UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2020

  • Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on Covid-19

    Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on Covid-19

    The statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2020.

    As the covid-19 incidence rate continues to rise across the country, a suite of local and national actions is required to break the trains of transmission and enable people to maintain a more normal way of life.

    The Government will act swiftly and decisively to limit further spread, reduce disruption and contain local outbreaks. The local action committee command structure has been reviewing the latest evidence, working with local leaders and the scientific community to assess the data and whether further evidence is required.

    The latest data shows a sharp increase in incidence rates per 100,000 population in Leeds, Blackpool, Wigan and Stockport, which are significantly above the national average.

    As a result, we are making regulations which take effect from Saturday 26 September and will impose restrictions on inter-household mixing in private dwellings and gardens in Leeds, Stockport, Wigan and Blackpool. This is in line with measures seen elsewhere in the country, such as Leicester and the West Midlands. People who live in these areas will not be allowed to gather in a private dwelling or garden with any other household unless in a support bubble. People from anywhere else will also not be allowed to gather with another household in a private dwelling or garden in these areas.

    We have also reviewed the position in Leicester, the Borough of Oadby and Wigston, Birmingham, Solihull, Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Bolton, Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale and the remaining local authorities in Greater Manchester and have decided to maintain their position on the watchlist as areas of intervention, as well as the current restrictions in these areas.

    This will be difficult news for the people living in these areas, profoundly affecting their daily lives. These decisions are not taken lightly, and such measures will be kept under review and in place no longer than they are necessary. There are exemptions to these measures so people can still meet with those in their support bubble. There are other limited exemptions such as for work purposes or to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person. Through the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Protected Areas and Linked Childcare Households) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, people may create an exclusive childcare bubble for the purposes of informal childcare for children under 14, helping ease pressure on those living under local restrictions so they can get to work.

    The guidance on gov.uk covering these areas will also be amended to fully reflect these changes.

  • Matt Warman – 2020 Speech on Public Statues

    Matt Warman – 2020 Speech on Public Statues

    The speech made by Matt Warman, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2020.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) on securing this debate and on highlighting such an important issue. In doing so, he has provided the Government with a welcome opportunity to lay out in Parliament our thinking about statues. This is a debate that needs more nuance, not less, and I thank my ​hon. Friend for a thoughtful speech. This subject can provoke incredibly strong emotions and reactions, and although we might disagree with those reactions, we would all do well to remember that those views are sincerely held.

    It is important that the Government are clear: we believe that our history shapes us and that we are poorer if we seek to deny that history. We believe that the right approach to statues, however contentious, is to retain and explain their presence. I hope that that provides my hon. Friend with some of the reassurance he seeks, and I hope to explain the Government’s approach to why and how this issue should be addressed.

    As my hon. Friend made clear, there are many diverse opinions on the matter of statues in the public realm, and no one would suggest—dare I say it?—that a discussion between two white men will capture the totality of views that have been expressed about this highly contested space. As he said, my hon. Friend has a hugely successful track record of managing to have public statues erected, and thanks to him statues of Eric Cole and Raoul Wallenberg are among the 12,000 outdoor statues and memorials in England. Most of them are not protected as listed buildings, as they are not currently recognised to be of special architectural or historic interest—those are the criteria set out in legislation. Nevertheless, those statues are of interest and significance, and often pride, to the local communities in which they are erected.

    A significant number of the 12,000 statues are listed in their own right or form part of buildings that are listed and are therefore protected against inappropriate removal or amendment without a rigorous consent process led by the relevant local planning authority. The regulatory framework that governs the removal and amendment of existing public statues and memorials can therefore be complex, particularly when one realises that planning permission can also be required. The same can be true in relation to proposals for the erection of new statues, where, in addition to requiring planning permission, the permission of the landowner is also required, and my hon. Friend’s has referenced this complexity in his ongoing campaign to have a statue erected to the extraordinary Dame Vera Lynn.

    This country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating its national and local dignitaries with statues, and they serve as a long-lasting reminder of their actions and the contributions that they, like Dame Vera, made to this country. Parliament continues that tradition. We have an abundance of historic and contemporary figures for the public to enjoy, from Oliver Cromwell to Baroness Thatcher. Local communities commemorate their own heroes in the same way, and many of these figures are a real source of local pride. Alan Turing, a pioneer of modern computing, is commemorated both at Bletchley Park, where he worked on the Enigma code, and in Manchester, where he studied. Up the road in Oldham, a recent addition to its public statuary is that of Annie Kenney, a local suffragette and former mill worker and an associate of Christabel Pankhurst, who was jailed for three days for challenging MPs who opposed the campaign for votes for women.

    Being commemorated in a public space, often funded by public consultation, is a positive way to acknowledge the contributions individuals have made to their communities and to the nation, and, as we look on those statues, we learn important things about the society ​that put them up. As my hon. Friend alluded to in his speech, the back story of some of those individuals and their place in history is ridden with moral complexity. Statues and other historical objects were created or obtained by generations with different perspectives and different understandings of right and wrong.

    Some of the individuals we have esteemed in statuary, such as Colston or Rhodes, are figures who have said or done things that we may find deeply offensive and would not defend today. Although we may now disagree with those figures, they play an important role in teaching us about our past with all its faults. We are all products of our times, and our attitudes, beliefs and values often reflect the age in which we live. Some of the values of earlier centuries look bizarre through the lens of 2020, but that brings us to the current debate about whether we should be removing statues of—usually—men who were esteemed and well regarded in the past, but who by today’s standards and values built their wealth and fame on things we now find morally repugnant, such as the transatlantic slave trade.

    As a confident and progressive country, we should face that difficult fact squarely. We should not wipe them from the history books. Historic England, the Government’s adviser on the historic environment, agrees, arguing that if we remove difficult and contentious parts of our heritage, we risk harming our own understanding of our collective past. Rather than erasing these objects, we should seek to contextualise or reinterpret them in a way that enables the public to learn about them in their entirety, however challenging that may be. The aim should be to use them to educate people about all aspects of Britain’s complex past, for better or worse. Put simply, the Government want organisations to retain and explain, not remove, our heritage.

    One potential innovative approach is the talking statues project. This project identified a number of statues in London and Manchester, including of Abraham Lincoln and George Orwell, and commissioned some of the nation’s most celebrated writers and actors to animate them through voice recordings. Members of the public could activate the conversation using their smartphones, and although this is not a perfect fit in the context of ​contested heritage, it is a concept that works and could be developed, because heritage is not just about our past—we create it every day. I am keen to see new and innovative approaches to understanding and celebrating those parts of our collective cultural and civic life.

    In his speech, my hon. Friend proposed two new statues around Westminster that could help to create today’s heritage: one of Her Majesty the Queen, to mark her jubilee commemorations in 2022, and a second, which he forcefully lobbied for, of Vera Lynn, the forces’ sweetheart and a national icon. I wish him the best of luck in both of these very deserving endeavours.

    Finally, I echo my hon. Friend’s condemnation of the events around Westminster in the spring. I was appalled to see pictures of the protests earlier this year. There can be no justification for defacing statues and symbols of British history, nor for damaging memorials. The public are also rightly concerned about respect for memorials of all types. Memorials do not just have historical significance as part of our national heritage; they are also of deep symbolic, cultural or emotional importance to the people who visit them. When damage occurs to memorials, the law must recognise the range and level of harm caused. The Government’s White Paper, “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”, published earlier this month, includes a commitment to review the law in this area to ensure that the courts can sentence appropriately at every level for this type of offending.

    There are some who may not be willing to compromise and for whom the only solution is to remove statues from public display, regardless of how they are recontextualised. It is essential that the Government have sanctions in place against those who wilfully deface, remove or otherwise interfere with public statuary or commemorations. That said, I remain committed to the hope that, through dialogue and improved contextualisation of the stories of those commemorated, we can arrive at a consensus about how best to address contested heritage. Rather than tearing things down, we should work at building that consensus and at building a better and fuller understanding of our complex history.

  • David Amess – 2020 Speech on Public Statues

    David Amess – 2020 Speech on Public Statues

    The speech made by David Amess, the Conservative MP for Southend West, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2020.

    Statues are an important part of our country’s culture and heritage, and they are erected for many different reasons. They educate us about the past and inform us about the present, and we can learn lessons from them about the future. Statues can be used to commemorate an influential person’s life or specific events that an individual or individuals have been involved in. These people can come from all walks of life; there are many statues in the United Kingdom dedicated to monarchs, political figures, charitable people, and those who have done wonderful service for our country and changed it for the better.

    We can also use statues to educate ourselves about or remember past events that are important to our country’s history and our global standing. There are many statues depicting famous battle scenes and war memorials that encourage national co-operation in times of adversity and struggle. Statues can remind us of what past generations had to endure, and they can act as a point of reference for future events of a similar nature.

    Statues create a dialogue between past and present in a public space and were erected because the people and organisations responsible for them at the time deemed that person or event to be important and significant enough to have their life memorialised in British history. It is therefore vital that statues remain in public places, instead of solely in museums, galleries or other closed spaces, to provide historical context for certain areas—but they are also pieces of artwork to be admired for free. Sculptors devote a lot of time to their craft and it deserves to be publicly displayed and respected.

    Statues have always been a key part of cities and towns throughout the United Kingdom, but some people stroll straight past them, not paying any attention. However, statues have recently been a major focus of news. Unfortunately, throughout the coronavirus pandemic, many statues have become a focus for controversy, for many reasons.

    No one’s life or no historical event is completely free of controversy. Even the seemingly most blameless of characters in our past would have some sort of negativities that protestors and the media could pick on. The recent protests sought to examine history, I believe, from the wrong point of view: by imposing today’s values on the past. On Monday, I shall be meeting the Metropolitan police commissioner to, among other things, raise concerns I have on this particular matter. If there are demands for statues to be removed for whatever reason, it should certainly be done in the proper manner. I do not condone the violent, illegal removal of statues by the general public. If the person or event depicted in the statue has serious negative undertones that offend people, they should make representations of their beliefs and views to the local authorities and request that the statues be removed safely and placed in museums.

    If we tear down statues because those that they depict had some unsavoury character traits or events in their life, where do we stop? Do we remove paintings from galleries by artists or ban television shows that ​feature actors or actresses that have a similar background? Do we demolish buildings that were built off the back of slaves or funded by people who made their money by means that we now find offensive? Statues do not necessarily represent a whole person’s life or morals. They are more often than not erected to depict a certain period of an individual’s life or a specific event that they were involved in that undoubtedly improved our country for the better. For example, Sir Winston Churchill led our country to victory in the second world war. He is widely considered one of the 20th century’s most significant figures, defending Europe’s liberal democracy from the spread of fascism. However, his statue was illegally graffitied with the word “fascist” during the recent protests.

    The British Monarchists Society recently came to me with a project, which I am sure the nation will back. They would like a statue of the Queen erected to celebrate her platinum jubilee in 2022. The royal sculptor, Christian Corbet, has made preliminary sketches of the monument, which is planned for a suitable, prestigious position in the vicinity of Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Westminster. I believe it would be possible to fund the statue through public subscription and I hope that all colleagues will be supportive of the project. After all, our monarch has served our nation and the Commonwealth so well for nearly 70 years, and she is currently the longest-serving head of state in the world.

    I have a little experience myself in securing a statue for display in a public place. A friend of mine, Paul Lennon, gave me a book to read about the life of Raoul Wallenberg. This extraordinary Swedish diplomat saved the lives of as many as 100,000 Jews in Hungary through Schutz-Passes, or protected passports, and by sheltering Jews in buildings designated as Swedish territory. Encouraged by the person who ran my office at that time, the late Lionel Altman, who happened to be Jewish, we then embarked on a crusade to get a statue erected. I am delighted to say that it was unveiled in 1997 by Her Majesty the Queen, together with the President of Israel. The statue stands outside the Western Marble Arch synagogue near the Swedish embassy. The whole process took two years.

    Furthermore, having publicly supported the local campaign, I am pleased to see that Eric Cole, founder of the Ekco factory in Southend that produced radios and televisions, has rightfully had a statue erected in Ekco Park estate. Not only was Ekco an innovator in electronics during the early and mid-1960s in Britain, but Eric was a pioneer in paid holidays and workplace pensions. Ekco employed more than 8,000 people in Essex, and Eric and his company are an important part of our history, especially in Southend, which is another reason why we will become a city. The company was loved by many, and it is important to permanently mark Eric’s achievements with a memorial on the grounds of the old factory.

    I have long thought, for instance, that it is absolutely ridiculous that we have no legacies of former Prime Ministers, such as they have with the Presidential libraries in America. On a slightly tacky note, America also has stars on the Hollywood walk of fame, and I think there should be similar recognition in the UK for famous entertainers.​
    In June this year, London’s Mayor announced a commission to review the diversity of London’s public statues, which among other things will focus on increasing the representation of women. Dame Vera Lynn is a woman whose life and music are a momentous part of our life and culture. In conjunction with Dame Vera’s family, Tom Jones and Virginia Lewis-Jones, we are planning to commission and erect a statue of the late Dame Vera Lynn. I intend to meet the Prime Minister about this issue. Dame Vera, who like me comes from the east end of London, was a truly remarkable woman. Famously known as the forces’ sweetheart, Dame Vera boosted the morale of all those in the second world war—particularly, as she often described them, “our boys in the far east”, who had been forgotten.

    Last month marked the 75th anniversary of Victory over Japan Day. While Dame Vera lived to see the anniversary of Victory in Europe Day in May, she unfortunately died in June this year at the remarkable age of 103, just a year behind my own mother. I believe that our nation is united in its desire for a public statue of our national treasure, which Dame Vera undoubtedly is. As part of my Victory over Japan Day celebrations this year, I organised and produced a video remembering and thanking all our veterans for their service in the far east. Those who fought in the far east are so often overlooked and forgotten, overshadowed by Victory in Europe Day. We must make sure that Dame Vera’s inspiring work is not also forgotten or overlooked.

    Dame Vera’s daughter, Virginia Lewis-Jones, helped her mother write her book, “Keep Smiling Through: My Wartime Story”. It is an inspirational book that confirms the validity of the plan to erect a statue of Dame Vera. At this stage, it is not possible for me to announce the arrangements for the launch of the campaign, who the sculptor will be or where the statue will be placed. However, we have someone in mind who is very well known for their wonderful work. Even before the present controversy over statues, I recall vividly, as of course do you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the argument about the siting of the late Baroness Thatcher’s statue. That argument was well and truly overcome, and Margaret now looks over us all in Members Lobby. More specifically, there are many statues near the Palace of Westminster celebrating the work of our veterans in the second world war.

    I know that a memorial for Dame Vera would be welcomed by countless members of the general public, as she is an important historical figure who deserves to be added to the list of statues alongside equally influential figures of our past.

    With regard to the rules and regulations surrounding the erection of statues, different local planning authorities within London have their own local policies. Westminster City Council set out its considerations that it will take into account in granting or refusing planning permission for a new statue. The council has established a monument saturation zone around Whitehall, where applications for new statues and monuments will not be permitted unless there is an exceptionally good reason. There are many exceptionally good reasons to have a memorial for Dame Vera Lynn. Not only did she motivate and give our forces hope throughout the second world war through her music on the radio, but she travelled to Egypt, India and Burma during the war to give our troops outdoor concerts. To name just a few of her ​songs: “We’ll Meet Again”, “The White Cliffs of Dover” and “There’ll Always Be An England”—and they were a reminder to those in the far east what it means to be British and to keep on fighting for the freedom that we enjoy today.

    Westminster City Council’s policies also state:

    “Any proposal for a statue or monument must have a clear and well defined historical or conceptual relationship with the proposed location. Proposals for new statues and monuments where there is no relationship between subject and location will not be acceptable.”

    Dame Vera Lynn did have a clear and well-defined historical and conceptual relationship with Westminster and London. She was born in London and lived here for many years. She would sing to people who were using the tube platforms as air raid shelters during the war. The document also highlights the 10-year principle that no statues or memorials should be erected before 10 years have elapsed from the death of the individual or the event commemorated. It states:

    “Only in the most exceptional circumstances will statues or monuments be considered within the ten year period.”

    Dame Vera Lynn is an exceptional circumstance to that principle, and a statue in her honour should be in place before 2030.

    Dame Vera devoted much of her life to charity work connected with ex-servicemen, disabled children and breast cancer. In 2002, she became president of the cerebral palsy charity, Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity, and in 2000 she was named the Briton who best exemplified the spirit of the 20th century.

    Dame Vera Lynn is adored not only by her family, friends and veterans who listen to her music but by the general public throughout the UK. That was made clear by the heart-warming tributes paid to her by Queen Elizabeth II, who sent private condolences to Dame Vera’s family, and by the Clarence House tributes from Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition also led with tributes in Parliament. On the day of her death, regular programming on the BBC was stopped to broadcast tributes to Dame Vera, and she was given a military funeral, which was widely attended by the public.

    Recent data from the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association show that of the 828 statues it recorded in the United Kingdom, only 174 are of females. If we do not count the nameless female figures, there are only 80 statues of named women. By contrast, out of 534 statues of men, 422 are named. Even among the 80 female figures with names, 15 are mythical or otherwise fictional, and 38 are royal. Queen Victoria is the woman most commonly memorialised. We must improve the diversity of our public statues and display a memorial of Dame Vera Lynn. She was a wonderful lady and truly inspirational person who helped her country through some of the most challenging of times.

  • Philippa Whitford – 2020 Speech on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill

    Philippa Whitford – 2020 Speech on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill

    The speech made by Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP for Central Ayrshire, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2020.

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

    Before I start my speech, I too wish to send my and my party’s condolences to the family of the police officer who lost his life in the line of duty last night.

    Bristol Royal Infirmary, Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay, Liverpool and Gosport: as in previous debates, I recite this shocking litany of tragedies, which have become household names, to remind us all of what is at stake. In each of those scandals, there were those who tried to raise concerns and protect patients, but they were ignored and often intimidated, victimised or even dismissed. Had they been listened to, lives could have been saved.

    Whistleblowing is an issue in many sectors, including financial services, as I am sure we will hear about later, but it is often the NHS and social care cases that stay in our memories, due to the terrible impact on patients and their families. The very term “whistleblower” denotes a boiling kettle—a sense of pressure and build-up, until a valve releases. In many cases, the poor working practices or patient safety issues have been going on for a long time before someone is finally driven to speak up. That is because the whistleblowing landscape before them is littered with broken careers and, indeed, broken people who tried to do the right thing.

    Most businesses and organisations want to create a good external impression—to project an air of success and to attract more business. As Sir Robert Francis highlighted in the Mid Staffs inquiry, that can be a significant pressure if public services are competing for contracts in a market-based system. The temptation is to cover things up—to look good from the outside, rather than admitting a problem and trying to fix it. That immediately places the employee in conflict with their employer, who just wants the problem to go away. To redress that power imbalance, it is necessary to protect and support whistleblowers, to encourage them to step forward and raise their concerns, whether on patient safety, financial wrongdoing or environmental damage.

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

    I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this Bill to the House. Does she agree that one of the important factors behind this Bill is to protect employees who engage in whistleblowing, many of whom find themselves dismissed, albeit for other reasons?

    Dr Whitford

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is exactly the problem with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which falls within employment law, putting the burden on the employee to prove that they have been sacked purely for raising a concern, rather than on the employer. As I will come to later, such cases very quickly turn into, as we would say in Scotland, a complete rammy.

    In the five years that I have been in this House, I have heard politicians from all parties, including the previous Health Secretary, praising whistleblowers. However, despite several debates on the topic and about the need for action, nothing has been done to provide the protection ​they need from the point at which they make a disclosure. That is the critical thing: to protect them from damage, not to allow a system to pick it up afterwards. During the covid crisis, when we were out clapping the NHS and social care workers, we heard just as many stories of intimidation of those raising concerns about PPE or staffing.

    When the Public Interest Disclosure Act—or PIDA—was passed 22 years ago, it too was a private Member’s Bill. I wish to express my thanks to the Clerk of private Members’ Bills in the Public Bill Office for all his work, but I recognise that I have pulled this Bill together, so I have no problem with its being improved, changed or developed in order to make it function. This is not a party political issue; whistleblowing exists in every sector, in every nation. We should recognise the need to deal with it and try to fix it.

    At the time, PIDA was hailed as world leading, but that was 22 years ago. There are now better international examples, and it is in need of a complete makeover. What are the problems with PIDA? First, whistleblowers think that it offers protection from the point at which they come forward, but it does not. It merely allows them to challenge their employer in an employment tribunal after they have suffered detriment, such as missing out on promotion, being bullied or threatened or, as in a third of cases, even losing their job. As I said, the burden of proof is on the whistleblower to prove that raising a concern is the only reason that they have been sacked, rather than on the employer to prove the opposite. It is rather unsurprising, then, that only 3% of tribunal cases are successful—there is a 97% failure rate, and that is just the ones that actually go all the way to a tribunal.

    The litigation process also creates opportunities for further victimisation and intimidation, with breaches of confidentiality and threats of spiralling legal costs. Ordinary workers in most sectors simply cannot maintain the fight. The problem is that as PIDA sits within employment law, it just turns into a battle between employee and employer. The original cause for concern that made them speak up gets completely lost, rather than investigated and action taken to fix the problem. This is actually the whistleblowers’ biggest complaint. The people I met said it was not even about their detriment or protection for them, but about the fact that after everything they went through the issue was never investigated and certainly never dealt with.

    Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)

    I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing her Bill in the ballot. Does she agree—from what she is saying, she may well come on to this point—that at the heart of any effective whistleblowing system is a reliance on those investigating complaints internally being able to act independently and with neutrality to resolve the issue at an early stage, long before it gets anywhere near an external whistleblowing situation?

    Dr Whitford

    Absolutely; I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will come to some of those issues later. This issue, as has been said, is in part one of culture, of being open, of realising that it should be about learning and fixing rather than trying to shut someone up. The more that downward pressure is put ​on people—like a pressure cooker—the more that builds, and there is more and more unhappiness. The problem is that in something such as health and social care, it actually affects patients.

    That is why I am proposing the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection) Bill. The key thing that I seek to achieve is to remove whistleblowing from employment law and create free-standing protection legislation. If we really value whistleblowing, it should not be tucked away in some corner. It should be something that stands by itself—that sends the message that, in whatever sector, if someone sees wrongdoing and damage, they should come forward.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

    I pledge my support on a cross-party basis, and I am delighted to associate my name with the Bill. The hon. Member talks about valuing whistleblowers. Does she agree that we should value them not only for the risk they take and the individual issues they raise, but for the wider cultural issues they raise within a system—particularly, as she says, in financial services—which allows this House to put the measures in place to clamp down on that adverse culture?

    Dr Whitford

    I welcome that intervention, but whistleblowing should not have to be a risk. It should be a normal part of someone’s work or their duty as a citizen to come forward and report something.

    The Bill defines whistleblowing disclosures, but it also widens the definition of “relevant authorities” to include not just employers, but public authorities and regulators, as many whistleblowers report that when they have involved regulators, they have been intimidated in exactly the same way and have made no progress. It places a duty on all relevant authorities not to subject whistleblowers to any form of detriment, and indeed, to protect them from detriment, but particularly—I cannot reiterate this more strongly—to investigate the concern and take action to prevent a recurrence.

    The Bill widens the list of professions in which a disclosure may be made to include those previously excluded, such as religious ministers and police officers. Let us consider the cases of child abuse that might have been prevented had priests and ministers been able to speak up, or how much earlier the families of the Hillsborough victims could have been told the truth and given closure.

    The Bill also includes those who were not previously defined as employees, such as trainees, interns and volunteers. I am sure that all of us who have taken an interest in this topic are well aware of the four-year persecution of Dr Chris Day, who warned about unsafe staffing in his intensive care unit, only to be told that junior doctors were not classed as NHS employees and that he had no protection. Although that anomaly has been resolved, it highlights the traps that unsuspecting whistleblowers can fall into.

    The Bill seeks to establish an independent body with statutory powers to oversee whistleblowing. I have called it a commission in the Bill, but I do not care what it is called. After his report into the deaths in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, Sir Robert Francis established the “freedom to speak up system”, but the national guardian is not a statutory role and the local guardians are trust employees who themselves may be put under pressure when investigating a case. That comes back to ​the point raised in an intervention earlier: there needs to be absolute objectivity and a determination to deal with an issue locally, rather than it becoming a festering sore. By contrast, the Scottish Independent National Whistleblowing Office was established as a statutory body in 2018. It published its draft standards for the NHS and social care last year.

    Devolved Governments will develop whistleblower-support systems for their public services, but PIDA is the underpinning legislation for all sectors—including businesses and financial services—and it no longer serves its purpose. The commission’s duty would be to protect whistleblowers and promote the principle of whistleblowing in the public interest. Such a body would develop standards of practice for whistleblowing policies and procedures and monitor the compliance of organisations with those standards. Such standards would include how issues should be investigated, and organisations would be expected to show what action they had taken to address cases. The standards would stipulate prospective protection of the whistleblower from detriment, from the point of their making a disclosure, including by preserving their anonymity and confidentiality—many whistleblowers suddenly find themselves splattered across the local paper.

    The commission would also seek to resolve cases and reduce litigation, which is wasteful of public funds and both expensive and traumatic for the whistleblower. It could provide advice to whistleblowers who do not have any other route to report an issue or who are not making progress locally. It would be able to issue redress orders to try to repair detriment suffered by a whistleblower, rather than just making financial awards, and it would include the banning of non-disclosure agreements, which whistleblowers are often intimidated into signing. When staff have been subject to deliberate detriment, there would be the ability for civil action. As in Australia, criminal charges would be available for the most egregious cases of whistleblower persecution.

    There are different ways to improve the quality of a service, and whistleblowing should not be the main method of detecting poor practice, the squandering of public funds or fraud. Just as audit is critical to ensure probity in the financial sector, it is also essential to detect poor clinical practice. In Scotland, we have had regular reporting against quality improvement standards for the most common cancers for many years. In the case of my specialty, breast cancer, I was involved in leading the development of the standards almost 20 years ago. The process identifies outliers, who can then be supported to update their practice, but it also creates peer pressure to drive clinical improvement, as people know that their performance is going to be shared at a conference, openly and transparently, every single year.

    It is important to normalise incident reporting and encourage a culture of routinely raising issues without the sense of conflict and pressure associated with whistleblowing. That is the aim of systems such as Datix in the NHS, through which staff record, review and seek to learn from all incidents, from minor to major, including near misses. There will, however, always be cases that cannot be detected by audit, such as alcohol or drug misuse, bullying or racism. For that, whistleblowers are essential.

    For whistleblowers to speak up early and reduce harm, they must be valued, supported and protected. In the NHS, that is about patient safety, which is literally a matter of life and death.

  • Darren Jones – 2020 Speech on the Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

    Darren Jones – 2020 Speech on the Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

    The speech made by Darren Jones, the Labour MP for Bristol North West, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2020.

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

    Further to the Minister’s point of order, I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express our condolences following the tragic death of a police officer in Croydon overnight. For most of us, it is impossible to comprehend what the officer’s family, friends and colleagues must be going through this morning, and the thoughts and prayers of everyone in the House are with them.

    Like other Members who have had the strange fortune of winning a parliamentary raffle for private Members’ Bills, I spent the first weeks of this strange year being inundated with submissions making the case for the noblest crusades and the worthiest causes, as well as some of the strangest. I realise that, at first blush, the minimal changes proposed in this Bill may seem a little arcane or marginal, but my purpose today—to give the Forensic Science Regulator the statutory powers necessary to do its job—is, in reality, an urgent and necessary one for the functioning of our criminal justice system.​

    Access to high-quality forensics is vital so that victims and defendants get the justice they deserve, prosecutions are successful and our system commands and justifies the public’s confidence. Poor-quality forensics, as noted by the regulator, has without doubt lead to the failed prosecution of criminals and a failure to secure justice for victims. As it stands, the market for providing forensic services is flawed, with grinding delays, gaps in capacity and skills and a lack of real competitiveness. The first step in fixing it is to enable the regulator to enforce effective standards, which I hope the House will support me in doing today. It will not take a forensic scientist to note that the title of my Bill also anticipates action on the biometrics strategy, which is no less essential but will have to wait for another time, and I will speak more about that later in my speech.

    The profusion of acronyms that, of necessity, opens the Forensic Science Regulator’s annual report gives some sense of the range of scientific disciplines and expert processes on which our justice system must rely. It incorporates not only crime scene investigation but digital forensics, drugs and toxicology analysis, firearms and ballistics, the comparison of tool marks and footprints, as well as DNA and fingerprints. For even the most established forensic practices, the maintenance of high standards is vital to the course of justice, but rapid advances in technology continue to reshape the tools with which forensic scientists can collect, store and analyse evidence and data, as well as the nature and complexity of the crimes they are working to combat. We therefore rely on experts to do that work for us and to present it in a way that is intelligible, accurate and reliable. As the regulator’s report observed last year:

    “Courts should not have to judge whether this expert or that expert is ‘better’, but rather there should be a clear explanation of the scientific basis and data from which conclusions are drawn, and any relevant limitations. All forensic science must be conducted by competent forensic scientists, according to scientifically valid methods and be transparently reported, making very clear the limits of knowledge and/or methodology.”

    Isolated slip-ups in the science threaten to imprison the innocent and exonerate the guilty. The potential for ubiquitous failings—made more likely by shortfalls in skills, expertise and funding—risks not only isolated miscarriages of justice but the integrity of the entire system. The stakes, therefore, are uniquely high. Plainly in such a world we should expect robust, mandatory and enforceable quality standards for the providers of forensic science, matched with an oversight regime with the independence, the teeth and the resources to do its job.

    That insight is what inspired the creation of the office of the Forensic Science Regulator in 2007-08. It was tasked with enumerating those standards, ensuring the quality of providers and processes, assessing the soundness of the scientific techniques being used, and monitoring the competence of the individuals carrying them out.

    In its inaugural mission, the Forensic Science Regulator was tasked to

    “influence the strategic management of UK forensic science to place quality standards at the heart of strategic planning”.

    That, among other issues, formed the seeds of the regulator’s present shortcomings. It can encourage police forces and their providers to seek accreditation, but it cannot compel compliance. It can establish assessments ​but not enforce their results. It can advise the Government of the day, but it does not weald any power on the market.

    Virtually since its creation, therefore, the office and the voluntary model of regulation centred on it have been visibly short of the teeth they need. It is operationally independent, but unable to compel the change that is required.

    Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)

    It is a pleasure to serve with the hon. Gentleman on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which he chairs. I am interested in his observations about the non-statutory powers since 2007-08. To what extent does he have evidence that the absence of statutory powers has had an impact on particular cases? That may be something he wants to speak about in more detail.

    Darren Jones

    I share the hon. Gentleman’s delight at serving together on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. The evidence speaks for itself, to stretch a metaphor when we are talking about evidence. The Science and Technology Committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as the Government’s own reviews and the Forensic Science Regulator’s annual reports, have all pretty much concluded the same thing: where standards cannot be enforced by providers and the validity of the forensic process is brought into question in prosecution, miscarriages of justice will have followed. The forensics regulator has been pretty bold in making that case in her annual report to Parliament. That is why, I am pleased to say, there has been broad consensus on the measures brought forward in the Bill to ensure that she can enforce the standards for more providers of forensic services.

    That is why successive Governments have been notionally committed to putting the regulator on a statutory footing for nearly eight years. Many right hon. and hon. Members have called for this for a long time. That is what underpinned the conclusions of the reports from the Science and Technology Committees in this House and the other place that I mentioned to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).

    Last year the Science and Technology Committee, of which I was a member, concluded in its inquiry on this issue that

    “the Regulator—now more than ever—needs statutory powers.”

    A couple of months earlier, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee had said:

    “It is hard to understand why…the Forensic Science Regulator still lacks powers they need… The Forensic Science industry is in trouble; such action is now urgent.”

    The regulator herself said in the report:

    “Legislation is urgently required to give the…statutory enforcement powers”

    needed to do the job properly.

    I therefore appreciate the Government’s willingness to co-operate in seeking to carry the Bill, and the support of the Minister and his officials in producing the Bill and the explanatory notes, and in helping to secure the Bill’s passage through the House today. It is ​especially important that the Bill does pass today, because the availability of these services on time and to reliable standards is often patchy.

    When the then Government announced the wholesale closure of the loss-making Forensic Science Service in November 2010, the Science and Technology Committee warned that they had failed to give

    “enough consideration to the impact on forensic science research and development (R&D), the capacity of private providers to absorb the FSS’s 60% market share and the wider implications for the criminal justice system.”

    That warning has proved prescient. Today, many scientific processes are conducted in-house by police forces, but this is piecemeal in its extent.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the Bill, which I understand has a fair chance of success. Clause 6(4) allows the regulator to prohibit a person from carrying out forensic science activities. Where that person is employed in-house at a police force, as he describes it, what would happen to the employment status of that individual?

    Darren Jones

    I think that is an important enforcement question. Of course, this has been one of the bedrocks of the voluntary model: where services are provided that do not meet the accredited standard, either by a private provider or in-house by a police force, that has just been able to continue. How a police force dealt with an in-house service that did not reach the accredited standard would be an issue for that police force, but I suggest that it might either bring its service up to the accredited standard or have confidence in the private sector market to find a provider that met that standard, which would be enforced by the regulator. I have every confidence that every police force across the country wishes to do this in the right way; there has been a huge amount of pressure on them to do so previously.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I do not object to the clause. I welcome the fact that, unlike under most regulators, individuals will be held to account, not just the organisation. My question is: where an individual who is employed by a police force is held to account, might disciplinary proceedings be taken against that individual, for example?

    Darren Jones

    It is not for me to conclude on that issue in debate on a private Member’s Bill. My personal view, for what it is worth and to entertain the hon. Member’s intervention, is that one would not want an employee to be dismissed as a consequence, but they might receive further training to meet the accredited standard and be able to continue their duties. However, as I say, it is not for me to judge an employment issue in such a setting.

    As a consequence of some of the points that the hon. Member raises, individual services are often outsourced by police forces, but a lack of clear incentives for providers to seek accreditation, given the overriding need to compete on price, has created a vacuum of accountability. Last year’s House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report set out the situation. Their lordships concluded:​

    “Simultaneous budget cuts and reorganisation, together with exponential growth in the need for new services such as digital evidence, have put forensic science providers under extreme pressure. The result is a forensic science market which is becoming dysfunctional and which, unless it is properly regulated, will soon suffer the shocks of major forensic science providers going out of business and putting justice in jeopardy… This is not just a budget issue: structural and regulatory muddle exacerbates the malaise. There is no consistency in the way in which the 43 Police Authorities commission forensic services. Some Police Authorities have taken forensic investigation predominantly in-house whilst outsourcing some services to unregulated providers. These actions call into question equitable access for defendants and raise issues over the quality of the analysis undertaken and the evaluation of the evidence presented.”

    Their lordships therefore recommended that

    “the Forensic Science Regulator should urgently be given a number of statutory powers to bolster trust in the quality of forensic science provision.” This is a multi-layered challenge that defies simple political or partisan characterisation, but the enduring message is that consistent standards, consistently applied, must be foundational to the effective provision of a forensic service across the whole country. Although forensic evidence is generally of good quality, the consequences of a market that is failing to perform that function to measurable standards are, of course, serious, specific and widespread.

    The Home Office commissioned a joint review of the provision of forensic science, which identified a growing perception about the risk of unsafe forensic evidence and demonstrated the twofold impact of an inadequate enforcement regime. Some judges, the report noted,

    “were not specifically aware of accreditation requirements or”

    the Forensic Science Regulator’s codes of practice, and defence lawyers expressed concern that

    “perceived compromises regarding quality standards meant that challenges to the integrity of forensic evidence presented in court could soon become routine.”

    I think that it is of value for us to pause and reflect on that submission to the Government’s review. Defence lawyers had a concern that the forensic science process itself was being used as a mechanism to provide arguments in prosecution cases. Of course, the service itself should not be the basis for such submissions.

    Richard Fuller

    Frequently, regulators fall back on a requirement for statutory enforcement powers, citing that they are not in a position to be effective with the powers that have been given to them, whereas the issue could be that the regulators are not effective in using the powers that they already have. I admit that that is more usual in the economic sphere and there may be particular issues in the legal sphere, but in his research in preparing the Bill, has the hon. Gentleman reached any conclusions about how well the existing powers are being used versus the requirement for statutory underpinning?

    Darren Jones

    Yes, and the repeated conclusion, not just from the regulator but the other officials and bodies I have mentioned, is that the powers that the regulator has been given for some time—since 2007-08, when the office was created—are not sufficient to bring providers up to the accredited standard. There has been strong messaging, encouragement and co-ordination to try to bring providers up to the accredited standard voluntarily, but that has still not happened. After many years of trying, the regulator and others have concluded that statutory enforcement powers are required. On the evidence, that seems a reasonable request.

    ​Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)

    Following up on that point, is it right that the regulator already has problems with codes of practice and conduct? The annual report refers to the fact that there has been a delay in publishing issue 5 of those codes but that it would be published in early 2020. Has it now been published? Why are those non-statutory codes not sufficient?

    Darren Jones

    The regulator has been able to introduce codes of practice, but where they have not been followed, she has not been able to enforce them, which is one of the main issues today. As I understand it, the codes of practice are published in co-ordination with the Home Office, so perhaps the Minister can give an update on the outstanding codes that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

    The market’s dependence on large or specialised service providers is not an abstract concern. We know that the resulting fragility, which already existed because of a lack of competition in the market, has had damaging effects on people in the criminal justice system. The collapse of key forensic services in 2018 is a case in point. To manage the fall-out from that collapse, police forces contracted other commercial providers to take on the resulting workload, creating system-wide capacity constraints. The appalling consequences that the Forensic Sciences Regulator laid out show that some cases, where forensic science may have provided valuable information or evidence, could not be processed. In addition, there was evidence of an increased error rate during this period, as well as an unsustainable strain on staff working overtime.

    I am sure that all hon. Members agree that that is an unacceptable position for part of the criminal justice system to be in and that we should do our best to try to fix it. At the risk of straying a little beyond the immediate scope of the Bill, I urge Ministers to recognise the systemic issues that such cases highlight. Giving the regulator statutory powers will raise standards but cannot by itself mend a broken market. In the medium-term, the only way to get forensics right is through sustained investment in people, processes and skills.

    I am sure that other hon. Members will have examples on which to draw, but the way in which violent sexual crimes are prosecuted makes an especially clear case for why statutory powers are so important. Such crimes, which are subject to unique challenges in obtaining convictions, often rely on DNA evidence as the critical element of a prosecution case. It is therefore vital that the possibility of contamination, for example, at sexual assault referral centres, is minimised as far as possible, yet the regulator’s 2016 annual report highlighted instances of DNA swabs being contaminated through unrelated case handling of different victims on the same day. Clearly, that is unacceptable.

    Ensuring adherence to the regulator’s quality standards is a basic precaution, as victims and the general public rightly expect. However, the cost of testing to achieve compliance has meant that the commissioners of affected centres are unlikely to co-operate unless the regulator is empowered to require that. That inadequate incentive structure gets to the heart of why the current soft regulatory model is so weak for existing markets. The regulator’s highest aspiration is to create a competitive climate, in which underperforming or corner-cutting suppliers are unable to acquire contracts.

    ​Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)

    Will the hon. Gentleman also consider a problem in the digital sphere if there is no effective market for delivering services digitally? If victims of the worst crimes have their smartphone, which is so critical to many people’s lives, taken from them and it takes a long time for it to be returned, that will add to and compound that individual’s distress.

    Darren Jones

    I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased to see him in the Chamber today, given his previous valiant efforts to try to secure a similar outcome in the previous Parliament. He makes an important point in respect of digital forensics, which, we know from the evidence reported to us in the House, has been in increasing demand, given the nature and complexity of modern crimes. There also seems to be a lack of expertise, skills and capacity to deal with that. There have been incidences reported in the media where victims have, for example, had all their data on their mobile phones downloaded at the point at which they have reported a crime. There are pretty significant questions about whether that is the right balance and approach: what the framework is around that, what happens with all that data going forward and whether that is the right approach to take. That, of course, comes to the questions around accredited standards for digital forensics.

    With the market dominated by a few large players, and niche processes or specialised capabilities often, in practice, offered by a single small provider, the cost of achieving and retaining certification is frequently seen as a greater impediment to competitiveness than the ability to demonstrate the quality of their work. With the majority of affected forensic work conducted in-house, the absence of statutory regulation has meant that police forces themselves have come to the view that accreditation is a low priority for time and investment. Statutory regulation would therefore enable a path to competition on the basis of quality and encourage new providers to enter the market. Police authorities would not only be more accountable for the procurement decisions they make but better able to make the case to the Government for investment to enable funding safe, high-quality forensics.

    I do not wish to present the Bill today as a panacea, but that kind of regulatory environment should be the baseline for a competitive market in services as publicly important as these. That aspiration is key, because although there is ample cause to regret that manner in which the forensic science service was shut down, the Bill seeks to improve and build on the marketised approach as it exists today, rather than seeking to turn back the clock. That is why making this change commands, in my view, such universal expert and political consensus.

    In what form, then, could objections possibly be taken? I am conscious that a small minority of practitioners, for example, have previously expressed concern that a statutory regulator would mean essentially sound practices being invalidated on technicalities and leave robust prosecutions open to unfounded but seemingly credible defence challenges, but that is emphatically not a risk created by this proposed legislation. The enforcement and investigatory powers it seeks to create are not directly rooted in compliance with quality standards but justified by substantial risk that the course of justice will be prejudiced by reliance on the science conducted ​by these practitioners. As such, the only providers with a meaningful basis for concern are those whose work entails risk of that order. Most providers take the rules and codes of practice that govern their work, and the sense of public duty that comes with it, extremely seriously. Only a minority of bad actors have anything to fear from a system that begins with the aim of rewarding quality work done in good faith.

    The same essential need for intelligent, enforceable and responsive regulation underpins the case for action to address the increasingly widespread collection, storage and use of biometric data. As I have already said today, the title of the Bill offers some clue to my initial aspirations on that front, but I take the Minister and the Government at their word that solutions are en route. They need to be, in my view, because this is an area in which it is even clearer that innovations and technology will consistently outpace the capacities of primary legislation and where current law leaves an intolerable vacuum for the abuse of new and developing biometrics.

    In that context, and very briefly today, I would like to draw colleagues’ attention to the independent review of the governance of biometric data commissioned by the Ada Lovelace Institute, which I understand is due to report its conclusions next month. The findings, I suggest, would represent one of the most authoritative contributions to the debate on how we govern biometrics, and I hope Ministers will take full account of them.

    The general data protection regulation defines biometric data in fairly bloodless terms as the information that results from

    “processing relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, which allow or confirm the unique identification of that natural person, such as facial images”.

    Some of the processes we are talking about, such as fingerprinting, are well established and the limits on their use well defined, but the potential for abuse created by the speed with which technologies for processing other kinds of biometric data are advancing should make clear the need for political oversight to keep up.

    Clearly, that does not begin and end with, for example, automatic facial recognition, but the worry that the technology simply is not ready for roll-out has been debated on the Floor of the House in the past.

    The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)

    I wish to acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s strong point that technology is moving at great speed in crime, as it is in all our lives, and to draw his attention to the fact that we were the only party that stood on a manifesto commitment—it was buried in our manifesto at the general election—to create exactly the robust legal framework to which he refers. I am hopeful that we will get movement on that quite soon.

    Darren Jones

    I am pleased to hear that from the Minister. I confess that I did not notice that in his party’s manifesto, but on the basis of his confirmation to the House, I look forward to the tabling of comprehensive legislation. I can confirm to the House that, although it may not have been in our manifesto under the previous Labour party leadership, I will do my best to ensure that it is in the next one.

    I believe the Minister when he says that he wants to get this right, and the Government will have a partner in me when they get around to it, but time is of the ​essence. I sorely hope that the Bill fires the starting gun today on a period of revitalised thinking in the Government about how to regulate technologies in the public interest. I want to be a participant in that effort.

    The Bill is as evidence-driven and task-focused a piece of legislation as it could be. Putting the regulator in statute is a matter of broad political consensus. As I have said today, on a cross-party basis in both this House and the other House, and among experts in the field, the regulator and, indeed, the Minister and the Government, there is consensus that the Bill should be given its Second Reading today. It will make good on a commitment, first made by the Government in 2013, that the regulator says is necessary if it is to do its job effectively. Finally, it will create a basis of quality enforcement, on which we can build a better-functioning market, and is plainly the right thing to do. On that basis, I commend my Bill to the House.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2020 Comments on Childcare Providers Closing

    Tulip Siddiq – 2020 Comments on Childcare Providers Closing

    The comments made by Tulip Siddiq, the Shadow Minister for Children and Early Years, on 25 September 2020.

    Parents rely on childcare to be able to do their jobs. Those jobs and our economic recovery will be put at risk if one in ten nurseries and childminders are forced to close over winter, not to mention the impact on children who rely on early education.

    Labour has been warning about childcare closures for months, yet Ministers have sat on their hands as the early years sector and workforce move ever closer to a cliff edge.

    It is time for this incompetent Government to start listening and start targeting support at sectors like childcare which need it the most.

  • Rosena Allin-Khan – 2020 Comments on NHS Staff Mental Health

    Rosena Allin-Khan – 2020 Comments on NHS Staff Mental Health

    The comments made by Rosena Allin-Khan, the Shadow Minister for Mental Health, on 24 September 2020. Allin-Khan was commenting on statistics published by the NHS showing over 500,000 sick days had been taken in May 2020 alone.

    These statistics must serve as a wakeup call for the Government. At a time when COVID-19 related sickness absences were going down, mental ill health absences were soaring.

    Our health and care staff have sacrificed so much during this pandemic – it demonstrates why Labour’s ‘Care for Carers’ package is so vital. Dedicated mental health support should be available for all health and care staff.

    Since launching the package in June, I have requested meetings with the Government – it is a disgrace that this offer has not been taken up. I urge the Government to reconsider our offer.

    Ahead of winter and a second spike, the Government must learn the lessons of this spring. We must fight for the mental health of those who have supported us so courageously during this crisis.

  • Ed Miliband – 2020 Comments about the Prime Minister’s Words on Climate Change

    Ed Miliband – 2020 Comments about the Prime Minister’s Words on Climate Change

    The comments made by Ed Miliband, the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, on 24 September 2020.

    Boris Johnson’s words are not matched by his deeds.

    The UK is not on track to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets and we have not published our strengthened plans to cut carbon emissions, as we need to do as the hosts of COP26. Breakthroughs this week from China and the EU show other countries are getting on with the fight against climate change.

    Meanwhile, we are still funnelling billions into overseas oil and gas projects, and our investment in a green recovery has been dwarfed by our European neighbours.

    We should be blazing the trail with a Green New Deal, coordinating international diplomatic efforts in the run-up to COP, and leading by example by setting out plans for the world’s most ambitious green recovery – not kicking the can further down the road.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2020 Statement on New Support for Business

    Rishi Sunak – 2020 Statement on New Support for Business

    The statement made by Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 24 September 2020.

    Thank you for granting me permission to make this statement to the House, Mr Speaker. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister set out the next stage of the Government’s health response to coronavirus. Today, I want to explain the next phase of our planned economic response. The House will be reassured to know that I have been developing plans to protect jobs and the economy over the winter period—plans that seek to strike a finely judged balance between managing the virus and protecting the jobs and livelihoods of millions.

    I know that people are anxious, afraid and exhausted at the prospect of further restrictions on our economic and social freedoms. I share those feelings, but there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic. We are in a fundamentally different position than we were in March, and we now know much more about this virus. Public awareness of the risks and how to mitigate them is far greater, and we have met our promise to give the NHS whatever it needs, with significant new funding for NHS capacity and for personal protective equipment. I can inform the House that we have now provided over £12 billion for test and trace.

    In economic terms, while our output remains well below what it was in February, we have seen three consecutive months of growth, and millions of people have moved off the furlough and back to work. But the resurgence of the virus and the measures we need to take in response pose a threat to this fragile economic recovery, so our task now is to move to the next stage of our economic plan, nurturing the recovery by protecting jobs through the difficult winter months.

    The underlying rationale for the next phase of economic support must be different from what came before. The primary goal of our economic policy remains unchanged—to support people’s jobs—but the way we achieve that must evolve. Back in March, we hoped we were facing a temporary period of disruption. In response, we provided one of the most generous and comprehensive economic plans anywhere in the world, with £190 billion of support for people, businesses and public services as we have protected our economic capacity. It is now clear, as the Prime Minister and our scientific advisers have said, that for at least the next six months the virus and restrictions are going to be a fact of our lives. Our economy is now likely to undergo a more permanent adjustment. The sources of our economic growth and the kinds of jobs we create will adapt and evolve to the new normal, and our plan needs to adapt and evolve in response.

    Above all, we need to face up to the trade-offs and hard choices that coronavirus presents, and there has been no harder choice than the decision to end the furlough scheme. The furlough was the right policy at the time we introduced it.

    It provided immediate short-term protection for millions of jobs through a period of acute crisis, but as the economy reopens, it is fundamentally wrong to hold people in jobs that only exist inside the furlough. We need to create new opportunities and allow the economy to move forward, and that means supporting people to be in viable jobs that provide genuine security.

    As I have said throughout this crisis, I cannot save every business. I cannot save every job. No Chancellor could. But what we can and must do is deal with the real problems businesses and employees are facing now. In March, the problem was that we ordered businesses to close. In response, we paid people to stay at home and not work. Today, the problem is different. Many businesses are operating safely and viably, but they now face uncertainty and reduced demand over the winter months. What those businesses need is support to bring people back to work and protect as many viable jobs as we can.

    To do that, I am announcing today the new jobs support scheme. The Government will directly support the wages of people in work, giving businesses that face depressed demand the option of keeping employees in a job on shorter hours, rather than making them redundant.

    The job support scheme is built on three principles. First, it will support viable jobs. To make sure of that, employees must work at least a third of their normal hours and be paid for that work as normal by their employer. The Government, together with employers, will then increase those people’s wages, covering two thirds of the pay they have lost by reducing their working hours. The employee will keep their job.

    Secondly, we will target support at firms that need it most. All small and medium-sized businesses are eligible, but larger businesses only when their turnover has fallen through the crisis.

    Thirdly, it will be open to employers across the United Kingdom, even if they have not previously used the furlough scheme.

    The scheme will run for six months, starting in November. Employers retaining furloughed staff on shorter hours can claim both the job support scheme and the jobs retention bonus.

    Throughout this crisis, we have sought parity between employees and the self-employed, providing more than £13 billion of support to over 2.6 million self-employed small businesses, so I am extending the existing self-employed grant on similar terms and conditions as the new jobs support scheme.

    These are radical interventions in the UK labour market—policies we have never tried in this country before. Together with their jobs retention bonus, the kickstart scheme for young people, tens of billions of pounds of job creation schemes and new investment in training and apprenticeships, we are protecting millions of jobs and businesses.

    If we want to protect jobs this winter, the second major challenge is helping businesses with cash flow. Over the past six months, we have supported business with tens of billions of pounds of tax deferrals and generous Government-backed loans. Those policies have been a lifeline, but right now businesses need every extra pound to protect jobs, rather than repaying loans and tax deferrals, so I am taking four further steps today to make that happen.

    First, bounce back loans have given over a million small businesses a £38 billion boost to survive this pandemic. To give those businesses more time and greater flexibility to repay their loans, we are introducing pay as you grow. This means loans can now be extended from six to 10 years, nearly halving the average monthly repayment. Businesses that are struggling can now choose to make interest-only payments, and anyone in real trouble can apply to suspend repayments altogether for up to six months. No business taking up pay as you grow will see its credit rating affected as a result.

    Secondly, I am also changing the terms of our other loan schemes. More than 60,000 small and medium-sized businesses have taken out coronavirus business interruption loans. To help them, I plan to extend the Government guarantee on those loans for up to 10 years, making it easier for lenders to give more people more time to repay. I am also extending the deadline for all our loan schemes to the end of this year, and we are starting work on a new successor loan guarantee programme that is set to begin in January.

    Thirdly, I want to give businesses more time and flexibility over their deferred tax bills. Nearly half a million businesses deferred more than £30 billion of VAT this year. Under current plans, those payments fall due in March. Instead, I will allow businesses to spread that VAT bill over 11 smaller repayments, with no interest to pay. Any of the millions of self-assessed income tax payers who need extra help can also now extend their outstanding tax bill over 12 months from next January.

    The final step I am taking today will support two of the most affected sectors: hospitality and tourism. Under current plans, their VAT rates will increase from 5% to the standard rate of 20% on 13 January. To support more than 150,000 businesses and help to protect 2.4 million jobs through the winter, today I announce that we are cancelling the planned increase, and will keep the lower 5% VAT rate until 31 March next year.

    Today’s measures mark an important evolution in our approach. Our lives can no longer be put on hold. Since May we have taken steps to liberate our economy and society. We did those things because life means more than simply existing. We find meaning and hope through our friends and family, and through our work and community. People were not wrong for wanting that meaning, and for striving towards normality, and neither were the Government wrong to want that for them. I said in the summer that we must endure, and live with the uncertainty of the moment, and that means learning our new limits as we go. The truth is that responsibility for defeating coronavirus cannot be held by the Government alone. It is a collective responsibility, shared by all, because the cost is paid by all.

    We have so often spoken about the virus in terms of lives lost, but the price our country is paying is wider than that. The Government have done much to mitigate the effects of those awful trade-offs between health, education, and employment, and as we think about the next few weeks and months, we must bear all those costs in mind. As such, it would be dishonest to say that there is now a risk-free solution, or that we can mandate behaviour to such an extent that we lose any sense of personal responsibility. What was true at the beginning of this crisis remains true now: it is on all of us, and we must learn to live with it, and live without fear. I commend this statement to the House.

    Mr Speaker

    I recognise the importance of this statement and that, quite rightly, the shadow Chancellor might need a little more time. I will ensure that the other Front-Bench speakers also have some extra time.

    Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)

    I thank the Chancellor for his statement and for advance sight of this announcement. I have called for the introduction of a system of targeted wage support 40 times. That call has been rebuffed by the Government 20 times. It is a relief that the Government have U-turned now, but we must be open and honest: that delay in introducing this new scheme will have impacted on businesses’ confidence. I know that from talking to them, and I am sure that Government Members know that from talking to businesses in their constituencies.

    The deadline for redundancy consultations by large firms before the end of the furlough scheme came and went last week without a word from the Government. If the package of measures announced today can help people keep their jobs and help businesses through hard times, Labour will of course support it. There is much in the statement that we do support—as I just said, we have repeatedly called for a system of targeted wage support, and we have called for help for indebted, cash-strapped businesses over and over again—but we must ensure that these measures are as effective as possible at keeping workers in employment, getting unemployed people back into work and keeping viable businesses in operation.

    As with many previous announcements by the Government, we must wait for the detail to be revealed—presumably following the press conference scheduled for later on today. Workers and businesses are hanging on the Chancellor’s every word right now, and they need to know what is promised here. So can the Chancellor be clear: will the wage support scheme actually keep more people in work? For that to happen, the scheme must make it more attractive for employers to retain more staff on reduced hours than to retain some full time and make others redundant. Does his scheme actually incentivise short-hours working?

    What conditions, if any, will be applied to ensure value for public money? Will the scheme require commitments to continuing employment, unlike the existing furlough scheme, where there have been abuses? Will it require those participating to provide decent, sustainable work?

    Will the scheme incentivise training and retraining? The German scheme does, and Labour has called for a UK version to include incentives for training, but that is missing here. Indeed, while, as I said, we welcome many of the elements that the Chancellor has announced, the lack of action on training and skills is worrying. I was waiting and waiting for the Chancellor to talk about training. He mentioned the word once, in passing. That is not enough. His Government have already allocated funding for a national skills strategy, but it is not being delivered on the ground. When will the Chancellor get serious about training so that people can be ready for the jobs of the future? He mentioned the fact that our economy is changing. Let us make sure that our population is ready for that change.

    Labour has called repeatedly for continued, targeted support for the self-employed, so I am pleased that that is referred to here, but will these measures avoid the gaps in coverage that have bedevilled existing schemes? Why is there no forward plan for the needs of those who are extremely clinically vulnerable to the disease? Belatedly, will the Chancellor do more to demand that his colleagues get a grip on the UK’s public health crisis? Our country is suffering from a double tragedy: the highest excess death rate in Europe and the deepest recession in the G7.

    Labour supports the Government in their announcement of additional restrictions this week. The Government’s messaging has been confused enough already, so the last thing we want to do is add to that confusion, but we are concerned that these restrictions are necessary only because of continuing problems with test, trace and isolate. The Chancellor referred to the money put into test, trace and isolate. As I said earlier this week, enormous sums have been devoted to that task, but those sums are not delivering the system that we need. We are still not at the stage of many other countries. The Chancellor must work on that, as well as his other colleagues in Government.

    Finally, before the summer recess, Labour called for a back to work Budget focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. We did not get one. We expected a Budget this autumn. It appears, again, that we are not getting one. That is despite the challenges it poses for devolved Governments, and despite the fact that the Government have actually referred to provisions in a future Finance Bill as necessary for their approach to Brexit. The Chancellor announced that he would make a statement to Parliament today only after I had called for him to come here to answer an urgent question; I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting that.

    This Government have lagged behind on test, trace and isolate. They have lagged behind on wage support. They have lagged behind on support for those having to self-isolate. They are lagging behind on green investment. For these and for other reasons, it looks like our recovery will be lagging behind that of many other countries. So, finally, when will the Chancellor provide the back to work Budget that this country needs?

    Rishi Sunak

    I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. On the question of continued support for jobs, however, I had hoped that she would have welcomed strongly today’s measures, if for no other reason than that she has previously asked for something similar. However, her position on this matter has been somewhat changeable. At different points in the last few weeks and months, she has said that furlough should not go on for ever, and then changed her mind and said that we should extend it. Then she changed her mind and said it should be replaced, and then only yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said it should be extended again. That is not the kind of certainty that British businesses or British workers need.

    To address the specific questions, this scheme absolutely does incentivise shorter time working. The company will pay its workers for the time that they are in work, and the Government and the employer jointly will subsidise the time the worker is not working. The conditions will be set out in guidance, which will be published shortly, and then over the next few weeks the further details will be worked through with businesses and unions, as we did with the furlough scheme.

    I can reassure the hon. Lady that the new scheme does indeed have the conditionality that is appropriate for this stage of our response. Notably, this scheme will be available only for larger companies that are seeing a decline in their revenues as a result of coronavirus, ensuring that our support is targeted where it is most needed. Similarly, there will be restrictions on larger companies in capital distributions to shareholders while they are in receipt of money for their workers under this scheme. Indeed, they will not be able to give redundancy notices to those workers who are on this scheme throughout its duration.

    We have increased training both for post-16 at the Budget and, indeed, in the recent plan for jobs, providing increased access for school leavers to level 2 qualifications across the board. Notably, one of the hallmarks of our skills system is our successful apprenticeship programme. What we announced in July was a significant increase in the incentive payment to businesses for taking on a new apprentice: a £2,000 cash incentive to businesses to take on an apprentice and provide that valuable in-work training that we know makes such a difference to young people’s futures. So we are committed to providing especially our young people with the opportunities that they need to succeed in the future.

    The hon. Lady talked about jobs. In July, we outlined a £30 billion plan for jobs—to support, create and protect jobs across every part of our United Kingdom. Chief among the initiatives was the kickstart scheme, where right now employers—small, medium-sized and large—are rushing to put in applications to take on a young kickstarter later this autumn, to provide them with the opportunities that they need at an incredibly difficult time. I can assure this House and the country that my No. 1 economic priority is to protect people’s jobs, and that is what this Government will continue to do.

    In conclusion, the Opposition wanted the furlough extended, but they never said for how long. Then they wanted the furlough replaced, but they would not say what with. Then they wanted the furlough targeted, but they would not say on whom. I do stand ready to work with the hon. Lady, if she knew exactly what she wanted. Today, the Government stand with the British people and British business, with the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Trades Union Congress, in bringing much-needed support to the economy. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition called for a plan B for the economy. The Labour party does not even have a plan A.

    Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)

    The devil, of course, will be in the detail, but from what I have heard, I broadly and warmly welcome this statement. I am encouraged by the job support scheme and the fact that it is targeted, for which I and my Committee have been calling for some time. I am encouraged by the announcements on loans and the pay-as-you-grow scheme, particularly to help small and medium-sized enterprises, and I am encouraged that the self-employed will have their scheme extended.

    However, my right hon. Friend will know that there was considerable concern that many self-employed people fell through the gaps of the support provided. Will he say something about whether some of those gaps will be ameliorated or ironed out as a consequence of the new measures, and will he meet me in fairly short order to discuss the options that might be available?

    Rishi Sunak

    I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments; I am sure he will see in much of what we have announced today some of the thinking in his latest report. I thank him and his Committee members for all the input they have provided in helping us to think about the next phase of our economic response. He is right that this package focuses on employment and, indeed, on supporting businesses with their cash flow.

    With regard to the self-employed, I am glad my right hon. Friend welcomes the extension of the existing support grant. Virtually no other country in the world has done that, and it comes on top of the most generous support for our self-employed of almost any country throughout the response to this crisis. Of course, I will be happy to meet him, but I know he will also be pleased to learn that the measures today to defer income tax self-assessment will be of particular importance to our self-employed small businesses.

    Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

    Scottish National party Members are glad that the Chancellor has accepted the need to extend support, but it comes very late in the day and is little comfort to those who have already lost their jobs due to the impending end of the furlough scheme. Industry, trade unions, the Treasury Committee, people across the country and hon. Members across parties in this House have been pleading with him for months now, and it feels as if it is only the latest spike that has prompted his action.

    Coronavirus is not done with us yet. The furlough scheme has saved jobs and kept people paying their bills and mortgages. It has been incredibly important and it is a shame that the Chancellor is ending it at the end of next month. Hospitality, travel and tourism, aviation exhibitions, culture and performing arts, even travelling showpeople, and a host of others cannot go back to normal work because the Government have placed restrictions on their businesses.

    Those jobs and those businesses are viable—it is not for the Chancellor to decide the viability of businesses. Ending the scheme put 61,000 Scottish jobs at risk. His measures on the pay-as-you-grow scheme recognise that many businesses have deferred payments and have mounting debt. However, the problem for many businesses is not income deferred, but income lost completely, so will he go further and convert those loans to grants and equity, to give companies a bit more certainty about their future? We welcome the hospitality and tourism VAT cut, but will he reassess that in March and perhaps consider keeping it in place permanently to help those businesses pick up, hopefully, through an improved situation next summer?

    There is nothing here, nothing whatsoever, for those who have been excluded from existing support schemes—for freelancers, the Forgotten Ltd, the pay-as-you-earn employees, the new starters, the women on maternity and all those who have had not one penny piece from this Government for six months. The Chancellor cannot say he does not know that that is a problem, although he still refuses to meet them. How dare he say that these 3 million people should be left high and dry with nothing?

    Will the Chancellor introduce further conditions to prevent unscrupulous employers from exploiting the new schemes as BAE and others have done? Will he support the fire and rehire Bill from my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), which would prevent that exploitation in future?

    The Chancellor did not have the courtesy to lift the phone to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance in the Scottish Government, Kate Forbes, or her counterparts in Wales and Northern Ireland, to let her know that he plans to scrap the autumn Budget. They found out on Twitter. It is not the first time this Government have had a lack of respect for the devolved institutions, because that happened last year, too. Does he appreciate the very difficult situation he has created? With no access to the fiscal levers and no clarity on the funding settlement, he has tied both of Kate Forbes’s hands behind her back. What does he intend to do about that?

    Rishi Sunak

    I think the hon. Lady is continuing to ask for an extension of the furlough scheme, but fundamentally I do not believe that that would be the right thing to do. At this stage of the economic recovery it is better that our support is targeted and focused on supporting viable jobs in our economy, and that means a new approach. Extending the furlough and allowing people to be at home full time is not the right approach in this phase of the economic crisis. Our new scheme will ensure that we provide support to those who need it most and protect as many viable jobs as possible in many of the industries she mentioned.

    The hon. Lady asked about conditions. I agree with her that there should be conditions on larger companies accessing support from the Government for wage protection. There will be conditions on capital redistributions and on the ability to provide redundancy notices to employees while they are on the scheme, and, in the first place, limiting the eligibility for large companies to those that are most in need.

    On dialogue with the Scottish Government, I am pleased to say that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury speaks regularly with his counterparts, as I believe he will be doing very shortly. There is a well worked process for how devolved nations’ budgets are set. There is absolutely no requirement for a UK Budget to be done beforehand. Indeed, that was not the case earlier this spring. We will have Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts later this autumn. On the basis of those forecasts, the normal work will be done with our counterparts in the devolved authorities to ensure that they can set the budgets they need.

    Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)

    Over 900,000 Scottish jobs have been protected as a result of the UK Government’s furlough scheme during the worst of this crisis, ensuring that over the past six months hundreds of thousands of Scottish families have continued to maintain a regular income. I welcome the further support announced by the UK Government today. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer outline how the UK Government measures will benefit communities, businesses, individuals and families across Scotland as we enter this next difficult phase in our fight against coronavirus?

    Rishi Sunak

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for the conversations he has had with both me and the Prime Minister on the importance of supporting every part of our United Kingdom as we go through this economic crisis and drive our recovery forward. That is something this Government will always take very seriously. He has been very helpful and played a valuable role in ensuring that the measures we have put in place today will benefit companies and workers in every single part of our United Kingdom.

    Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)

    Large parts of the north, including my constituency, are under extra restrictions but are not being given additional support from the Treasury, whether it is our local authorities or our businesses. If the Government’s levelling up agenda is to mean anything, that must be urgently addressed. Today’s statement is a significant change of direction from “whatever it takes”, so what extra measures will the Chancellor provide to constituencies such as mine to ensure we are not levelled down as a result of the pandemic?

    Rishi Sunak

    There is support in place for local authorities, through the NHS, for any response in areas of tightened restrictions, whether for community information or enhanced testing. Recently, we outlined a self-isolation incentive payment of up to £500 and a business grant support scheme for businesses that have been ordered to close. The Government remain committed to levelling up in every part of our country, as outlined in our ambitious plans to invest in infrastructure in every part of our country.

    Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)

    The eat out to help out scheme was a massive success in Ashfield, with 53,000 meals served. The scheme saved thousands of jobs and kept hundreds of businesses open. However, my wife is not happy with the Chancellor, because I put a stone on in weight in August, which meant I needed bigger clothes. Jono Edwards, who owns the world-famous Junction Bar & Restaurant, is very happy with the Chancellor. Jono tells me that without the Chancellor’s support his bar would have closed and his staff, who are like a family to him, would have lost their jobs. May I pass on my thanks to the Chancellor from every single pub and hospitality business in Ashfield for extending the 5% VAT cut until next March? Jono Edwards, Dame Margo and Donna at the Junction pub will be very happy with this great news.

    Rishi Sunak

    I thank my hon. Friend, and I am glad that our initiatives have made such a difference on the ground to people in his constituency in protecting jobs, as I am sure they have elsewhere. I very much hope that I can come to visit him and Jono and his team at the Junction pub in the near future, and I wish them every support through the next few months. I hope that the measures we have put in place today will ensure that they continue to thrive in the future.

    Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)

    I have called for targeted support for jobs in the aviation sector a number of times. The sector would be viable if not for the impact of coronavirus, but in my constituency easyJet, Tui and Luton Airport have already been forced into making redundancies due to the lack of Government support. Can the Chancellor explain why the Government waited until a week after the deadline passed for consultation on large redundancies caused by the end of the coronavirus job retention scheme to announce its replacement?

    Rishi Sunak

    Our response will continue to evolve as the circumstances demand. With respect to aviation, I have every sympathy for companies and employees in that sector; obviously, they have been very hard hit. The measures that we have put in place have made a significant difference to businesses in that sector. Indeed, I think that one of the ones the hon. Lady mentioned is among the many that have accessed some of our much larger loan schemes to provide vital liquidity at a very difficult time, and I know that many businesses in the aerospace supply chain will particularly welcome the part-time working job support scheme we have announced today, as it will be particularly well suited to their manufacturing businesses.

    Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)

    I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. His stamp duty holiday, which is due to expire on 31 March, has been extremely successful in stimulating an important part of the UK economy. What plans does he have for further housing initiatives, which will not only generate business activity but, if properly focused, also alleviate poverty and promote social mobility?

    Rishi Sunak

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the stamp duty cut is driving activity in the housing market, which is helping to protect jobs in that sector. I would point him to our green homes grant, which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is going to roll out shortly and which will provide households with a grant of up to £5,000 to subsidise initiatives to improve the insulation and energy efficiency of their homes. There will be larger grants available for those households most in need, as determined by their local authorities, helping them not only to save on carbon emissions but to save up to £300 a year on their energy bills.

    Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)

    We talk about a green industrial revolution and the Chancellor talks about job protection, yet just last week, Scottish yards missed out on the procurement contracts for the Seagreen offshore wind project. In terms of real job creation, will he consider the Scottish Government’s plea for an £80 billion UK stimulus? Will he also confirm when the national infrastructure strategy and the energy White Paper will be published and, crucially, will he instruct officials to look at how the contracts for difference process works and change it so that it incentivises the use of UK supply chains?

    Rishi Sunak

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of offshore wind to our economy. It is something that we have a global strategic competitive advantage in, and this Government will continue to support the sector in the way that we have. I am always open to new ideas about how to do that, but we must ensure that we double down on our advantage and drive jobs in every part of our country, not just in Scotland but in the north-east, where we have considerable advantages over other countries, not just in providing energy but now in manufacturing more of the content that goes into our turbines.

    Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that, as the coronavirus is now threatening our recovery, it is right that we focus our support on the problems that businesses in Redcar and Cleveland and elsewhere are facing right now? Support for viable businesses and viable jobs through a time of depressed demand due to the restrictions that virus threatens is exactly what the new job support scheme delivers.

    Rishi Sunak

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows all too well what the businesses in his constituency need, which is support to get through this period of depressed demand. They need our support to protect those viable jobs and to help them get through to the other side, and that is exactly what the job support scheme will deliver.

    Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)

    It is right that the economic support schemes evolve, and this will be a lifeline for many people in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister has talked about embracing everyone and the need for creativity and innovation, but surely there are two gaps in today’s announcements: first, the excluded; and secondly, the companies where even paying a third of the wages is not a viable option at this time even though they do have sustainable futures, such as in the arts and creative industries and aerospace.

    Rishi Sunak

    In terms of the arts and creative industries, we have provided over £1.5 billion of funding to support vital institutions in every part of the United Kingdom through that scheme, but it is important now that support is focused on companies that can provide viable jobs, with a genuinely secure future for their employees. As we have set the scheme, it is very similar to those around the world and gets that balance right, being generous with our support but also making sure that support is targeted where it can do the most good.

    Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to Members’ concerns about small businesses and the self-employed and for taking the time to engage with us and hear our concerns. In Beaconsfield, we have 4,000 people who have already benefited from the Government’s self-employed income support scheme, protecting their livelihoods. I therefore welcome today’s announcement that we will continue the support for the self-employed, through a further extension in the grant, and continue our unprecedented support for both the employed and self-employed. May I invite him to Marlow to see all the good work that he has done through his schemes?

    Rishi Sunak

    I am very happy to take up my hon. Friend’s invitation. She is right to highlight the very comprehensive support that we have put in place for the self-employed. Compared with almost any other country anywhere in the world, it is more comprehensive, generous and has lasted for far longer than one can find elsewhere.

    Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]

    [Inaudible.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    We seem to be having some trouble hearing Christine Jardine. I will move on and try to come back to her if we can sort out what is wrong with the sound.

    Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)

    Throughout this crisis, the Chancellor has moved with speed and determination to protect jobs and family incomes. I welcome his comments today about targeting job support on viable companies with viable jobs. Implicit in that, though, is a recognition that, sadly, unemployment will continue to increase, so will he say a bit more about the importance of the social security safety net at this time and reaffirm the importance of the increase that we made right at the start of this crisis to universal credit and perhaps tell us that there is no intention on the part of the Government to withdraw it?

    Rishi Sunak

    I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments. He knows better than most what a difference our welfare system and, indeed, the Department for Work and Pensions and its phenomenal staff can make on the ground. I know that he will join me in welcoming not only the increase, temporarily, that we have put on universal credit for this year, providing almost £1,000 extra to those who are in receipt of it, but our further increases in and generosity with the local housing allowance and the provision of hardship funds to those struggling to pay their council tax bills, distributed through local authorities. In some areas, that represents a significant amount of support for the most vulnerable in our society—a point that was borne out in the distribution analysis that we published this summer, which showed that the most vulnerable in our society had benefited the most from our support.

    Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)

    On universal credit, the Chancellor rightly, at the start of the pandemic, suspended the minimum income floor in universal credit to avoid an unnecessary barrier to new self-employment. Given his welcome announcements today, will he extend the duration of that suspension beyond the middle of November, when it is currently due to end?

    Rishi Sunak

    Decisions on the exact operation of our welfare system are for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, but I will happily reflect on the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. He is right that that has made a significant difference in the early stage of this crisis, but as we go through it, we will make sure that we adjust and tailor our support to match the needs of the moment.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Let us see whether we can go back to Christine Jardine.

    Christine Jardine [V]

    I hope that you can hear me this time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    I thank the Chancellor for early sight of his statement, which I cautiously welcome, to the extent that he has listened to calls from Liberal Democrats to extend furlough and create some flexibility based on the German Kurzarbeit model, but what about the 3 million people who have had no support for six months and will still be excluded from financial help? Where are the job creation plans to tackle unemployment and for those who cannot work for a third of the time? Where are the incentives for manufacturing and industry to invest in this country and create new jobs—the green revolution—allowing us to compete with our European neighbours, who are already moving ahead of us?

    Rishi Sunak

    In terms of ensuring that we are winners in the green industrial revolution, I point the hon. Lady to measures that we already announced in the Budget to provide significant support for initiatives such as carbon capture and storage and the construction of a charging infrastructure fund, to build more charging points across the United Kingdom. Such measures will make an enormous difference, on top of our commitment to double our research and development spending over the next few years, ensuring that businesses across the UK can play a leading role in driving our progress towards meeting our climate targets and creating new jobs in the process.

    Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)

    I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement, particularly the extension of the 5% VAT rate to next March. I know that many of the hospitality businesses in my constituency will welcome that as they grapple with the loss of tourists and office workers. Many are reporting that trading is at 20% of normal levels. Will he agree to meet me and representatives of theatres and the hospitality and retail sectors to discuss what further measures we can take to support the west end’s recovery?

    Rishi Sunak

    My hon. Friend is right. I know that she has spent a lot of time focused on this issue, and businesses in her constituency are facing an especially hard time. I would be delighted to meet her and them to see what more we can do to support them.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    I used to be a curate, so I recognise a curate’s egg when I see one. This is good, but only in parts. The truth is that lots of people’s jobs are only unviable because of the virus and Government restrictions—I am not attacking the Government for that, but that is the simple truth. We therefore have a moral duty to try to help those people to survive, with proper livelihoods into the future. That especially applies to the aviation industry and the hospitality industry in my patch. I hope that the Chancellor will be able to say something more about specific grants, not just loans, for businesses that are sorely affected.

    The Chancellor still has not answered the question about the 3 million people who got nothing earlier this year. Perhaps there was something hidden in what he said about the self-employed that means more people will get support this time, but he must have had constituents contact him, as I have. Finally, I wrote to him on 23 February—214 days ago—about the massive flooding in south Wales. He has not yet replied. A tip has fallen into the river. Can he visit the Rhondda and see the problems that we have? We really need financial support. The Prime Minister has promised that an answer is coming quickly, but we have still not had it—or the Chancellor could just send a cheque.

    Rishi Sunak

    I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I will find his correspondence as soon as I can and get him the reply that he deserves. I do not think I disagree with him. It is right that we focus our support on viable jobs. Those jobs are, in part, not viable because of the restrictions. The balance that we have to get right is in understanding that we will be dealing with this virus for a while to come—it is not here and then gone. That changes what our support should do. We have to focus it on those with a genuine prospect of employment, and I think the job support scheme gets that balance right. It is generous and flexible. With regard to hospitality, which is important to his constituency, I know that the industry will warmly welcome the extension of the VAT cut into the spring.

    Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)

    The Chancellor has shown himself to be nimble and agile throughout this crisis. I congratulate him on his statement and his recognition that we must adapt and evolve and can no longer put our lives on hold. I particularly welcome the measures to support hospitality and the 5% VAT rate extension. The fantastic Telford International Centre for businesses and conferences brings in 300,000 people every year, but its turnover is now zero. Will he continue to do all he can to support the events industry, which is so important to my town?

    Rishi Sunak

    I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and she is right: the Government must respond with agility as the virus and our economy evolve over the coming weeks and months, and we will continue to do that. I very much sympathise with her and those in the events industry, given the difficulties they are experiencing. I know that conversations are ongoing with the Business Secretary about what can be done to best ensure that, at some point in the future, we can return to what we all want, which is the thriving industry her constituency wants to see.

    Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)

    The Chancellor mentioned that the existing self-employed support grant will be extended on similar terms and conditions to the new jobs support scheme, but can he tell the self-employed in rural areas such as Ceredigion, who represent almost 30% of the workforce, whether he has changed the terms and conditions in such a way as to ensure that those who have been excluded from support so far will now get the help they deserve?

    Rishi Sunak

    The eligibility conditions will remain as they are, with refinements to make sure that businesses are still trading over the winter and to recognise that they have suffered and are suffering an impact on revenues through coronavirus. The reasons for those eligibility criteria are well documented and have been discussed in this House many times, so I will not recap exactly why they are there, but it is worth bearing in mind that the extension of this support means that we have provided more support to 2.5 million self-employed people, which is considerably more than any other country has and for a longer duration.

    Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)

    I welcome the significant and wide-ranging package that my right hon. Friend has introduced, and I want to focus on one element of it, cash flow, which is always a critical issue for businesses. Bounce back loans have been used by over 1 million companies across the UK, including 1,794 in Harrogate and Knaresborough, which have taken out loans worth more than £51 million. I therefore welcome the new pay as you grow scheme, which means that businesses will now enjoy greater flexibility to repay their loans over a longer period. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be of great value to businesses and that extending the terms to 10 years will halve the average monthly repayments?

    Rishi Sunak

    My hon. Friend knows from his own business career the importance of cash flow, and he is absolutely right. He mentioned the almost 2,000 businesses in his constituency; on average, they probably took a bounce back loan of about £30,000. This extension to 10 years will reduce the average monthly repayment from something over £500 to just around £300, which will provide thousands of pounds of cash-flow relief to his 1,800 businesses, but also to 1 million others around the United Kingdom.

    Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)

    As we have heard, around 3 million people across the country were excluded from support during the first stage of the pandemic. Yesterday I was contacted by a wedding photographer in my constituency who is struggling to pay his mortgage and feed his family, and the prospect of many more months of uncertainty is terrifying for him and many others in similar industries and sectors, such as event planning, that are unable to operate in anything like normality at the moment. What assurances can the Chancellor offer that the measures he has announced today will not continue to exclude people such as my constituent and many more across the country?

    Rishi Sunak

    The hon. Gentleman mentioned mortgages, and I am sure his constituent, like many others, will have benefited from the mortgage holidays that we put in place, which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary helped to organise with the banking system. Those provided six months of mortgage holidays for people, and, indeed, one in six mortgages across the UK was able to benefit from that generous scheme.

    Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]

    May I also congratulate the Chancellor on today’s groundbreaking announcements and particularly on focusing support on viable jobs and ensuring that support goes where it is most needed? The extended guarantee on CBILS, as well as pay as you grow and the measures on VAT, will be warmly welcomed by individuals and businesses in Chesham and Amersham. However, does my right hon. Friend remember the Micawber principle:

    “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

    What can he say to my constituents who ask how we are going to pay this enormous bill, and how can he ensure that we provide value for money for the taxpayer?

    Rishi Sunak

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am grateful to her for her instruction on the fiscal maths that we are grappling with! As we move our way through this crisis, the nature of our response has to change. It is simply not sustainable or affordable to continue to provide the level of support that we gave at the beginning of this crisis. That is why our support is now targeted and focused on where it can make the most difference. That will mean that we cannot do absolutely everything that everybody needs at once, but we will be able to focus it on where it can make the most difference, so that, as quickly as possible, we can get our economy growing again and ensure that the maths my right hon. Friend outlined starts to work in our favour. We cannot borrow at this level forever. We must get our borrowing back under control and eventually get our debt falling again.

    Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]

    I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. Almost 700,000 people lost their jobs between March and July. What is the Government doing to support these people, because the use of food banks has in some cases tripled? What will the Government do to support those who will lose their jobs in the months to come, to help them during any period of unemployment, and to get them back into work as quickly as possible?

    Rishi Sunak

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right: it is a tragedy that 700,000 people have already lost their jobs and many more will. Our focus should be, and is, on finding fresh, new opportunities to provide them with the security that they and their families so desperately need. That is why we have provided incentives for companies to take on new staff through our apprenticeship scheme. We have also provided incredibly intensive support through the Department for Work and Pensions, through a doubling of the number of work coaches and greater wraparound support to help all of those people mentioned to plot their course and chart a better future for themselves.

    Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)

    The new jobs support scheme rightly focuses on protecting employment and preserving viable jobs during a period of depressed demand. Businesses and workers in West Bromwich East will be extremely grateful for that. Does the Chancellor agree that it is also fair that the scheme targets those businesses that need it most, and will he set out how the scheme is deliberately targeted in that way? Will he also join me in visiting the incredible Red Lion Desi pub, to hear how it has benefited from the eat out to help out scheme?

    Rishi Sunak

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the nature of our support at this phase in our recovery. In a couple of different ways, this support has evolved in the way she said. It is targeted at those larger businesses that really need it, whose revenue has declined, and it is targeted specifically at protecting and supporting viable jobs—those jobs where there is work to do but the company is facing a period of repressed demand. This is a scheme that will make an enormous difference to those people, but in a targeted and effective way.

    Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]

    From talking in July about “nobody left behind”, to accepting today that so-called “unviable jobs” will be lost, the Chancellor has failed to live up to his own rhetoric. The viability of these jobs is in large part dependent on entirely necessary Government restrictions, and it is disappointing that he continues to abandon the 3 million excluded from support. Given that he now accepts further widespread job losses, why has he not made permanent the temporary £20 per week universal credit uplift and expanded it to legacy benefits?

    Rishi Sunak

    The temporary increase in universal credit already lasts all the way through to the end of March next year. For those who are most vulnerable, as I have said previously, we have provided significant enhanced support through the welfare system, including almost £1 billion of extra investment in local housing allowance, to help with private rent payments, and a hardship fund, to help people who are struggling to pay their council tax bills. As our analysis showed in the summer, the interventions that this Conservative Government have made over the past several months have made the most difference to those on the lowest incomes.

    Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)

    I know what it is like to have to postpone a much anticipated Budget, but I am pleased to see that it has not prevented my right hon. Friend from doing whatever it takes to protect the economy. Since the onset of this crisis, he has shown the decisiveness, resilience and creativity that the country needs right now, and I commend him for it. I know that he values infrastructure investment and knows that it is going to form an important part of our recovery, so may I urge him to publish the national infrastructure strategy, which has been delayed time and again, as soon as he possibly can, so that we can get on with levelling up across our great country?

    Rishi Sunak

    I thank my right hon. Friend, who is a very good friend of mine, for his warm comments. Whatever I have been able to do over the past several months is in no small part thanks to the instruction that he has given me when he was my boss in not one, but two different Department jobs. He is absolutely right about the importance of infrastructure investment, and he was one of the first people to talk passionately about the need to increase significantly the amount of money that the Government invest in the UK’s infrastructure. It was he, as Chancellor, who put in place the infrastructure revolution, and I can commit to him that I will absolutely deliver on that. He is right that we must publish the national infrastructure strategy; we will do so this autumn.

  • Alister Jack – 2020 Comments on Scottish July GDP Figures

    Alister Jack – 2020 Comments on Scottish July GDP Figures

    The comments made by Alister Jack, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 23 September 2020.

    As the Prime Minister said last night, the struggle against covid is the single biggest crisis the world has faced in our lifetimes.

    The UK Government is focussed on stopping the spread of coronavirus and keeping people safe, while doing everything we can to protect the economy.

    Through the furlough and self-employed schemes, we directly supported more than 930,000 jobs in Scotland, a third of the workforce. Now, the Chancellor’s comprehensive Plan for Jobs is bringing in the Job Retention Bonus, creating new jobs for young people through the kick start scheme, doubling the number of work coaches, and are supporting jobs in the tourism and hospitality sectors through a VAT cut.