    So to ensure that the world’s poorest countries have the support they need to slow the spread of the virus, tomorrow I will open the Global Vaccine Summit.

    Hosted by the UK, and will bring together more than 50 countries and leading figures like Bill Gates to raise at least $7.4 billion for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

    Over the next five years – with the UK’s support as Gavi’s biggest donor – this Vaccine Alliance aims to immunise a further 300 million children in the poorest countries against deadly diseases like polio, typhoid and measles – again saving millions of lives.

    This support for routine immunisations will shore up poorer countries’ healthcare systems to deal with coronavirus – and so help to stop the global spread and, as I say, prevent a second wave of the virus reaching the UK.

    This virus has shown how connected we are. We’re fighting an invisible enemy. And no one is safe frankly until we are all safe.

    And again, of course this is all contingent upon each of us continuing to do our bit.

    And as I never tire of telling you

    Let us not forget the basics.

    Wash your hands regularly and for 20 seconds, wash your hands.

    Do not gather in groups of more than six outside.

    Always observe social distancing, keeping 2 metres apart from anyone outside your household.

    And I want to stress one final point which may be relevant today as the weather threatens I think to take a turn for the worse. Some of you may be tempted to move the gatherings you’ve been enjoying outdoors, indoors, out of the rain.

    I really urge you – don’t do that.

    We relaxed the rules on meeting outside for a very specific reason – because the evidence shows that the risks of transmission are much lower outdoors, much lower outdoors.

    And the risks of passing on the virus are significantly higher indoors, which is why gatherings inside other people’s homes are still prohibited.

    Breaking these rules now could undermine and reverse all the progress that we’ve made together.

    I have no doubt that that won’t happen, I’ve no doubt that that won’t happen. I think the British public will continue to show the same resolve in fighting the virus as they have throughout the outbreak.

    We will get through this if we stay alert, control the virus, and in doing so save lives.

  • Mark Durkan – 2010 Speech on the Saville Inquiry and Bloody Sunday

    Mark Durkan – 2010 Speech on the Saville Inquiry and Bloody Sunday

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Durkan, the then SDLP MP for Foyle, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2010.

    May I thank the Prime Minister for his clear statement? From talking to representatives of the families a short while ago, I know that they would want to be associated with those thanks.

    This is a day of huge moment and deep emotion in Derry. The people of my city did not just live through Bloody Sunday; they have lived with it since. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a day to receive and reflect on the clear verdicts of Saville, and not to pass party verdicts on Saville?

    The key verdicts are:

    “despite the contrary evidence given by soldiers, we have concluded that none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers. No one threw or threatened to throw a nail or petrol bomb at the soldiers on Bloody Sunday”.

    A further verdict is:

    “none of the casualties…was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury.”

    Of course, there is also the verdict that

    “the British Army fired the first shots, these were not justified and none of the subsequent shots that killed or wounded”

    anyone on Bloody Sunday “was justified.” In rejecting so much of the soldiers’ submissions and false accounts, the report highlights where victims were shot in the back or while crawling on the ground, or shot again when already wounded on the ground.

    Will the Prime Minister confirm that each and every one of the victims—Bernard McGuigan, 41; Gerald Donaghey, 17; Hugh Gilmour, 17; John Duddy, 17; Gerard McKinney, 34; James Wray, 22; John Young, 17; Kevin McElhinney, 17; Michael Kelly, 17; Michael McDaid, 20; Patrick Doherty, 31; William McKinney, 27; William Nash, 19; and John Johnston, 59—are all absolutely and totally exonerated by today’s report, as are all the wounded? These men were cut down when they marched for justice on their own streets. On that civil rights march, they were protesting against internment without trial, but not only were their lives taken, but their innocent memory was then interned without truth by the travesty of the Widgery tribunal. Will the Prime Minister confirm clearly that the Widgery findings are now repudiated and binned, and that they should not be relied on by anyone as giving any verdict on that day?

    Sadly, only one parent of the victims has survived to see this day and hear the Prime Minister’s open and full apology on the back of this important report. Lawrence McElhinney epitomises the dignity and determination of all the families who have struggled and strived to exonerate their loved ones and have the truth proclaimed.

    Seamus Heaney reflected the numbing shock of Bloody Sunday and its spur to the quest for justice for not only families but a city when he wrote:

    “My heart besieged by anger, my mind a gap of danger,

    I walked among their old haunts, the home ground where they bled;

    And in the dirt lay justice, like an acorn in the winter

    Till its oak would sprout in Derry where the thirteen men lay dead.”

    The Bloody Sunday monument on Rossville street proclaims:

    “Their epitaph is in the continuing struggle for democracy”.

    If today, as I sincerely hope it does, offers a healing of history in Derry and Ireland, may we pray that it also ​speaks hope to those in other parts of the world who are burdened by injustice, conflict and the transgressions of unaccountable power?

    The Prime Minister’s welcome statement and the statement that will be made by the families on the steps of the Guildhall will be the most significant records of this day on the back of the report that has been published. However, perhaps the most important and poignant words from today will not be heard here or on the airwaves. Relatives will stand at the graves of victims and their parents to tell of a travesty finally arrested, of innocence vindicated and of promises kept, and as they do so, they can invoke the civil rights anthem when they say, “We have overcome. We have overcome this day.”

  • Harriet Harman – 2010 Speech on the Saville Inquiry and Bloody Sunday

    Harriet Harman – 2010 Speech on the Saville Inquiry and Bloody Sunday

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2010.

    May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? As he said, it is more than 12 years since the then Prime Minister Tony Blair set up the Saville inquiry to establish the truth of what happened on what became known as Bloody Sunday. For the 14 families whose loved ones were killed, for the 13 who were injured, for the soldiers and their families, for all those whose lives would never be the same again, the report has been long-awaited. We all recognise how painful this has been, and the Prime Minister has been clear today. He said that there is no ambiguity, that it was wrong; he has apologised and we join him in his apology.

    I also join the Prime Minister in thanking Lord Saville and all those whose work contributed to the report. The report speaks for itself and it speaks powerfully.

    I remind the House of what Tony Blair said on the day that the House agreed to establish the Saville inquiry. He said that Bloody Sunday was a day we have all wished “had never happened” and that it was “a tragic day” for everyone. I reiterate his tribute to the dignity of the bereaved families, whose campaign was about searching for the truth. He rightly reminded the House of the thousands of lives that have been lost in Northern Ireland. May I restate our sincere admiration for our security forces’ response to terrorism in Northern Ireland? Many lost their lives. Nothing in today’s report can or should diminish their record of service. They have been outstanding.

    The Prime Minister has acknowledged that the Saville inquiry was necessary to establish the truth and to redress the inadequacy of Lord Widgery’s inquiry, which served only to deepen the sense of grievance, added to the pain of the families of those who died and were injured, outraged the community and prolonged the uncertainty hanging over the soldiers. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for reminding the House that the setting up of the Saville inquiry played a necessary part in the peace process. Does the Prime Minister agree ​that, notwithstanding the considerable cost of this inquiry, its value cannot be overestimated in both seeking the truth and facilitating the peace process? Does he believe that Saville has now established the truth?

    How the Government handle the report is of great importance, so I thank the Prime Minister for committing to seek a full day’s parliamentary debate on it. Will he consider allowing for a period of time between the debate in each House, so that what is said in this House may be considered before the debate in the Lords? When will he be in a position to say what, if any, action will be taken in Government as a result of the findings of the Saville report? What will be the decision-making process, and will the process be as transparent as possible?

    The Prime Minister must recognise that some will no doubt raise the possibility of prosecutions. The prosecution process is independent, but has he been asked to consider the question of immunity from prosecution if we are instead to take things forward by a wider process of reconciliation? Is the time now right to move towards a process for reconciliation, building on the work of the Consultative Group on the Past, chaired by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley? Can there now be a comprehensive process of reconciliation to address the legacy issue of the troubles, such as that proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Does the Prime Minister agree that that is what is now necessary?

    The peace process is a great achievement by the people of Northern Ireland as well as by politicians. It is a process built on the value of fairness, equality, truth and justice. This House has played its part, not least in agreeing to the Saville inquiry. The Belfast agreement, the St Andrews agreement and, of course, this year’s Hillsborough castle agreement are all great milestones on the path to a lasting peace. Does the Prime Minister agree that the completion of devolution just a few weeks ago is relatively new and fragile and still requires great care? Our response to Saville must be as measured as it is proportionate. We have sought the truth; now we must have understanding and reconciliation.

    May I conclude by expressing the hope that while people will never forget what happened on that day, this report will help them find a way of living with the past and looking to the future?

  • David Cameron – 2010 Statement on the Saville Inquiry and Bloody Sunday

    David Cameron – 2010 Statement on the Saville Inquiry and Bloody Sunday

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2010.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is publishing the report of the Saville inquiry—the tribunal set up by the previous Government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972, a day more commonly known as “Bloody Sunday”. We have acted in good faith by publishing the tribunal’s findings as quickly as possible after the general election.

    I am deeply patriotic; I never want to believe anything bad about our country; I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our Army, which I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear: there is no doubt; there is nothing equivocal; there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong.

    Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of Support Company who went into the Bogside

    “did so as a result of an order… which should have not been given”

    by their commander. He finds that

    “on balance the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army”

    and that

    “none of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm”.

    He also finds that

    “there was some firing by republican paramilitaries… but… none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties”,

    and that

    “in no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire”.

    Lord Saville also finds that Support Company

    “reacted by losing their self-control… forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training”

    and acted with

    “a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline”.

    He finds that

    “despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers… none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers”

    and that many of the soldiers

    “knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing”.

    What is more, Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying. The report refers to one person who was shot while

    “crawling… away from the soldiers”

    and mentions another who was shot, in all probability,

    “when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground”.

    And the report refers to a father who was

    “hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to… tend his son”.

    For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says:​

    “The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries”,

    and, crucially, that

    “none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting”.

    For those people who were looking for the report to use terms like murder and unlawful killing, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal, or for us as politicians, to determine.

    These are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say, but we do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth. So there is no point in trying to soften, or equivocate about, what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal’s authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way justified.

    I know that some people wonder whether, nearly 40 years on from an event, a Prime Minister needs to issue an apology. For someone of my generation, Bloody Sunday and the early 1970s are something that we feel we have learnt about rather than lived through. But what happened should never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had to live with the pain and hurt of that day, and with a lifetime of loss. Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The Government are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces, and for that, on behalf of the Government—indeed, on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.

    Just as the report is clear that the actions of that day were unjustifiable, so too it is clear in some of its other findings. Those looking for premeditation, those looking for a plan, those even looking for a conspiracy involving senior politicians or senior members of the armed forces, will not find it in this report. Indeed, Lord Saville finds no evidence that the events of Bloody Sunday were premeditated. He concludes that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland Governments, and the Army, neither tolerated nor encouraged

    “the use of unjustified lethal force”.

    He makes no suggestion of a Government cover-up, and he credits the United Kingdom Government with working towards a peaceful political settlement in Northern Ireland.

    The report also specifically deals with the actions of key individuals in the Army, in politics and beyond, including Major-General Ford, Brigadier MacLellan and Lieutenant-Colonel Wilford. In each case, the tribunal’s findings are clear. The report does the same for Martin McGuinness. It specifically finds that he was present and probably armed with a “sub-machine-gun”, but concludes

    “we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire”.

    While in no way justifying the events of 30 January 1972, we should acknowledge the background to the events of Bloody Sunday. Since 1969, the security situation in Northern Ireland had been declining significantly. Three days before Bloody Sunday, two officers in the ​Royal Ulster Constabulary—one a Catholic—were shot by the IRA in Londonderry, the first police officers killed in the city during the troubles. A third of the city of Derry had become a no-go area for the RUC and the Army, and in the end 1972 was to prove Northern Ireland’s bloodiest year by far, with nearly 500 people killed.

    Let us also remember that Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the service that the British Army gave in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007. That was known as Operation Banner, the longest continuous operation in British military history, which spanned 38 years and in which over 250,000 people served. Our armed forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible, and over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives to that cause. Without their work, the peace process would not have happened. Of course some mistakes were undoubtedly made, but lessons were also learnt. Once again, I put on record the immense debt of gratitude that we all owe those who served in Northern Ireland.

    I thank the tribunal for its work, and thank all those who displayed great courage in giving evidence. I also wish to acknowledge the grief of the families of those killed. They have pursued their long campaign over 38 years with great patience. Nothing can bring back those who were killed, but I hope that—as one relative has put it—the truth coming out can help to set people free.

    John Major said that he was open to a new inquiry. Tony Blair then set it up. That was accepted by the then Leader of the Opposition. Of course, none of us anticipated that the Saville inquiry would take 12 years or cost almost £200 million. Our views on that are well documented. It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness, but let me reassure the House that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past.

    However, today is not about the controversies surrounding the process. It is about the substance, about what this report tells us. Everyone should have the chance to examine its complete findings, and that is why it is being published in full. Running to more than 5,000 pages, it is being published in 10 volumes. Naturally, it will take all of us some time to digest the report’s full findings and understand all the implications. The House will have an opportunity for a full day’s debate this autumn, and in the meantime the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence will report back to me on all the issues that arise from it.

    This report and the inquiry itself demonstrate how a state should hold itself to account and how we should be determined at all times—no matter how difficult—to judge ourselves against the highest standards. Openness and frankness about the past, however painful, do not make us weaker; they make us stronger. That is one of the things that differentiates us from the terrorists. We should never forget that over 3,500 people, from every community, lost their lives in Northern Ireland, the overwhelming majority killed by terrorists. There were many terrible atrocities.

    Politically motivated violence was never justified, whichever side it came from, and it ​can never be justified by those criminal gangs that today want to drag Northern Ireland back to its bitter and bloody past. No Government I lead will ever put those who fight to defend democracy on an equal footing with those who continue to seek to destroy it, but nor will we hide from the truth that confronts us today. In the words of Lord Saville:

    “What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland.”

    Those are words we cannot and must not ignore, but I hope what this report can do is mark the moment when we come together, in this House and in the communities we represent; come together to acknowledge our shared history, even where it divides us; and come together to close this painful chapter on Northern Ireland’s troubled past. That is not to say that we must ever forget or dismiss that past, but we must also move on. Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years and all of us in Westminster and Stormont must continue that work of change, coming together with all the people of Northern Ireland, to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous and shared future. It is with that determination that I commend this statement to the House.

  • Ed Miliband – 2020 Speech on the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

    Ed Miliband – 2020 Speech on the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

    Below is the text of the statement made by Ed Miliband, the Labour MP for Doncaster North, in the House of Commons on 3 June 2020.

    I begin by thanking the Business Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, ​the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for the constructive conversations that we have had about the Bill, including with the shadow Business Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). We are very much approaching this in a constructive way, and we welcome the discussions.

    I want to focus on the provisions in the Bill and the wider policy context around insolvencies, which will determine what happens to millions of businesses in our country. As the Secretary of State implied, we face potentially the most dramatic recession in 300 years. What is more, we know that it is a recession necessitated by the essential public health measures that have been taken to contain coronavirus. Just as we are mutually dependent on each other when it comes to controlling the pandemic, I believe there is agreement across the House that that sense of mutual dependence should extend to the businesses of our country, because it is the right thing to do and because it is in all our interests. Every viable business we save will make the recession less deep and the recovery easier. Every business lost is disastrous not only for that business and its workers, but for our economy and all of us.

    We know the great distress that many businesses are facing, and I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to businesses up and down this country that are keeping going in these circumstances, with one fifth temporarily pausing or ceasing trading during lockdown and another quarter saying that their turnover was down by at least 50%. That is the context in which we should test our approach as a country. I acknowledge that this challenge is bound to test the imagination, speed and responsiveness of any Government, and that is why we want to work constructively with them.

    In that context, we welcome the measures in the Bill to help reduce insolvencies and will support their passage. As I will explain, we do not think the Bill does enough to address the dangers for what we might call the less powerful interests—particularly employees—when it comes to insolvency and the new restructuring provision, and I will explain what I mean by that.

    Let me say something about the headline provisions, many of which we agree with. As regards the permanent measures, we support the moratorium to give breathing space to firms. We welcome the measures to prevent suppliers from sending businesses into liquidation, suspending so-called ipso facto provisions, and I will say something in a minute about our views on the new restructuring plan provision.

    Ian Paisley

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for welcoming this Bill, which I do as well. Does he accept that what is so important about the Bill is that it includes and incorporates Northern Ireland absolutely? Northern Ireland is not cut adrift and the Bill does not have some special arrangement that the Assembly will manage; Northern Ireland is part and parcel of it. The measures have given collective support to businesses across all the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland. Without British money, we would have been ruined. That is the bottom line.

    Edward Miliband

    I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important that the approach is UK-wide, and I welcome that.​
    Let me say something about the temporary measures in the Bill. We think it makes sense to remove the threat around winding-up orders, for example, to deal with the issue around landlords. We welcome the measures that the Secretary of State put in place, but there is another way around, as it were, which is a landlord issuing a statutory demand followed by a winding-up order. We think that the suspension of personal liability for wrongful trading while insolvent makes sense as a measure, but for a strictly time-limited period. It is important, as I think is clear, that other duties continue to apply to directors.

    In addition, easing the requirements on company filing deadlines and AGMs makes sense. Indeed, given proceedings yesterday in this House, the facility in the Bill for virtual proceedings at AGMs carries a certain irony. If only the Business Secretary had told the Leader of the House, perhaps we would have been spared a lot of trouble and a lot of queuing yesterday.

    As the hon. Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) have both said, there is clearly a case for a longer period than to 30 June. This is no disrespect to the people writing the Bill, but I think we can agree across the House that the temporary measures will need to be in place for longer. We would be happy to see an amendment that puts the end of September in the Bill, and one of our amendments would do that. I accept the Secretary of State’s point that the change can be made by statutory instrument.

    Having given the Bill a broad welcome, I want to raise some issues.

    Stephen Doughty

    I agree with all that my right hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that some extension will be needed for some of the sectors that may be hit for longer, such as the creative industries? Many in my own patch will be affected for longer because they will be closed down for longer, and they need special assistance.

    Edward Miliband

    My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion of those industries and other industries in his constituency, and I agree with him. I will come on to the particular sectoral challenges that the Secretary of State and the Government are facing.

    Let me mention the areas where we would like to see improvements made to the Bill. First and most importantly, the Government’s case on the restructuring plan provision is that it could have benefits in enabling companies to restructure and not go into liquidation and in stopping large creditors from forcing companies to do so. I accept the case. I think I am right in saying that the cross-class cram-down provisions—it is not a very beautiful phrase—apply across the EU under EU law and apply in the United States as well. What is important about the provisions is that they mean that even if a class or classes of creditors object to a rescue plan, it can still go ahead providing they are better off than in the other most likely scenario, which is often going to be liquidation. That is why protecting those without power—creditors and others—is so important.

    What cannot be allowed to happen—I know the Secretary of State agrees with this—is for the RP provision, which has wide scope and is not just for companies that are insolvent, but for those who fear they might become so, to be used to ride roughshod over the rights of ​employees, including their pensions. Given the nature of the crisis we are in, it is essential that there are proper safeguards.

    To give an example, the Secretary of State will have heard earlier the deep concerns across the House about the actions of British Airways, including sacking its employees and apparently offering worse terms and conditions. The RP provision cannot become a charter for more of that sort of action, and it is our mutual responsibility to make sure it does not become so. I know the Secretary of State shares that view.

    Richard Fuller

    I am extraordinarily grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point, because he will be aware that when a company is in a crisis situation and has so many wolves at the door, it has to make rapid decisions to salvage the assets and the business and continue, hopefully, to trade profitably. He is putting his finger precisely on the issue of what the rights of employees in that circumstance are and what protection there is for their pension benefits in the long term—that is a fundamental part of this issue. I am interested in his new clause on employee representation, which refers specifically to trade union representation; would he be prepared to broaden that out to include some broader sense of employee representation?

    Edward Miliband

    I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says, and the answer is yes, because lots of businesses do not have trade unions, and the question is what rights employees will have in those circumstances. The US experience is quite informative: I mentioned the US hazard provision, and at American Airlines and General Motors we saw employees lose out very significantly. The hon. Gentleman’s point about pension provision is absolutely part of this. I very much hope—this is the spirit in which we are approaching the Bill—that the Government will seek to improve the protections that are in place. Our new clause 5, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, seeks to ensure mandatory discussions with the trade unions once a company enters a restructuring process. That will ensure that employees are provided with all the information made available to the court and fully consulted on any restructuring plan, and the court could then take that into account. There may be better and more comprehensive ways to build in such protection, but it is essential that we do so. Perhaps the Minister can come back on that in his winding-up speech and, indeed, in Committee.

    Secondly, we are concerned about similar issues when it comes to insolvency. Unsecured creditors are left to bear most of the risk of insolvency, so they are often at the back of the queue when it comes to being protected. The protection of unsecured creditors, or the greater protection of them, could be provided through strengthening the ring-fencing of the proceeds of sale of assets when a company becomes insolvent, increasing the proportion of the proceeds reserved for them to 30%, and removing the financial limit, which is what we propose in one of our amendments. We also believe that pension schemes—this goes to the point that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) made—should be made a priority creditor in the event of insolvency so that they get to have a role as a class, because currently I do not believe that they necessarily will.

    ​Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position and wish him well. I have a bit of concern about what I refer to as predatory companies, which look for companies that are probably heading towards insolvency and see them as an opportunity to gain something. I wonder whether it is possible to ensure in the Bill that such predatory companies that would prey on those in trouble, of which there are many, are prevented from taking over an asset that is probably solvent in the long term but is not in the short term.

    Edward Miliband

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I once used the word predatory in relation to companies and it was rather controversial, but I think the consensus may have changed. [Interruption.] Government Members are saying it has not; it was worth a try. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important substantive point on which I think Members from all parties can agree, and it goes to the width and breadth of this provision: we have to make sure that companies cannot use it as a way to take their employees for a ride. I know from my conversations with the Secretary of State and the Minister that the intention to make sure that that does not happen is shared throughout the House, but we have to give expression to it in the Bill, and I hope the Government will indeed do so.

    Let me turn to some things that are not in the Bill—

    Kevin Hollinrake

    The right hon. Gentleman touched on his amendment that would ring-fence 30% of assets for unsecured creditors; is he not concerned that if we did that, people who are willing to extend finance to businesses on a secured basis may be less willing to lend?

    Edward Miliband

    I believe I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman knows a lot about this, and I congratulate him for his work on the all-party group dealing with the whole range of these issues, but I am talking about the situation after secured creditors and others have been dealt with. There is currently a provision for 20%, but up to a limit of £800,000. Our amendment seeks to make that 30%, and to raise the proportion, but remove the limit. We must ensure that we do all we can for employees and small businesses—my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central will correct me if I have got those figures wrong, but I think I am broadly right.

    Two sets of issues are not in the Bill, although we would have liked them to have been included, as I believe they are missed opportunities. First, in 2018 the Government consulted on a set of corporate governance safeguards in the wake of the scandal at Carillion, and indeed at Thomas Cook, which came after that. I understand that the Bill relates to the immediacy of the coronavirus crisis, but it would have been better if the Government had acted on those vital corporate governance issues in the Bill, and we would have supported them in doing so. Given that this crisis makes corporate distress more likely, it is strange that the Government have not chosen to introduce such measures. The risk is that we will get more Carillions and Thomas Cooks, with all the consequences of that for employees.

    In 2018 the Government were committed to greater accountability of directors in group companies, legislation to enhance powers for insolvency practitioners, and further raising standards by ensuring an explanation ​about the affordability of dividend payments. Labour supports all those measures—indeed, we have tabled amendments to insert them into the Bill—and we do not think they cut across the need to protect businesses through the coronavirus crisis. Will the Government explain what plans there are for those improvements to corporate governance? I understand that the Bill must go through at speed, but it would have been better if it contained those measures.

    Secondly, like the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, I wish to mention late payments to small businesses, and the important role of the Small Business Commissioner. If larger companies do not make good on their payments to small businesses, that could be the thing that pushes them over the edge. We believe that the Bill could be used to strengthen the powers of the Small Business Commissioner to help businesses that are struggling with cashflow and liquidity, and such a measure would have improved the Bill.

    As I have said, we want to facilitate the passage of the Bill as it is important to protect businesses up and down the country, and we hope it can be improved in the ways I have set out. Having dealt with its specific provisions, however, let me deal with the wider context. The measures in the Bill can play a part in preventing insolvencies, but as the House knows, the number of businesses that go out of business depends on the external environment and on what the Government do in response to that. I welcome the action taken by the Government so far. There are lots of measures that we support, but we also believe there are gaps and other areas where the Government need to act.

    I wish briefly to outline four sets of issues that go directly to the question of insolvency. First, I fear that the support system introduced by the Government is still not working sufficiently for our SMEs, and it risks worsening the insolvency problem. We called for the 100% underwriting of loans six weeks ago for smaller firms, and we welcomed the bounce back loan. Clearly, however—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made this point—those loans do not do enough for SMEs that need more than £50,000 of liquidity.

    The bounce back loan was intended to improve the working of the CBIL scheme, but I am afraid that has not happened. I have the figures for what happened to the CBIL scheme in the past few weeks—I am sure the Secretary of State is as in touch with them as I am—and the number of facilities approved each week is going down, and the gap between the total numbers of applications and approvals is widening. Somebody contacted me the other day who will not be counted in those figures. He waited two months to be told by his high street bank that he was not eligible and that there was no point in him applying for a loan under the CBIL scheme. He will not be counted in those statistics, and hon. Members across the House will have heard of similar experiences.

    I know that the Secretary of State is dealing with a range of issues to do with companies in distress. As I understand it, the idea was to get rid of the forward credit check for the CBIL scheme, but that does not seem to be doing the business and we need to understand why. I personally would be open to having 100% underwriting slightly higher up the scale, but we need a solution.​

    Secondly, beyond SMEs, I am deeply concerned about particular sectors, with manufacturing top of the list. We have seen thousands of redundancies at Rolls-Royce, real problems in the aerospace sector, issues in the car industry and massive issues facing steel. In France, steel received support within a fortnight of lockdown, whereas here our companies are still waiting. We read stories in the Financial Times about public equity stakes being considered—the so-called “Project Birch. It sounds like an interesting idea, but I say to the Secretary of State that this is taking too long, both for larger companies and for the SMEs in the supply chain.

    Stephen Doughty

    My right hon. Friend is right to mention steel and aerospace in particular, as they are crucial providers of jobs in south Wales, and we have the situations with BA and with the steel industry. Does he agree that we need to get support to them as soon as possible?

    Edward Miliband

    My hon. Friend has been powerfully advocating for the steel industry, along with other hon. Members in all parts of the House, and there is real urgency in this respect.

    Let me just say something about the CLBIL—Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan—scheme, which is for larger loans. We are talking about more than £45 million. I fear that this is Treasury orthodoxy, so I will not expect the Secretary of State to comment. We all know Treasury orthodoxy—I do, as I used to work there. The good news is that the Chancellor raised the limit to £200 million for the amount that companies can get, but the bad news for companies is that the CLBIL loan has to become their most senior loan—it has to be top of their list. The problem is that that means companies then have to renegotiate their other most senior loan, so they are caught in a Catch-22 situation. I suspect the Secretary of State agrees with me, but he cannot say; perhaps the Chancellor is watching. I say to the Secretary of State that companies such as McLaren have said, “We have tried to get this loan but we cannot get it because of this Catch-22 situation.” This is urgent and I urge him to get it sorted. We have had only £1 billion paid out under this scheme; 191 firms have got loans, but that is out of 579 that have applied. This is about manufacturing largely; it is about lots of large manufacturers across our country who are really in distress. There is more to be done in advancing some of the money that is already in the budget for low carbon. That is true in relation to aerospace, where I believe there is a fund—I am hoping that can be advanced— and to steel.

    Let me refer to some other sectors, as one of my hon. Friends did earlier. With the public health measures that are necessary, it is obvious that sectors such as hospitality, tourism and the arts will face much greater pressures for longer; they are going to take longer to reopen and recover. To give the House a sense of the scale, I should point out that the British Beer and Pub Association has warned that up to 40% of Britain’s pubs cannot survive beyond September with the current level of financial support; that one third of jobs in tourism-related areas are estimated to be at risk; and that the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre estimate that 70% of the 290,000 jobs in that sector are at risk. Those are dire warnings we are being given.​

    That brings me on briefly to the furlough scheme. It has been a really good innovation, but I do not understand why the Chancellor is pursuing a one-size-fits-all policy on that scheme, because the public health measures mean that some sectors will take longer to reopen and recover. Whether through the furlough scheme or a second wave of support, these sectors are going to need extra help. I know the Secretary of State is working on this, but I underline its importance: we are talking about thousands of pubs across our country, hundreds of theatres and arts venues, and jobs in tourism. These things are the lifeblood of our constituencies.

    Thirdly, I want to raise with the Secretary of State the issue of the “month 13 problem” of insolvency. This is a bit further off, but it is still an issue. Even if the Government fix their loan schemes and provide the sectoral support required, the more debt there is weighing down companies, the greater the danger of insolvency down the line—this debt overhang is also bad for our economy when it comes to recovery. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire muttering about borrowing from a sedentary position, but I am talking about private debt. The Federation of Small Businesses has been suggesting for some time that loans need to become income contingent. It has suggested a student loan-type approach. In other words, when businesses get to a certain level of financial health, they can start repaying the loans. There may be other ways forward, such as converting the loans into equity, but we are going to need solutions for these firms.

    Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)

    Would the right hon. Gentleman support the ideas that I have been doing some work on—as have lots of people—outside this place in relation to recapitalising the British corporate sector, not just in terms of debt to equity, but in finding ways to get much more equity into our businesses so that they are not weighed down by debt? That approach could be how we recover from this situation.

    Edward Miliband

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need innovative thinking in this area. We are going to have to do things—I think that the Chancellor has said this—that we would not have done in normal times, but we cannot send businesses back out into an economy that is recovering, with this massive debt overhang. [Interruption.] I will not give way again because I need to get on with it so that other Members can speak; I can see the beady eye of Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Fourthly, crucial to helping businesses through this crisis is an economic stimulus that matches the moment. In particular, I hope that plans for a green recovery, which the Government have been talking about, will be at the centre of what they do. This is the way to get our economy moving, help to save businesses and meet our climate goals.

    The Bill is a step forward. We continue to have worries about the protection of workers in the event of restructuring and insolvency, and hope it can be addressed as the Bill passes through both Houses. I wish that the reforms to corporate governance had been included.

    I will end by mentioning the wider economic context. We are only at the end of the beginning of the economic crisis that we are facing, and there is a need for urgency, boldness and action in the coming weeks and months. The Chancellor has said that he will do whatever it takes. In my view, that means support for specific sectors, ​reform of the loans scheme, imaginative solutions to the debt problems facing the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, a commitment to building back better and a green recovery. It is in the interests of everyone across the country for the Government to act; if they do, they will have our support.

  • Alok Sharma – 2020 Statement on the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

    Alok Sharma – 2020 Statement on the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

    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 3 June 2020.

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

    On 23 March, the Government requested many businesses to close their doors to safeguard the nation’s health. We absolutely recognise the huge sacrifices that this entailed. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has been at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, has outlined the unprecedented economic support for businesses and workers across the country.

    Like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), I have regular conversations with businesses, business representative organisations and trade unions, and I know that the scale of what the Government have done has been appreciated across the board. We have supported millions of businesses and individuals through a range of support schemes. These have included grants to small businesses—over £10 billion out of the door now —loans, through the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, and bounce-back loans, with more than £14 billion now paid out, as well as business rate holidays, tax deferrals, the job retention scheme and, of course, the self-employed scheme. By any international comparison, the effort that has been put into supporting businesses and individuals to safeguard lives and livelihoods is incredibly favourable.

    Alongside those fiscal measures to support businesses and individuals and protect livelihoods, in this Bill we want to provide further support: non-fiscal measures to ensure that we can help businesses at a time of difficulty.

    Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

    Is the Minister satisfied that the measures being proposed today could expire within 27 days? Is that sufficient time to address the problems that might be coming down the track?

    Alok Sharma

    As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I will talk further about this, but that is precisely why we have ensured an opportunity to extend the temporary measures in the Bill, but by regulation, so statutory instruments will have to be laid before the House. However, I am sure that the sentiments he expresses are felt across the House. If we need to, I am sure that we will collectively look to extend some of the temporary measures to continue to help businesses.

    The Bill will allow business owners time and space to explore rescue options. It will allow directors of companies that are technically insolvent, but simply because of a temporary drop in demand caused by the covid-19 crisis, to proceed with the business without the threat of personal liability. That has been incredibly warmly welcomed by businesses and business representative organisations.

    Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill will give businesses in Redcar and Cleveland and across the country the much needed breathing space to get through this crisis?

    Alok Sharma

    My hon. Friend is already making a huge impact in supporting businesses in his constituency, and he is absolutely right. The whole point of these measures, both permanent and temporary, is precisely ​as he says: to give businesses the breathing space to allow them to see whether they can recover and ultimately bounce back. That is what we all want to see.

    Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)

    Unfortunately, some businesses fail. In my constituency, MG Rover collapsed 15 years ago, ripping a huge hole in the community in Northfield and Longbridge. Fifteen years on, over 6,000 people are owed money from the liquidation of MG Rover. Will my right hon. Friend look into ways in which we can speed up the process—15 years is too long and causes a lot of problems and anxiety for people—so that they can get closure and the money that they are owed.

    Alok Sharma

    Again, the manner in which the debate has begun demonstrates the consensus on supporting businesses, not just in our individual constituencies but across the country. I can give my hon. Friend a commitment that I am happy to meet him to discuss the case and see what more can be done. He is absolutely right—where we are able to, we must seek to speed up and provide that support to individuals who need it.

    The Bill will provide extra flexibilities to hold AGMs online during the covid-19 pandemic and will also provide more time to file accounts and other filings with Companies House.

    Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)

    May I ask the Secretary of State whether companies have to apply for those extensions on filing, or will there be an automated aspect whereby Companies House will approach the companies affected?

    Alok Sharma

    Once the filing requirements are enacted, as my hon. Friend says, companies can make filings up to the extension dates. As was mentioned earlier, if there is a need to extend temporary provisions, we will look to see if that is required. While we recognise that these and other support measures will not, sadly, be able to save every business and every job, the Bill delivers commitments that will give businesses in difficulty due to the pandemic a fighting chance of eventually bouncing back.

    Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)

    There are indeed some important measures in the Bill, and we will undoubtedly scrutinise them in more detail in due course. I thank the Secretary of State for the work of the officials in his Department to support a number of businesses in my constituency, and I thank the Welsh Government for the support that they have provided through the economic resilience fund.

    We have not had enough support from the banks, some of which have not only struggled to make themselves available to businesses seeking support through the loan schemes that the Government have set up but seem to be trying to push off their books businesses that could make it through the crisis. What does the Secretary of State have to say to the banks?

    Alok Sharma

    When we first launched CBILS there were a lot of concerns about how quickly the process was moving. I have been talking to banks individually and to senior managers in the banks, and I think that we are beginning to see movement. CBILS has had over ​40,000 loans out of the door, and over 450,000 bounce-back loans have been made. If there are specific banks about which the hon. Gentleman has concerns—he, like all colleagues, is concerned about retaining employment in his constituency—I would be happy to take up those issues with him individually.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

    Because of the success of bounce-back loans—it is a much easier process to get a bounce-back loan than a CBILS loan—lots of businesses that need more than £50,000 have gone for a bounce-back loan as an interim step, but are restricted from taking a CBILS loan, as they can only have one or the other. Would my right hon. Friend consider allowing businesses to apply for a CBILS loan for a larger amount, subject to necessary lending criteria, then paying off the bounce-back loan so that they can get access to the finance that they need?

    Alok Sharma

    My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that it is possible to transfer loans between the bounce-back scheme and CBILS. I am happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is absolutely right—people cannot have one of each, so to speak, but I think that it is possible to make a transfer.

    The measures set out in the Bill have been welcomed across the board by business representatives’ organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, R3—the insolvency and restructuring professionals trade association—and the Trades Union Congress. Some of the measures will take retrospective effect to provide as much relief to businesses as possible. To ensure that is the case, we have announced the dates from which the measures will begin.

    Let me turn to corporate restructurings, and the package of permanent corporate restructuring measures, which have previously been consulted on. As colleagues know, they were consulted on in 2016, and then formed part of a wider consultation on corporate governance and insolvency published in 2018, so they have been consulted on in some detail. They will have immediate effect in helping companies get through the covid-19 emergency.

    A number of time-limited provisions are there to cater for the immediate economic impact of the covid-19 pandemic. They have been added to the package and will be in place for a month after Royal Assent.

    Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)

    Playing a fundamental part in the Bill, we have a number of measures that have been consulted on for a long period; people have thought about them and, as my right hon. Friend said, there has been a large degree of consensus around them. Then we have some other measures that have been brought forward in response to the immediate crisis; the Department has worked incredibly quickly to come up with them. Is the Department satisfied that it has got the balance right between the two? Is there anything that we should look out for in the next few months about the permanence of some of those measures?

    ​Alok Sharma

    My hon. Friend is of course right. By the way, I am delighted that he is back in the House, after a short absence. He brings a huge amount of experience in this area, as a result of his work in the private sector. The permanent measures have already been consulted upon, and they enjoy broad support. The temporary measures are of course temporary, and if we were to look to extend any of them, we would have to do so by way of regulation—we would have to come to the House with statutory instruments, and there would be an opportunity, if colleagues in the House felt it was not right to extend them, for them to voice their concerns. So I do think we have managed to get the balance right in this case. We want to ensure that the measures are put in place as quickly as possible, so that we are able to provide support to businesses in difficulty right now. In all the discussions that we have had with the right hon. Member for Doncaster North and his colleagues, we have always had a really constructive approach; I hope that is exactly what we will have today as well.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    I speak as a co-chair of the all-party group on fair business banking, has dealt with a lot of problems in how banks treat SMEs, facilitated by insolvency practitioners. To eliminate those conflicts of interest, the Secretary of State’s Department has committed to bringing forward measures to provide that the conduct of insolvency practitioners is overseen by a single regulator, rather than by recognised professional bodies. Can he commit to bringing forward those measures in the not-too-distant future, so that we can try to eliminate those conflicts of interest?

    Alok Sharma

    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will elaborate on some of the points that my hon. Friend raised. I would simply say that in July 2019, the Government issued a call for evidence on the insolvency regulatory framework, to determine whether any changes needed to be made. That included questions on whether there should be a single regulator. We expect to publish the Government response to the call for evidence later this year. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will elaborate later.

    Returning to the Bill, the package of measures has three elements. The first is a moratorium. That will give a company that is threatened with insolvency temporary respite from its creditors and a chance to arrange refinancing or a rescue. The moratorium will be for an initial period of 20 days, which can then be extended. There will be a time-limited easing of the eligibility criteria for a company to enter into a moratorium, to make it more accessible during the covid-19 response period.

    Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)

    The temporary measures that my right hon. Friend has included in the Bill will provide great respite for many businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, where businesses have been unable to trade throughout this outbreak but rents have remained very high; the measures will protect them from aggressive landlords. Those pressures will continue well past the end of June, so will he consider extending the protection for tenants from winding-up petitions?

    Alok Sharma

    Of course, that is part of the measures that we will bring in. I recognise why my hon. Friend wants to ensure that tenants have protection, and that is ​why we will introduce the temporary measures around this issue, but of course we also need to think about landlords. I will address that point as I go through my speech.

    Returning to the moratorium, the time-limited easing of the eligibility criteria for a company to enter a moratorium, to make that more accessible during the covid-19 response period, will be in place for a month after Royal Assent. Of course, that can be extended if it is deemed necessary.

    The second part of the new permanent restructuring measures will allow companies in financial difficulty to propose a rescue plan to restructure complex debt arrangements, and to bind creditors to it, as long as certain thresholds are met. That means that viable companies struggling with debt obligations will be able to restructure under the new procedure.

    There are, however, significant safeguards and protections for creditors, which is right and proper. The plan must be sanctioned by the court and, indeed, any dissenting creditor class bound to a plan must not be made worse off than it would have been in the next most likely outcome. I know that a number of colleagues, both in the House and outside, have raised this issue. That is why we have ensured that this measure is in place.

    The third part of the restructuring package will prohibit termination clauses. That will prevent suppliers from terminating contracts or raising prices just because a company has entered an insolvency procedure or a moratorium. Of course, we recognise that requiring companies to supply under those circumstances may cause them financial difficulties, so we have built in a number of protections for suppliers too.

    If continuing supply would cause a supplier hardship, it can apply to the court for permission to terminate the contract. In addition, if goods or services supplied after the insolvency begins are not paid for, the supplier can terminate the contract. Further, the Government will temporarily exempt small suppliers from this requirement altogether during the covid-19 crisis, recognising the particular challenges that those firms face.

    Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)

    Small businesses often find themselves dictated to by larger organisations, and the last thing we want is for small businesses to be put at a disadvantage by being compelled to supply when they are not capable or it is not in their interest to do so. Will the Secretary State reassure us that small businesses in particular will be protected by these provisions?

    Alok Sharma

    My hon. Friend raises a really important point about protecting small suppliers. They will of course have this exemption. According to the definition in the Companies Act 2006, a small supplier is one that meets two of the following three criteria: having up to 50 employees, a turnover of up to £10.2 million, and gross assets of up to £5.1 million. I think that will cover a very large number of businesses in our country.

    Richard Fuller

    May I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for permitting so many interventions? As we are rushing through the Bill relatively quickly, it is important that Members on both sides of the House have the opportunity to raise points directly with the Secretary of State, so thank you for permitting some latitude for interventions.​

    The small business commissioner appeared before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee a few weeks ago, and I posed some questions about whether he had the powers he needed. As my right hon. Friend looks at this period, with the particular pressure caused by covid-19, is he assured that the small business commissioner’s powers are as will be needed, or does he envisage wanting to look again at this in the future?

    Alok Sharma

    My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. I championed this issue—support for small businesses—when I was on the Back Benches. As he will know, the Government’s payment terms are favourable in setting a very time-limited period within which payments must be made to Government suppliers, and of course the Government also require that if a large organisation is being paid by the Government under a contract, they need to pass on that speed of payment to smaller subcontractors. He will also know that in the manifesto on which he and I stood we committed to looking further at the role of the small business commissioner and how it might be strengthened. We will bring forward a consultation on that in due course.

    I move now to the temporary measures in the Bill. The first set provides for a suspension of the serving of statutory demands and a restriction on winding-up petitions. These measures will be retrospective from 1 March and 27 April respectively and will last until one month after Royal Assent, although they can be extended if that is deemed necessary. The Coronavirus Act 2020 temporarily suspended the right of commercial landlords to forfeit the tenancies of retail businesses in order to protect tenants unable to trade because of covid-19. While this temporary suspension has been in place, the majority of landlords and tenants have been working well together to reach agreements on debt obligations, but a small number of landlords have been using aggressive debt recovery tactics to put pressure on tenants, including through the use of statutory demands and threats of winding up. For this reason, the measures in the Bill to limit the use of statutory demands and winding-up petitions have been welcomed by many, especially in the hospitality sector.

    Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)

    The Government have repeatedly spoken about this clause in the context of landlords, but can the Secretary of State confirm that it actually applies to all creditors?

    Alok Sharma

    It is intended to apply to all suppliers—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong on that. As my hon. Friend has also been keen to point out, although this measure is not restricted to commercial landlords, some landlords will have particular concerns, and I can reassure him that the Government will monitor the impact of the measure and are asking lenders and investors to consider how debt obligations can be met in a way that does not put unnecessary pressure on landlords.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    In respect of commercial loans, currently the banks, when showing forbearance, are providing capital repayment holidays but only on the capital element of the repayment. In respect of residential mortgages and loans, they are giving complete repayment holidays. The monthly capital repayment is a small ​element of the overall payment. The banks could be much more helpful to landlords by giving a complete holiday across the whole repayment for a period of time while showing forbearance to their tenants.

    Alok Sharma

    Colleagues in the banking sector will I am sure be watching this debate and listening in, and they will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. I would be happy to have a discussion with him after this debate if there are particular points that he wants to raise or if he wants to talk about particular organisations.

    The second temporary measure is the suspension of the wrongful trading provisions. This will be retrospective to 1 March and will be in place until one month after Royal Assent, and again it can be extended if that is deemed necessary. Hon. Members will know that wrongful trading is an important deterrent against company directors continuing to trade when the company is insolvent and when doing so increases the losses to creditors. Directors can be made personally liable as a result. However, during this difficult period, many otherwise viable companies may become technically insolvent, particularly if they have been severely affected by a drop in demand caused by covid-19. This measure gives company directors the confidence to use their best efforts to continue trading without the threat of personal liability, should the company ultimately go into insolvency. Since the measure was announced in March, we have received much support for it from stakeholders. The Institute of Directors has welcomed it, saying that it

    “will help to avert entirely preventable corporate collapses.”

    The Bill also contains the necessary time-limited powers to extend these temporary provisions, should that prove necessary.

    The Bill will also allow the Government to make other temporary amendments to insolvency law or the new restructuring plan to deal with the effects of covid-19, where needed. The power to amend corporate insolvency or governance legislation will allow the insolvency and business rescue regime to react quickly to the challenges we face as a result of the impact of covid-19, and that power will expire on 30 April 2021. However, due to the potential unforeseen circumstances relating to covid-19, the expiry date of this power can be extended if it is deemed necessary. If an extension is sought, the House will of course have an opportunity to scrutinise it.

    The next group of temporary measures deals with meetings and company filings. These measures enable companies and other bodies, including mutual societies and charitable incorporated organisations, to hold AGMs and other meetings in a safe way, while respecting social distancing rules.

    Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)

    On the point about AGMs, it is obviously good that the legislation makes provision for AGMs to be held digitally, but is it necessary for the legislation to restrict the participation of shareholders quite as much as it does? Surely, if a digital method enables shareholders to question directors, that should be encouraged if it can be facilitated.

    Alok Sharma

    There are, of course, other methods for shareholders to question directors of a company. There will be shareholders’ days, for example. The reality is that businesses will be reacting and doing their best to try to get information to their shareholders. I am sure that the hon. Lady’s point will be noted, but the intention ​of this Bill—and, I think, of the business community—is not in any way to use these measures to restrict shareholders’ access to information. This is actually about making sure that we can get past the pandemic and be in a position to bounce back.

    The flexibility in terms of these meetings and filings will apply from 26 March—retrospectively, obviously—until 30 September. The measures also enable AGMs to be postponed until 30 September this year, where necessary.

    Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)

    I am encouraged that the measures for AGMs and other meetings are temporary. Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that in-person AGMs provide the best opportunities for shareholders to hold their directors to account?

    Alok Sharma

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. We would all like to get back to those face-to-face discussions, just as we are doing in the House today. These are temporary measures, and I hope that when we get through to the other side there will again be that opportunity for shareholders to meet and ask questions face to face, because that is right and appropriate.

    Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)

    Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are not mandating how companies and organisations are to hold an AGM, but rather giving them flexibility at this incredibly difficult time as to how best to engage with shareholders?

    Alok Sharma

    My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. This is not about mandating; this is about giving choice. I expect that many companies will take up the temporary support that is being made available through these measures.

    Expanding on the announcement I made on 25 March that companies would have an extended period for filing accounts, the Bill will also give businesses more time to meet a range of filing requirements. The extensions to the various filing requirements will be set out in regulations to be laid once the Bill receives Royal Assent. We will be giving businesses the maximum period allowable under the powers in the Bill for filing their accounts, confirmation statements and event-driven updates. We will also extend the period within which charges should be registered with Companies House to 31 days, which I believe strikes the right balance between providing businesses with breathing space and ensuring that lenders are protected.

    In conclusion, the package of measures that the Bill introduces will give businesses the best opportunity to survive the effects of the covid-19 crisis and lay the foundations for a bounce-back in the UK economy. This Government are committed to supporting businesses. We are listening, and we are putting in place meaningful and common-sense measures to provide that support. Let me end by again paying tribute to the millions of business owners up and down our country who are doing their bit to keep Britain moving. In bringing these measures forward, we demonstrate again that we stand with them. I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on UK Border Health Measures

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on UK Border Health Measures

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Labour MP for Torfaen, in the House of Commons on 3 June 2020.

    I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for providing us with advance sight of it.

    We have been calling for sensible screening measures at the border for months, and will of course study the detail of what has been announced. It is vital that the UK has a plan for minimising the risk of infections coming into the country, but the Home Secretary must also realise that there are fundamental questions that she needs to answer: why these particular measures, and why now? From 1 January to 23 March, when the lockdown was imposed, only 273 people were formally quarantined from four flights—three from Wuhan and one from Tokyo—when over 18 million people enter the ​country by air. The Home Secretary just said in her statement that this was because domestic transmission was widespread, but the Government’s own chief scientific adviser said that

    “a lot of the cases in the UK didn’t come from China and didn’t come from the place you might have expected, they came from European imports and the high level of travel into the UK at that time.”

    Ministers saw on their television screens what was happening in Italy and Spain.

    On 30 April, I wrote to the Home Secretary to ask her to publish in full the scientific advice that her decisions on measures at the border at that time were based on so that we could learn the lessons going forward. She has not even replied to my letter. Not making all that information public is a mistake. Unfortunately, like too much of the Home Office’s handling of this crisis, the management of arrivals to the United Kingdom has lacked urgency and coherence.

    As long ago as 10 May, the Prime Minister gave notice of these quarantining measures. Why have the Government wasted precious weeks talking about possible border restrictions, rather than taking effective actions? If these measures are necessary from 8 June, why have they not been necessary in recent weeks or from when they were first announced by the Home Secretary herself —on 22 May? Can the Home Secretary give me her assurance that the measures that will take effect from Monday next week have been recommended and approved by SAGE? I join her in her praise of what those at Border Force have done, but can she give me further assurance that Border Force staff on the frontline will have all the resources and protection that they need?

    The Government’s confusion over arrivals and quarantine has widespread implications for the UK economy, particularly aviation, hospitality and tourism, and related supply chains. Huge numbers of jobs are at risk, yet the crucial package of support for these industries that Labour has argued for has yet to materialise. In her statement, the Home Secretary mentioned a roundtable with the Transport Secretary and businesses tomorrow, but the Government should already have done that. They should be presenting these steps today as part of an all-encompassing approach to travel and the aviation sector, backed up by the published scientific evidence. This is necessary because there has to be reassurance that quarantine has a genuine public health benefit now that, according to the Government, it did not have in past months, and that these measures are not just a three-week fudge to try to spare the Government the embarrassment of failing to grip this issue at the right time.

    Given that there is no vaccine at the moment and that test, track and isolate is not fully up and running as the Government promised it would be, will the Home Secretary make a commitment to report back to the House before the end of the initial three-week window on that first review that she mentioned in her statement, outlining her proposed exit strategy from these measures and her plans for any travel corridors? Can the Home Secretary pass on the message to the Government about how urgent it is that the comprehensive package to support jobs is brought forward as soon as possible?