UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Les Huckfield – 1978 Speech on Viewdata and Teletext

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Warren

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

    Mr. Huckfield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Kenneth Warren – 1978 Speech on Viewdata and Teletext

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • G20 – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    G20 – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

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

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

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

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

    Protect lives.

    Safeguard people’s jobs and incomes.

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

    Minimize disruptions to trade and global supply chains.

    Provide help to all countries in need of assistance.

    Coordinate on public health and financial measures.

    Fighting the Pandemic

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

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

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

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

    Safeguarding the Global Economy

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

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

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

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

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

    Addressing International Trade Disruptions

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

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

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

    Enhancing Global Cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Self-employed people can access the business interruption loans.

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

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

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

    The scheme I have announced today is fair.

    It is targeted at those who need it the most.

    Crucially, it is deliverable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    pledged that whatever resources the NHS needs, it will get

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

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

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

    made available £330 billion of loans and guarantees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you.

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

    George Eustice – 2020 Letter to the Food and Drink Industry

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

    To those working hard to feed the nation,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yours sincerely,

    George Eustice

  • John Stanley – 1978 Speech on Snatched Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Eric Varley – 1978 Statement on the British Steel Corporation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)

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

    Jeremy Corbyn

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

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

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

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

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

    Jeremy Corbyn

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

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

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

    Jeremy Corbyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)

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

    Jeremy Corbyn

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

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

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

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

    Jeremy Corbyn

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

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

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

    Jeremy Corbyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jeremy Corbyn

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

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

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

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

    Jeremy Corbyn

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

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

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

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

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

    Jeremy Corbyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Kevin Foster – 2020 Statement on Immigration Rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • John Glen – 2020 Statement on Pension Reforms

    John Glen – 2020 Statement on Pension Reforms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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