The comments made by Chris Philip, the Courts Minister, on 1 December 2020.
We will explore every viable option for additional court space across the country – and that of course includes looking close to home.
Courts staff have gone to great lengths to help our recovery and the additional capacity at Petty France will further help to deliver speedier justice in the capital.
The article in the Times, republished by the Government, by Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 28 November 2020.
It was a decision none of us wanted to take. But it was a decision none of us could avoid. When ministers met just one month ago to consider whether to introduce a second national lockdown we were presented with a Devil’s dilemma.
We were being asked to impose restrictions on individual liberty which went against every instinct we have had all our adult lives. We would be asking friends and families to avoid each other’s company. We would be closing shops, bars and restaurants, and not just denying people the social contact which defines us as human beings but also suppressing the animal spirit which keeps our economy going. We would be asking millions who had already given up so much to sacrifice even more.
So why did those of us gathered round the cabinet table that Friday afternoon decide that we would, indeed, choose to make November 2020 such a difficult month? For the same reason that Emmanuel Macron in France, Sebastian Kurz in Austria, Micheál Martin in Ireland, Mark Rutte in the Netherlands, Angela Merkel in Germany, Stefan Löfven in Sweden and so many other democratic leaders chose to restrict their people’s freedoms. And for the same reason that the eight political parties in power in devolved administrations have taken similar steps to the UK government. Because the alternative would have been indefensible.
We had to act, as they did, because if we did not our health service would have been overwhelmed.
That Friday morning I was in Surrey, looking forward to a trip later to an award-winning business in my constituency, the Hogs Back Brewery. But a cloud already hung over my day. I knew that the data coming in from the frontline of the fight against the virus was ominous. So I was not surprised, although I was certainly chilled, by the summons to an action meeting to consider the difficult steps that might now be required. Of course, I’d change my diary: was the meeting tomorrow, or Sunday? No — please get back to London as soon as possible.
That afternoon we were confronted with what would happen to our hospitals if the spread of the virus continued at the rate it was growing. Unless we acted, the NHS would be broken.
Infections were doubling fast. The number of days taken to see that increase was open to question. But the trend was not. Infection numbers were growing in areas which had previously seen low prevalence. And as the numbers infected increased so, with iron logic, did the numbers in our hospitals. We could not know exactly when, or how late, we could leave it and still have time to pull the handbrake to avoid disaster, but sooner or later our NHS hospitals would be full.
Not just administratively at full stretch. But physically overwhelmed. Every bed, every ward occupied. All the capacity built in the Nightingales and requisitioned from the private sector too. The NHS could, and would, cancel the operations of patients waiting for hip replacements and other routine procedures to free up more beds. But that wouldn’t be enough. The numbers infected with Covid-19 and requiring a bed would displace all but emergency cases. And then even those. With every NHS bed full, the capacity of the health service to treat new emergency cases — people who had suffered serious accidents, heart attacks, strokes — would go.
The questions we asked that afternoon — and had asked before — were the questions we were to hear everyone ask after we took our decision. Couldn’t NHS capacity have been increased to meet this pressure? Well it had been; the Nightingales had been built, staff redeployed, retired doctors and nurses called to the colours. But while capacity had been, and can be, increased, there is a limit. With the numbers becoming infected and facing hospitalisation doubling, there comes a point where no more flexibility exists. It is difficult to strengthen flood defences when the tsunami is surging towards the shore. Hospitals need doctors and nurses and you can’t double their numbers in a month. And even if you could, you would still need to slow the virus spreading to stop even that capacity being overwhelmed.
Could not more patients be treated at home? And surely improvements in treatment — dexamethasone and non-invasive oxygen support — had made the virus less deadly? Well yes, some patients could be treated at home but the difference could only be made at the margins. And yes, these new treatments reduced mortality. But they relied on patients being in hospital and receiving the treatments from trained professionals. And that was precisely the resource that would run out.
Keeping our hospitals open, available and effective was not just crucial to dealing with Covid-19. It was imperative for the health of the whole nation. But the only way to ensure we can take care of cancer patients, administer radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and help stroke victims and treat heart attacks is by protecting the NHS. And the only way we can do that is by reducing the spread of the virus, thus limiting the number of Covid-19 patients in hospital. Reducing infections is not a distraction from saving other lives, it is a precondition of saving other lives.
And just as we want to reduce Covid-19 infections to save lives, so reducing them is the key to saving the economy. Think for a moment what would happen to our economy if we allowed infections to reach such a level that our NHS was overwhelmed. Would families seek out crowded bars and buzzing restaurants if they knew they could be infecting friends and relatives who could not be treated if they fell ill? Would we flock to the January sales if the doors to our hospitals were shut? Would investors, entrepreneurs and tourists make a beeline for Britain if we could not even guarantee the lives and welfare of our existing citizens?
All the arguments against lockdown came up against that harsh, brute reality. If this government could not guarantee that the NHS was there for our citizens, it would not just be a political and moral failure. It would mean Covid-19 patients who could be saved would die; cancer patients who could be cured would be lost; thousands in pain would suffer for longer; countless more would lose years of their lives; the economy would grind to a halt, as a population we could not protect sought to save their loved ones; and the world would hang an indelible quarantine sign over our nation’s name.
So we acted. And we did so knowing that the most difficult lesson we had learnt that year is that tougher measures than we would ever want to impose are required to restrict the virus’s spread. The tiers we had in place before the lockdown had not suppressed it sufficiently: they were neither strong enough to reduce social contact sufficiently, nor applied widely enough to contain the virus’s spread. And that is the difficult lesson we cannot unlearn as this lockdown ends.
Thanks to the chancellor’s swift action, millions of people have been helped financially through the dark days of this crisis. Since March, we have provided more than £200 billion in fiscal support. We have extended the furlough scheme to the end of March next year, and businesses that are forced to close can get grants of up to £3,000 a month. For councils, we have also provided an additional £900 million on top of previous funding, to support local economies and communities and fund local healthcare needs.
This coming month brings hope. Vaccines that will defeat the virus are motoring towards regulatory authorisation and distribution. We are seeing strong efficacy rates coming out of the Pfizer/Biontech, Moderna and Oxford/Astrazeneca trials, and the regulator is reviewing both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines to determine if they reach the required robust standards for quality, safety and effectiveness. The end of the national lockdown means that in all areas shops can reopen, people can go to the gym, hairdressers and beauty services are available again, collective worship can resume and outdoor sports can restart. And, of course, this Christmas, friends and families across the UK can travel to celebrate in each others’ homes.
But for many, these relaxations are cold crumbs of comfort at the start of a long, harsh winter. The new, tougher tiers which cover most of the country still limit social mixing, keep friends apart and hit pubs and bars particularly hard.
Yet they are grimly, inevitably, necessary. The level of infection across the country remains uncomfortably and threateningly high. The pressure on hospitals is still severe: across the UK, about 16,000 beds are filled with Covid-19 patients, which compares with almost 20,000 at the April peak and as low as 740 on September 11. From the current high base, any sharp uptick in infection could see the NHS under even more severe threat again.
Before the lockdown, the increase in infections was like a tap filling a bath faster and faster with every day that passed. Lockdown first slowed the pace at which the bath was filling up, then stabilised it. Slowly, it has begun to lower the water level. But as we exit this lockdown the level is still high and it would not take too much, or too rapid an increase, for us to risk it overtopping again.
If, however, we can keep the level of infection stable or, even better, falling, and hold out through January and February, then we can be confident that vaccination will pull the plug on the problem. That is why in our Winter Plan we have set out new, stronger tiers. Bluntly, our previous tiers were not as effective as we had hoped. In general, infections continued to rise in Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas and even the bare, basic, old Tier 3 wasn’t enough.
These are, of course, uncomfortable truths. Not least for those of us who argued that these measures, on their own, would be enough. But we cannot ignore the evidence. What has worked, however, is the combination of a toughened Tier 3 and widespread community testing. In Liverpool, the mayor Joe Anderson bravely adopted measures above and beyond the old basic Tier 3 and championed mass testing. The result: falling infections, reduced hospitalisations and a smooth transfer to the new Tier 2.
Learning from that experience, we are confident that our new, tougher tiers will have a real impact, and equip us to respond to local conditions — guarding against spread, stemming signs of growth, or bringing a local outbreak back under control so that hospital capacity is not overwhelmed.
Why is it, some ask, that when they come into force on Wednesday, so many areas will be in Tiers 2 and 3, when they entered the lockdown a tier below? Because the level of infection, while stabilising, is simply still too high, and many hospitals remain under pressure. And why is it that we did not take an even more localised approach, and carve up local authorities? Because we are a small, densely populated country where this virus has proven it can spread with ease — so casting the net wide is more effective. And for another reason too, which is that many NHS hospital catchments are expansive, and so to protect our hospitals you need to tackle the virus right across the areas they serve.
The truth, however uncomfortable, sets you free. And these new tiers, alongside the wider deployment of mass testing, have the capacity to prevent our NHS being overwhelmed until vaccines arrive.
In politics there is often a readier market for comfortable evasions than uncomfortable truths. Some have argued that you can avoid restrictions on everyday life, let the young in particular go out and about, and build up collective or herd immunity — “Just look at Sweden”.
But Sweden, which has in fact always placed restrictions on its population, has found that even the battery of measures it adopted was not enough. Infections rose dramatically in October and early this month, and hospitalisations continue to rise as its government has, reluctantly but firmly, introduced new measures to keep households apart, restrict commerce, stop people visiting bars and restaurants and comprehensively reduce the social contact that spreads infection.
Others have argued, in good faith of course, for a sort of Sweden-that-never-was — for the strict segregation of the most vulnerable while the rest of us go about our business until the pandemic passes. But what would that involve? How, practically, could we ensure that every older citizen, every diabetic, everyone with an underlying condition or impaired immune system was perfectly insulated from all contact with others for months to come? How many are we expected to isolate completely and for how long? Five million? Ten? No visits by carers or medical staff, no mixing of generations, the eviction of older citizens from the homes they share with younger? No country has embarked on this course, with no detailed plan for implementing such a strategy ever laid out.
That is not to deny the course we are on has costs. But those costs are not ones we choose; they are ones we must endure. It is this virus — which in its combination of rapid spread and targeted lethality poses a bigger public health threat than any pandemic since the Spanish flu of 1918 — which brings terrible costs. As previous pandemics always have.
And when the country is facing such a national crisis, the truth is that all of us who have been elected to parliament, not just ministers, must take responsibility for difficult decisions. Covid-19 is no respecter of constituency boundaries and the hardships we are facing now are unfortunately necessary to protect every single one of us, no matter where we live. In any analysis of this government’s, or any government’s approach, the cost of lockdown and restrictions cannot be reckoned against the status quo ante, but only against the cost of inaction, or inadequate action, and the overwhelming of the NHS.
We know now that the costs, significant as they were, generated by our pre-lockdown measures still did not bring us the benefit of a virus under control. We know now, as do other European and western nations, that we can keep the enemy at bay until vaccination turns the tide, but it will be tough. For France, with cafés and restaurants closed across the country until January; for Germany, where even as I write they debate whether even school closures may be necessary; in the US, where Joe Biden, the president-elect, knows he must enter office imposing tougher restrictions to cope with resurgent infections, the need to act is the same. Because the grim calculus of infection is the same. We cannot alter the mathematics, bargain with the virus or evade our responsibilities.
But we can see an end to this. We can end the suffering. Mass testing, vaccination, liberation. But until that liberation comes, we must stand firm. Stand in solidarity with each other. And shoulder the sacrifices required to save the lives of those we love.
The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 1 December 2020.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that these Regulations now be approved.
And I want to begin by telling the House that I was hugely encouraged by a visit I paid only yesterday to a vaccine plant in North Wales where I saw for myself the vials of one of seven vaccines backed by the UK Government that could turn the tide of our struggle against Covid, not just in this country but around the world.
It is the protection of those vaccines that could get our economies moving again, and allow us to reclaim our lives.
And that one plant in Wrexham could produce 300 million doses a year and yesterday was the momentous day when it began to manufacture the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine.
And it was a very moving moment Mr Speaker when I talked to one of the brilliant young scientists there,
And she described the extraordinary moment for her in her life,
to be part of an enterprise that was she thought truly going to offer humanity a route out of this suffering.
But Mr Speaker, we have to be realistic,
And we have to accept that this vaccine is not here yet, no vaccine is here yet
and while all the signs are promising
and almost every scientist I’ve talked to agrees that the breakthrough will surely come
we do not yet have one that has gained regulatory approval.
We can’t be completely sure when the moment will arrive
and until then we cannot afford to relax,
especially during the cold months of winter.
The national measures which are now shortly ending in England
have eased the burden on the NHS and begun to reverse the advance of the virus.
Today, the R is back below 1
and the ONS survey is showing that signs of the infection rate are levelling off
and Imperial College London has found that the number of people with Covid has fallen by a third in England since 2nd November.
But while the virus has been contained, it has not been eradicated.
The latest ONS figures suggest that out of every 85 people in England, one has Coronavirus; far more than in the Summer
between 24th November and yesterday, 3,222 people across the UK lost their lives;
and despite the immense progress of the last four weeks,
our NHS remains under pressure, with hospitals in three regions – the South West, the North East and Yorkshire – all treating more Covid patients now than at the peak of the first wave.
So we can’t simply allow the current restrictions to expire for the reason he gives with no replacement whatever.
With the spread of the epidemic varying across the country, there remains a compelling case for regional tiers in England and indeed Mr Speaker a compelling necessity for regional tiers.
But I hope the House is clear what I am not asking for today.
This is not another lockdown,
nor is this the renewal of the existing measures in England.
The tiers that I am proposing would mean that from tomorrow
everyone in England
– including those in tier 3 –
will be free to leave their homes for any reason.
And when they do, they will find the shops open for Christmas,
the hairdressers open,
the nail bars open,
gyms and leisure centres, swimming pools open,
churches, synagogues, mosques and temples will be open for communal worship.
Organised outdoor sport will resume,
and in every tier you will be able to meet others in parks and in public gardens subject to the Rule of Six.
And every one of those things has been by necessity restricted until today.
Every one of them would be allowed again tomorrow.
Of course I accept that this is not a return to normality. I wish it were so.
But it is a bit closer to normality than the present restrictions.
And what we cannot do is lift all of the restrictions at once, or move too quickly, in such a way that the virus would begin to spread rapidly again.
That would be the surest way of endangering our NHS and forcing us into a new year lockdown, with all the costs that that would impose.
We all accept that the burden on the hospitality sector has been very great.
We feel this deeply, because our pubs, our hotels, restaurants they are in many ways the heart of the communities
And part of the fabric of our identity as a country
And everybody can see that the hospitality industry has borne a disproportionate share of the burden in this crisis. There’s no question about it. And that is obviously because we want to keep schools open Mr Speaker and we have to take such measures as we can.
I would just remind the House however, that we are not alone in this.
In France bars, restaurants and gyms will not reopen until 20th January at the earliest.
In Germany, the hospitality sector will remain closed in its entirety over Christmas.
But we will do everything in our power to support our hospitality sector throughout this crisis.
We have already extended the furlough scheme for all businesses until the end of March,
We’ve provided monthly grants of up to £3,000 for premises forced to close,
and £2,100 for those that remain open but have suffered because of reduced demand.
We have allocated £1.1 billion for local authorities to support businesses at particular risk.
And today Mr Speaker we are going further with a one-off payment of £1,000 in December to wet pubs – that is Mr Speaker pubs that do not serve food as the House knows
recognising how hard they have been hit by this virus in what is typically their busiest month.
We will also work with the hospitality sector in supporting their bounce back next year.
Mr Speaker I want to stress, that the situation is profoundly different now because there is an end in sight.
And I am not this afternoon seeking open-ended measures.
On the contrary, these regulations come with a sunset clause at the end of February, sorry at the end of the 2 February I should say Mr Speaker.
At that point we will have sufficient data to assess our position after Christmas,
and though I believe these types of restrictions will be needed until the Spring,
they can only be extended beyond 2 February if this House votes for them Mr Speaker.
These are points that have been made with great power as I say by Hon Members on all sides of the House.
We will review the allocation of tiers every fourteen days, starting on 16th December. I just want to make an important point to my Rt Hon friend and to all members who are rightly concerned about the position of their constituencies, our constituencies, in these tiers.
Hon Members have it in their powers, in our power to help move our areas down the tiers,
by throwing their full weight Mr Speaker, our full weight as leaders in our communities behind community testing,
and seizing the opportunity, seizing the opportunity to encourage as many people as possible to take part.
Of the kind we’ve seen in Liverpool Mr Speaker
where since the 6th November over 284,000 tests have been conducted,
and together with the effect of national restrictions,
the number of cases fell by more than two thirds. This is the model that I would recommend.
We are now proposing that from tomorrow Liverpool City Region and Warrington should be in tier 2, where as previously obviously they were in tier 3.
And we want other regions and other towns, cities, communities to follow this path,
And that is why – with the help of our fantastic armed forces –
we will be offering community testing to tier 3 areas as quickly as possible.
Mr Speaker let me just say, I find it extraordinary that the Official Opposition –represented by the gentleman opposite – currently have no view on the way ahead and are not proposing to vote tonight.
I do think it is extraordinary that in spite of the barrage of criticism that we have no credible plan from the party opposite. Indeed, we have no view on the way ahead. It’s a quite extraordinary thing Mr Speaker that tonight to the best of my knowledge
The RHG Opposite who has always said he will ‘act in the national interest’ has told his party to sit on its hands and to abstain in the vote tonight Mr Speaker.
And I think the government has made its decision, we’ve taken some tough decisions Mr Speaker and the Labour opposition has decided tonight heroically to abstain Mr Speaker
And I think when the history of this pandemic comes to be written, I think the people of this country will observe that instead of having politicians of all parties coming together in the national interest they had one party taking the decisions and another party heroically deciding to abstain
Mr Speaker, in the story of 2020, I think there are two great feats in which we can take a great deal of comfort.
First, our country has come together in an extraordinary effort that has so far succeeded in protecting our NHS and in saving many lives.
And while our scientists have been zeroing in on the weaknesses of Covid,
telescoping ten years of work into ten months,
and now their endeavours are about to deliver the means as I say to rout the virus. That is clear.
The Government is backing not one potential vaccine, but seven.
We have ordered 100 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, that is now seeking regulatory approval.
We have ordered 7 million doses of the Moderna vaccine, which has almost 95 per cent effectiveness in trials.
And Mr Speaker, we have ordered 40 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which
if approved by the regulator –
could start being administered before Christmas.
In total, Mr Speaker our Vaccines Task Force has secured more than 350 million doses,
more than enough for everyone in the UK, the Crown Dependencies and our Overseas Territories.
All we need to do now Mr Speaker is to hold our nerve until these vaccines are indeed in our grasp,
and indeed being injected into our arms.
So I say to the House again let us follow the guidance, let us roll out mass testing, let’s work to deliver mass testing to the people of our country, let’s work together to control the virus and it is in that spirit that I commend these regulations Mr Speaker I commend these regulations to the House.
The speech made by Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 1 December 2020.
Thanks Gus, and it’s a pleasure to be at the launch of the Law Family Commission.
Can I also pay tribute to Andrew Law and the Law Family Charitable Foundation, whose generous support has made this Commission possible.
I was interested to read the report and Gus O’Donnell’s article in the FT – and I was particularly struck by what Andrew Law wrote in his foreword, about how we can best coordinate the “millions of individual acts of benevolence that take place every day in our nation”.
That’s exactly what we are looking to do in government with our approach to civil society.
And I think this report is a timely and useful intervention. This launch comes at the end of one of the most challenging years in recent history – and I’d like to talk a little bit about that context, and what it has taught us about civil society, before getting into the government’s approach in the coming years.
I know how hard hit civil society has been by the crisis – unable to fundraise face to face, unable to open charity shops, cafes and other retail outlets – especially at a time when the public has looked to the sector for frontline support more than ever.
The Commission’s report identifies one key challenge, first and foremost – and that is what it calls our collective failure to properly value what civil society delivers.
But I want to be clear up front: that is not this government’s attitude.
That’s why we made a £750 million investment into the sector when the COVID crisis hit, to help ensure it could keep delivering essential support to those who needed it the most.
That was the first sector-specific financial intervention my department sought, and one of the first the Treasury granted across the entire economy. It was by far the biggest package of its kind in Europe, and a signal of our clear commitment to the sector.
Because in the unique challenges it has posed, and the enormous response required, I think COVID demonstrated beyond doubt that we can’t afford not to value civil society.
At the same time, the wider context for civil society has shifted. When this pandemic hit, we witnessed a surge of goodwill in our communities.
The Commission’s own research has found that 18 million people in England helped friends or neighbours during the first lockdown, by doing their shopping or walking the dog.
There’s a strong appetite for community, and for helping good causes. And as we look back on this extraordinary year, I think it’s a good moment to stop, to reflect, and to try and answer two important questions:
How do we capitalise on that surge of goodwill, on the army of volunteers who put their hands up during COVID – and make sure the epidemic of kindness we’ve witnessed in the last 12 months lasts far beyond this pandemic?
What lessons can we take from the past year, from the way civil society has had to radically adapt – and does COVID offer us and civil society a new way forward?
So let me offer some reflections on the key points from the report you have published today, and give you a taste of what the government is looking to do to unleash the potential of civil society.
And I use the term “unleash” deliberately there. Because I strongly believe, as your report rightly highlights, that there is huge power in civil society, and that it should be the government’s job to unlock it – not try to replace it, or end up stymying it.
Not running things from the top-down – but stewarding the sector, unlocking resources and empowering volunteers.
So my first priority is for the government’s work to focus on where it can add most value in this space.
The way the sector uses digital and data is a good example of this.
The Commission’s report talks about the “digital deficit” – how more than one-in-three charities say they don’t have the resources to invest in technology.
But I’ve been struck by the way charities have innovated and adapted during the pandemic – particularly through their use of digital technology: 92 percent of organisations have moved their services online as a result of COVID.
And the government has played an important role here, with a significant amount of the £200 million we have made available to small and medium sized charities via the Coronavirus Community Support Fund being spent on helping them to digitise their offer.
I know that charities can’t deliver everything online, and that some of their most important work is done face-to-face.
But one of COVID’s positive legacies could be the way it has helped digitise the sector for the long-term. And of course, going digital means more data, and that means making it easier to both evaluate and boost an organisation’s impact.
In my wider role as Secretary of State, I spend a lot of time thinking about how we can make better use of data in the wider economy. In fact, it’s one of the areas where I think we can make a really significant impact now that we have left the EU.
But just as data isn’t always well used in the public sector, your report highlights the ‘data deficit’ in civil society. 87% of charities say a focus on impact measurement is important to delivering their objectives, but fewer than half describe their knowledge and use of such approaches as “good” or “very good”.
In truth, I think the government has the same data deficit.
The early stages of the Covid crisis showed that Whitehall didn’t know as much about civil society as we thought we did. Where the volunteers were, which charities were best placed to step in and support public services, and what the real picture of its financial health was.
That matters: because without that understanding, we in government can’t be as effective in supporting the sector or making the most of what it has to offer.
So I have made it a priority for my department to build up that knowledge – bringing in new skills and tools in order to do so. This was an important part of our settlement for the Office for Civil Society in the recent Spending Review, and I hope to see it bear fruit in the coming months as we take a different approach.
Secondly – and this is another issue that the Commission’s report highlights – we want to look at how we can help bring more resources into the sector.
But not all of it needs to come from the same old sources. We need to look at bold new ways to raise funds.
So, for example, the Commission’s report highlights what it calls the “philanthropic deficit” in this country. While the UK is undoubtedly a generous nation – and we saw that in abundance throughout the pandemic – we lag behind countries like the U.S., to the equivalent of an estimated £45 billion a year. That’s very nearly the entire income of our charity sector income.
I want to know how we can use philanthropy more in this country in the future. Why is it that we don’t get philanthropy on the same scale as you see in the U.S.? What role can the government play in stimulating it?
And as part of this, my excellent colleague Baroness Barran, the Minister for Civil Society, is doing some very important work on leveraging finance.
She has led two hugely successful fund-matching partnerships during the pandemic – firstly, the BBC’s Big Night In, which saw government funds match public generosity and secondly the £85 million Community Match Challenge, which doubled government investment by unlocking support from philanthropists, foundations and grant making organisations.
It’s also become increasingly clear that a growing number of people are looking to invest their money in companies that align with their values. So we’re looking at how we can drive impact investment. So in the same way people can now invest directly in funds focused on green investment, we want to look at how this could be applied to the work being done by civil society, to sit alongside the investment government is making.
We’re also looking to expand the UK’s Dormant Assets Scheme. This is money that is sitting in unused accounts, begging to be used to tackle some of society’s most pressing challenges.
Since 2011, over £745m has been released from that scheme to support work on things like youth unemployment and problem debt. And we made another £150m available in May to help people who have been left particularly vulnerable as a result of COVID. Very shortly, we’ll be publishing our response to a consultation on the expansion of that scheme.
And when we talk about making sure that investment has the greatest possible impact, I think we also need to ask some important questions about the National Lottery.
It was established in 1996 – and it has undergone only one real change since then, when a Labour government changed the way funding was distributed.
I’m keen, particularly as we move to a comprehensive spending review, to review where that balance lies.
During this pandemic we’ve seen how valuable organisations like grassroots sports clubs are in their communities. I want to see how we can best use those kinds of existing organisations to help communities, so that we make the most of our strongest assets on the ground.
And our third priority, something the report again highlights, is how we can unlock another important resource – which is time.
The Report warns that the country’s early-pandemic enthusiasm for volunteering and sense of community is beginning to wane.
And yet we hear from so many people, and particularly the young, that they really want to get into volunteering. The will is there – but there are just too many obstacles in the way.
One person might volunteer to help in a care home, for instance, and have to go through a whole process of checks to do so. And then when they try to volunteer in another nearby care home in the same area, they find that they have to go through the exact same process again.
How can the government help simplify this process, and make sure the pandemic spirit of volunteering lives on long beyond this crisis?
Danny Kruger has spoken about a volunteer passport to coordinate the supply and demand of volunteers, which is something we’re looking at closely.
We’ve already strengthened our links with voluntary organisations through the Voluntary and Community Sector Emergencies Partnership, which was given a £4.8 million grant during the coronavirus crisis. That has set us up to work much better together in the future.
These efforts are all part of one of this government’s central goals, which is leveling up the country. Leveling up extends to civil society.
One thing we’ve learnt from COVID is that those areas that already had a strong volunteering infrastructure were able to respond to the crisis much more effectively and much quicker than those without.
So how can we level up the country so that, when the next crisis hits, everyone has access to rapid support?
An important part of this is the Government’s new £4 billion Leveling Up Fund.
Danny Kruger’s report recommended it, and it’s a central piece of the spending review.
But now that we have the funding, we have to make sure the money gets to where it is most needed.
And as we do that, I want to ensure the decisions aren’t just made by people sitting in offices in London. It should be driven and directed by the communities on the ground.
As I’ve touched on throughout my speech, a lot of this comes down to data and analytics, and getting a clear picture of how things stand.
One of the most important things we can do is to try and understand not just the health of the sector, but its value. As Andy Haldane highlighted in a lecture last year, the collective contribution of civil society to our economy and society is hugely underestimated by current economic measures.
And that is why this Commission is so important, and why we’ll be wanting to work closely with you throughout this project.
Gus knows better than anyone that my job is to quantify to the Treasury, in terms they understand, what all of us speaking today know: that civil society is not just special but incredibly important.
I look forward to working with all of you in making that case.
The comments made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 1 December 2020.
Once again, this government is putting the burden on businesses to prepare for the end of the transition period, when it has not explained what it is those businesses are getting ready for. Is it for tariffs or no tariffs with the EU?
The government is rebadging a basic element of preparation but still can’t tell us how many customs agents are recruited or trained or whether crucial IT is ready.
With glaring questions like these still unanswered, this government must do much more than just ‘demand action’ from UK businesses, already under huge pressure from the pandemic – and instead provide them with some much needed answers.
The comments made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Minister for Business and Consumers, on 1 December 2020.
This is devastating news for the 12,000 employees at Debenhams who are facing a very worrying Christmas, and comes on top of the news that Arcadia has gone into administration.
The Government must urgently set out how it plans to support the people affected by the collapse of these companies, including pressing Philip Green to do the right thing and plug the Arcadia pension deficit.
The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 1 December 2020.
Thank you Mr Speaker.
Can I start by welcoming the fall in infection numbers, the number of people being admitted to hospital, and crucially that the R rate is now below 1.
Before this lockdown, the infection rate was doubling every two weeks, the R-number was above 1 in every part of England, and the number of people in hospital was going up sharply across the country. In other words, the virus had been allowed to get out of control.
And if anyone doubts a lockdown was necessary – I would point out: Since 2nd November – when this lockdown started, 10,711 people have tragically died in England within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19. In the last week there were an average of 460 deaths per day. Those are appalling numbers. Every one a tragedy.
So we can argue about why this lockdown didn’t happen sooner. When the infection rate was lower. As we argued for several weeks ago. But it’s clear that the lockdown was necessary and has helped to reduce infections.
I also want to welcome further progress on vaccines. I have nothing but admiration for our scientists. And for the amazing progress that’s been made. This will go down as one of the great moments for science in this country. I saw this for myself a couple of weeks ago at Oxford University.
A vaccine may now be in sight, and we must do everything we can to encourage take-up and make sure that it’s rolled out quickly, fairly and safely.
But Mr Speaker, the questions before the House today are these: How can we save as many lives and livelihoods as possible until we reach the light at the end of the tunnel? And are the measures the PM announced today going to: Control the virus; And provide the right support for the communities worst affected by these restrictions?
Labour has supported the Government in two national lockdowns. And I recognise the need for continuing restrictions. I also recognise that the tiers have been toughened – as it was obvious to everyone that the previous tiers were a one-way street. But I’m far from convinced by what the PM said today.
In particular, the economic package is nowhere near sufficient to support the communities worst affected. And who have been suffering now for many months.
I also fear that without the right health measures in place, in particular a working trace and isolate system, there are real risks that this plan is incapable of controlling the virus this winter.
I want to set out this out in more detail. The first point I want to make is this: We’ve been here before. On 10th June the PM first told of us his “whack a mole” strategy to control local infections. We were told these would be so effective they would only last a few days or weeks. Far from reality. Leicester, for example, has had 154 days of restrictions. By the time these regulations run out on 2nd Feb – it will be 217 days. So that didn’t work.
Then on 22 September – with infections rising in 19 of the 20 areas then under restrictions, the PM announced new restrictions including the rule of 6, which the PM told the House would: “curb the number of daily infections and reduce the reproduction rate to 1”. That didn’t work.
Two weeks later, 12 October, with the precise opposite happening the PM introduced a three-tier system. Again, we were assured this would work.
The PM told the House that: “would deliver the reduction in the R rate, locally and regionally, that we need”. That didn’t work.
Fourth attempt: 19 days later: in a hurried press conference, the PM announced that the tiered system had failed, the virus was out of control and a national lockdown was now “unavoidable”.
The reason this all matters is that there is a pattern here: the PM has a record of over-promising, and under-delivering. Short-term decisions are taken, that then bump into the harsh reality of this virus. So a new plan is conjured up a few weeks later, and with even bigger promises that never materialise.
After eight months of this, the PM should not be surprised that we – and many of the British people – are less than convinced this time around.
The second point I want to make is this: The public health risk of the PM’s approach is significant. The prevalence of the virus remains high. The R-rate is only just below one. We know the virus is at its most deadly during the cold winter months. And that the NHS of course at that point will be under its greatest strain.
So if we are to keep R below 1 during the winter – and not waste the progress made in the last four weeks, we have to proceed with precision and caution.
But instead of levelling with the British public, the PM has spent the weekend telling his backbenchers that the plan is all about: “loosening restrictions across the country” and fuelling a promise that within days, local areas have the prospect of dropping from one Tier to another. In my view, that’s highly unlikely.
It’s obvious that the new Tier One may slow but won’t prevent a rise in infections. And it’s far from certain that the new Tier Two can hold the rate of infection. I hope it does – but it depends on other factors all falling into place at the same time.
And – although like everyone else we want the chance to see our loved ones at Christmas – I’m not convinced that the Government has a plan in place to prevent a spike in infections over the New Year.
I recognise this is difficult, and that any system would have risk. But that brings me to my third point: The risk we face today is so much higher, because the PM has failed to fix the major problems with the now £22bn Track and Trace system.
Before the PM simply brushes this point aside – again – let me remind the House that one of the major reasons that SAGE advised a circuit break back in September was because Track and Trace was only having “a marginal impact on transmission”. So if we’re to control the virus, this really matters. And the PM having his head in the sand isn’t helping.
I know the PM has made much of the advances in testing. I recognise that and I hope it helps tackle this virus. But as the Chief Scientific Officer said: “testing is important, but of course it only matters if people isolate as well”.
PM knows only a fraction of people are able to self-isolate when asked to do so. But he still hasn’t addressed the reasons for this. Including the huge gaps in support: I know PM has announced a change for those notified by the app – a ridiculous omission in the first place. But it doesn’t affect basic eligibility.
Only one in eight workers qualify for the one-off £500 self-isolation support. Anyone not receiving that has to rely on Statutory Sick Pay which is the equivalent of £13 a day. That’s a huge problem. People want to do the right thing. But for many, there’s a real fear that self-isolation means a huge loss of income that they simply can’t afford.
And that’s not the end of the problems with track and trace. On tracing, the latest figures show: 137,000 close contacts missed by the system in one week. That is the highest weekly figure yet. And it means that over 500,000 close contacts have been missed by the system in the last month.
That’s not just a statistic, it means that last month alone, there were half a million people who should have been self-isolating but instead were moving around with their friends, their families and their communities. That’s a huge gap in our defences. I raise this every week. Every week the PM pretends it’s getting better, but it never does. And the PM now seems almost to have given up on it – and to be hoping instead that mass testing can solve this on its own. Again, blind optimism – not a plan.
My fourth point is about the level of economic support provided. Have to say to the PM: It’s hard to overstate the level of anger about this – particularly in communities that have been in restrictions for months on end.
Yesterday I was on a virtual visit to the North West talking to local businesses. Their emotions ranged from deep disappointment at the Government, to raw anger that the PM and Chancellor just aren’t listening. And don’t get the impact that months of endless restrictions have had on local communities and on people’s lives.
In March, the Chancellor vowed to do “whatever it takes” to support households and businesses. But there’s now been 6 economic plans in 9 months. And the level of support around this latest package is still insufficient.
First, it doesn’t fairly reflect the difficulties faced by businesses across the country. Three aspects to this: Let me start with the Additional Restrictions Grant. That gives a flat figure to a local area regardless of how long it’s been in restrictions. So, Greater Manchester, which will be on its 40th day of severe restrictions when it enters Tier 3 tomorrow, has received the same one-off support as the Isle of Wight, which went into restrictions far later and will emerge tomorrow into Tier 1.
That can’t be fair.
The second aspect is that this grant doesn’t take account of the number of business that need support in each area. So our great cities are being asked to spread the same sum far more thinly. That’s also that’s clearly unfair.
The third aspect: even allowing for today’s announcement on pubs – which I think is the definition of ‘small beer. Many businesses are now receiving less support than they did during the first wave. That’s a huge strain for many businesses – particularly after so long under restrictions, and it makes no economic sense for the Government to allow them to go to the wall.
The second major point on economic support is that millions of self-employed people remain unfairly excluded from Government support schemes. Again, there’s nothing in this latest package to address this.
I’ve raised this many times with the PM – every time he chooses to talk about those he is helping and ignore the millions he isn’t. Reality: the government have had 8 months to fix this and they’ve failed.
The third point about the economic package is that the Government must remove the uncertainty around furlough and rule out changing the scheme again in January. The Chancellor’s made this this mistake before. That uncertainty caused real economic damage. He can’t make the same mistake again.
So taken together the business and economic support just doesn’t stack up.
But I also want to make a wider point on the economic damage this pandemic – and this Government – have done to our economy. Last week’s Autumn Statement laid bare the huge and worsening economic cost of this crisis.
I know there are those who say that is a reason to end restrictions. But the reality is – you can’t protect the economy if you lose control of the virus. That just leads to more uncertainty. More restrictions. And more long-term damage to the economy. And it’s this failure to get control of the virus, or to take a long-term approach to shielding our economy that’s left the UK with the worst recession in the G7 and the highest death total in Europe.
Fifth and final reason for scepticism about the Government’s approach is this: messaging and priorities. The last 48 hours have been a summary of the mistakes the Government has made in this crisis. The PM is fatally split between appeasing his backbenchers and following the science. It’s why he ends up pleasing nobody.
I think the PM knows that tough restrictions are now needed, but he pretends that the restrictions might not be in place for long. And that it’s quite possible that everyone can be in a lower tier in two weeks’ time. But the reality is that tough restrictions will be needed until a vaccine is rolled out. And that may be months away.
So the PM will doubtless be back in a couple of weeks with another “plan”. But the PM doesn’t feel able to make that case today, or to provide the certainty and consistency we need. So instead we’ve had 48 hours of concessions, letters and promises to his MPs – not clear and reliable messaging to the public. It’s sadly symptomatic of the last eight months.
Mr Speaker, coronavirus remains a serious threat to the public’s health, to our economy and to our way of life. We recognise the need for continued restrictions. It would not be in the national interest to vote against these restrictions today. So we will allow the regulations to pass. But this is another wasted opportunity.
The PM could have spent the last four weeks fixing track and trace, putting in place the support people need to isolate, building the economic package our great towns and cities need to protect jobs and people’s income, and restoring public confidence.
Instead, we see more short-termism. A PM stuck between his backbenchers and the national interest. And I fear that just won’t work.
The comments made by Kate Green, the Shadow Secretary of State for Education, on 1 December 2020.
The government’s failure to get the pandemic under control months ago means that one in six children have been out of school for the second week in a row.
The government must respond to Labour’s calls to publish how many children have now missed school multiple times, urgently set out support to keep schools open, ensure children self-isolating have access remote learning and set out a plan for exams which delivers certainty for pupils, teachers and parents.
The statement made by Brandon Lewis, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 30 November 2020.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement.
INTRODUCTION
The murder of Patrick Finucane on 12 February 1989 in front of his family was an appalling crime that has caused tremendous suffering. It occurred during a difficult and dark period of this nation’s history which brought untold pain to many families across the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Northern Ireland has made massive strides since the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement to create a vibrant, inclusive and forward-looking future. However, the legacy of the Troubles still hangs like a shadow over society. This Government is determined to work hand in hand with the people of Northern Ireland, from all communities, with victims and survivors, and with our Irish partners. We want to find a way to bring truth and reconciliation where there is currently hurt, and where too many people continue to suffer due to the absence of information into the circumstances of the deaths of their loved ones.
Mr Speaker, it is plain that the levels of collusion in the Finucane case, made clear by previous investigations, are totally unacceptable. Former Prime Minister, David Cameron, rightly apologised publicly in 2012. I unreservedly reiterate that apology today. I also acknowledge an apology can not undo history, nor can it alleviate the years of pain that the Finucane family have felt. But it is nonetheless right that this Government acknowledges that, at the height of the Troubles, actions were taken that fell far short of what can and should be expected.
Mr Speaker, the murder of Patrick Finucane has been the subject of a considerable number of investigations and reviews, including the ‘Stevens 3’ investigation and the de Silva review. These investigations led to the conviction of Ken Barrett, a loyalist terrorist who pleaded guilty to the murder.
In February 2019, the Supreme Court made a declaration that the State had not discharged its obligation to conduct an Article 2 compliant investigation into the death of Mr Finucane. That judgment specifically set out that – ‘It is for the state to decide….what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement”.
It did not order a public inquiry. But in considering all the options open to me to meet the State’s obligations under Article 2, I have considered whether a public inquiry is the most appropriate step to address the specific findings of the Court at this time.
DECISION
Mr Speaker, I have today spoken to the Finucane family. I advised them of my decision not to establish a public inquiry at this time. Our public statement, published this afternoon, sets out the considered rationale for this decision, which I will now explain directly to the House.
Mr Speaker, in reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court identified a number of issues with previous investigations in this case:
Firstly – there was no identification of the officers within the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service who failed to warn Patrick Finucane of known threats to his life in 1981 and 1985, together with the circumstances in which these failures occurred;
Secondly – there was no identification of the RUC officers who, as Desmond De Silva said, “probably did propose” Mr Finucane as a target for loyalist terrorists in December 1988; and
Thirdly – there was no identification of the police source who provided intelligence about Patrick Finucane to Ken Barrett.
The Supreme Court identified these shortcomings and other failures of process. But it did not render the previous reviews and investigations – which resulted in significant findings and information being released into the public domain – as null and void.
The work conducted by, and the findings of, those previous independent investigations and reviews remain valid. The State’s Article 2 obligations can be met through a series of processes – taken by independent authorities on the initiative of the State – which cumulatively can establish the facts, identify the perpetrators and hold them to account where sufficient evidence exists.
In June 2019, an independent review of previous investigations was commissioned by my Rt Hon Friend, the member for Staffordshire Moorlands. The first purpose of this review was to gain a clear understanding of what investigative steps had already been taken to identify all individuals of concern. Its second purpose was to understand the actions taken as part of previous investigations in respect of these individuals.
INFORMATION IN PUBLIC DOMAIN
The review was conducted by independent counsel from Northern Ireland. It highlighted that steps had in fact been taken during previous investigations which had not been considered by the Supreme Court – but which were relevant to the issues it identified. For example, it found that a number of officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army’s Force Research Unit had been interviewed as part of the Stevens’ investigation and that Stevens accepted that there was no direct breach of policy by any individual officer at the time.
As my Rt Hon friend for North Shropshire stated in 2011, accepting that collusion occurred is not sufficient in itself. The UK Government recognises the need to ensure sufficient levels of public scrutiny of criminal investigations and their results.
I am today publishing further information that was considered by the independent counsel in their review since the Supreme Court judgment, some of which has not previously been released into the public domain. This includes information pertaining to a Police Service of Northern Ireland review conducted in 2015.
PSNI REVIEW PROCESS AND OPONI INVESTIGATION
Mr Speaker, as set out in the 2015 police review, a number of issues were referred to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in 2016 and remain subject to investigation.
In addition, the Legacy Investigation Branch of the PSNI informed my Department on 2 November 2020 that Patrick Finucane’s case is shortly due to undergo a process of review, in accordance with the priorities set out in their Case Sequencing Model. The Chief Constable confirmed that this is expected to begin early in the New Year.
To be clear – this is a purely operational police matter. The UK Government rightly has no role whatsoever in determining how or when the police deal with its outstanding legacy caseload. However, the fact that a decision on a police review is due shortly is an important development and was a factor in determining the next steps in this case. Critically, a review would consider whether further investigative steps could be taken in this case and whether the PSNI should do so. These were key elements of the Supreme Court judgment.
It is, quite properly, for the Chief Constable of the PSNI to determine the precise scope and format of any review in accordance with their own priorities and review procedures. And the police have indicated that they expect that any review would need to be conducted independently of the PSNI.
Such a process, in addition to the ongoing investigations being conducted by the Police Ombudsman, could play an important role in addressing the issues identified by the Supreme Court.
FUTURE INQUIRY
Mr Speaker – I want to be clear. I am not taking the possibility of a public inquiry off the table at this stage. It is important that we allow the PSNI and Police Ombudsman processes to move forward, and that we avoid the risk of prejudicing any emerging conclusions from that work.
I will consider all options available to me to meet the Government’s obligations.
CONCLUSION
Mr Speaker, I assure the House that this decision has been taken following careful consideration of the facts, the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, the outcome of the independent counsel review, and the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Speaker, this Government has demonstrated that, when the public interest requires it, we will establish public inquiries to look at potential failings by Government or state bodies. As we have done in the case of the Manchester bombing.
In this instance, I believe it is in the public interest to allow the police and Ombudsman processes to proceed, before taking a decision on whether the State’s Article 2 obligations have been discharged, or whether further steps are required.
Mr Speaker, this case is sadly just one example of the violence and tragedy experienced by so many individuals and families across Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom, and Ireland during the Troubles. That is why this Government remains committed to dealing with the legacy of the past in its entirety.
We are determined to get this right, working closely with communities. This is vital so that society in Northern Ireland can look beyond its divisive past and towards a shared future.
I commend this statement to the House.
The speech made by Chris Philp, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the House of Commons on 30 November 2020.
This charter flight to Jamaica is specifically to remove foreign criminals. The offences committed by the individuals on this flight include sexual assault against children, murder, rape, drug dealing and violent crime. Those are serious offences, which have a real and lasting impact on the victims and on our communities. This flight is about criminality, not nationality. Let me emphasise: it has nothing to do with the terrible wrongs faced by the Windrush generation. Despite the extensive lobbying by some, who claim that the flight is about the Windrush generation, it is not. Not a single individual on the flight is eligible for the Windrush scheme. They are all Jamaican citizens and no one on the flight was born in the United Kingdom. They are all foreign national offenders who between them have served 228 years plus a life sentence in prison.
It is a long-standing Government policy that any foreign national offender will be considered for deportation. Under the UK Borders Act 2007, which was introduced and passed by a Labour Government with the votes of a number of hon. Members who are present today, a deportation order must be made where a foreign national offender has been convicted of an offence and received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Under the Immigration Act 1971, FNOs who have caused serious harm or are persistent offenders are also eligible for consideration.
Let me put this flight in context. In the year ending June 2020, there were 5,208 enforced returns, of which 2,630, or over half, were to European Union countries, and only 33 out of over 5,000 were to Jamaica—less than 1%. During the pandemic, we have continued with returns and deportations on scheduled flights and on over 30 charter flights to countries including Albania, France, Germany, Ghana, Lithuania, Nigeria, Poland and Spain, none of which, I notice, provoked an urgent question. The clear majority of the charter flights this year have been to European countries.
Those being deported have ample opportunity to raise reasons why they should not be. We are, however, already seeing a number of last-minute legal claims, including, in the last few days, by a convicted murderer, who has now been removed from the flight.
This Government’s priority is keeping the people of this country safe, and we make no apology—no apology—for seeking to remove dangerous foreign criminals. Any Member of this House with the safety of their constituents at heart would do exactly the same.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
First, no one opposing this flight condones any of the crimes that these individuals have been found guilty of. It is the process of mass deportation that is fundamentally wrong, and it is notorious for bundling people out of the country without due process. Does the Minister recognise that this decision effectively amounts to double jeopardy when those involved in some lesser offences have already served their custodial sentence? Does he recognise the message that that sends about the consequences of being a white offender or a black offender, given the racial disparities in sentencing?
I hope the Minister agrees that no one is above the law, not even the Government, and that no one is beneath adequate defence and proper legal representation, not even those born in other countries. Will he therefore outline whether the deportees have been granted access to adequate legal advice and representation, and whether any have been allowed to appeal this decision, particularly given the lockdown restrictions and the likelihood that they would have no access to legal aid?
On being above the law, the Equality and Human Rights Commission recently found that the Home Office unlawfully ignored warnings that the hostile environment was discriminatory. Can the Minister explain why the Government are so comfortable continuing with a key part of the hostile environment policy when it has been so damningly called into question? Has he considered the 31 children who will be impacted by having a parent removed from this country?
The Home Office has got it wrong again and again on immigration. Will it therefore think again, halt this deportation flight and finally end the illegal hostile environment?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady speaks of what she calls mass deportations. I have already pointed out that, over the last year, of the 5,800 people who have been removed, only 33 have been of Jamaican nationality.
The hon. Lady mentioned black versus white. She was insinuating in her question that there was some element of underlying racism in this, but I have pointed out already that the vast majority of people who have been removed this year have been removed to European countries. This policy applies to people from Spain, France and Italy as much as it does to people from Jamaica. There is no element of discrimination in this policy whatever, and the hon. Lady was completely wrong to insinuate that, in some way, there was.
The hon. Lady asked about double jeopardy. She said that these people have been punished by a prison sentence already, but I say this: if somebody comes to this country, commits a serious criminal offence and puts our constituents at risk, it is right that, once they have served their sentence, or a great part of it, they should be removed. It is not just me who thinks that; it is the Labour Members who voted for this law in 2007 who think that, some of whom are sitting in this Chamber today.
The hon. Lady mentioned the EHRC and the compliant environment. This case is nothing to do with the compliant environment; it is about implementing the Borders Act 2007, as we are obliged to do. In terms of due process, there are ample opportunities to complain and appeal, as many people do, and I have mentioned already the case of a murderer who was taken off the flight just a few days ago following legal appeals.
We are protecting our fellow citizens, and I suggest that the hon. Lady takes a similar approach.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Will my hon. Friend make it clear that people who come to the United Kingdom to contribute to our economy and our society are most welcome, but that those who come from foreign countries and then commit the most heinous of crimes, be it murder, sexual violence, violence against children or violence against the person, can expect to experience the full force of law and then be required to leave the country at the end of their sentence? Does he agree that, far from the public disagreeing with that, they are wholly in support of it and expect the Government to take this action to keep society safe?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend, as always, puts it very well. Of course, when people come to this country as immigrants and make a contribution—to academia, to the work environment, and in myriad other ways—we welcome them with open arms. Our new points-based system, which will become active in just a few days’ time, does precisely that. However, as he says, if somebody comes to this country and enjoys our hospitality, but abuses that hospitality by committing a serious criminal offence, they can, should, and will be removed in the interests of public protection.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for having secured such an important and time-critical urgent question. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his previous work and advocacy in this important area.
The news of this flight comes just days after the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Government, as we have heard, acted unlawfully in their treatment of the Windrush generation through the hostile environment. As Caroline Waters, the chair of the EHRC, said,
“The treatment of the Windrush generation as a result of hostile environment policies was a shameful stain on British history.”
There is no clear timetable for implementing the recommendations of the Wendy Williams report, and with just 12% of applicants having received a payment and at least nine people having died waiting, the Windrush compensation scheme is failing badly. In his written response to me over the weekend, the Minister said that it is wrong and offensive to conflate this returns flight with the Windrush scandal, but I am afraid that given this Government’s track record, their failings on Windrush and the delays in the compensation scheme, we simply have no faith that this Government have done their due diligence in relation to those on this scheduled flight, and we would not be doing ours if we did not ask the questions.
Of course, we recognise that those who engage in violent and criminal acts must face justice. However, we also hear that at least one person on that flight has a Windrush generation grandfather; there is another whose great-aunt was on the HMT Windrush, and another whose grandfather fought in the second world war for Britain. It is clear that we have not yet established just how far the consequences of the Windrush injustice extend. With that in mind, what assessment has been made to ensure that none of those scheduled to be on the flight are eligible under the Windrush scheme, or have been affected by the wider immigration injustices that impacted the victims of the Windrush scandal? What assurances can the Minister provide the House that the mandatory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children left behind, who are innocent in this, has been considered?
It has also been reported that the Home Office has reached an agreement with the Jamaican Government that people who left Jamaica as children will no longer be repatriated. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the case, and can he also confirm what age someone would need to be to have been determined to be a child?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady, the shadow Minister, asks about the Windrush scheme. As she will be aware, over 6,300 people have now been given citizenship, quite rightly, and 13,300 documents have been issued to those people who suffered terrible wrongs in the past. In terms of compensation, 226 people have now received claims totalling in excess of £2.1 million, with a great deal more to pay out. I can also confirm that all of these cases on the plane have been individually assessed, and none of them is eligible for the Windrush compensation scheme.
The hon. Lady spent a great deal of time talking about Windrush during her question, but I say again—as I said in my letter to her—that it is completely wrong to conflate the people who were the victims of terrible injustice in the Windrush cases with these cases, who are nothing to do with Windrush, have no Windrush entitlement at all, and have committed terrible criminal offences. She also asks about the age eligibility. The Government are fully committed to discharging their obligation under the 2007 Act, which is to seek to remove anyone of any age who has been sentenced to a custodial term of over 12 months. That has been, is, and will remain our policy.