UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2020

  • Cat Smith – 2020 Speech on Parliamentary Constituencies

    Cat Smith – 2020 Speech on Parliamentary Constituencies

    The text of the speech made by Cat Smith, the Labour MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2020.

    It is a pleasure to speak again on the Bill, as it gives me the opportunity to put on the record the Labour party’s support for the boundary review in time for the next general election. I would like to start by thanking all the right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Bill Committee—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who regrets that he cannot be with us this afternoon.

    Our current constituencies were drawn up on electorate data that is now nearly two decades old; we cannot go into the next election with constituencies based on data that will, by then, be a quarter of a century out of date. Our country and our communities look very different, and the review will take into account new electors as well as significant demographic shifts. A review is urgently needed, and the Opposition do not stand in the way of that.

    Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have worked constructively to improve it for the good of our democracy, and there have been areas of distinct improvement along the way. The size of the House of Commons has varied massively over the centuries. The largest Commons, in 1918, came in at 707 MPs—they really would have struggled with the social distancing measures we are adhering to. However, certainly in the last two centuries, we have not dropped below 615 MPs. Reducing the number of MPs while maintaining the size of the Executive was always an affront to democracy, and I welcome the Minister’s U-turn on that matter. Given our departure from the European Union and this Government’s chaotic handling of the current pandemic, it is clear that there will be plenty of work for 650 MPs.

    We supported and welcomed the amendment in Committee to use the March 2020 register for the new boundary review. It is important that we use the most accurate snapshot of our country to draw up our electoral boundaries. The inclusion of Ynys Môn as a protected constituency is something that the Labour party has long campaigned for, although I was surprised to see the Minister support it in Committee, given her party’s previous firm opposition to it.

    But then I remembered that the Tories may have an alternative motivation for suddenly recognising the island’s unique status. I welcome that recognition all the same.

    I wish to raise two remaining crucial areas of concern in the legislation. New clause 1 and amendment 1 are crucial for the betterment of the Bill and I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to support them. Amendment 1, tabled in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition, addresses the central problem at the heart of the Bill: ending parliamentary oversight will fundamentally undermine the democratic integrity of the boundary process for years to come.

    To quote a written answer to a parliamentary question tabled in the other place:

    “Prerogative business made on the advice of the Privy Council by Order in Council is not subject to parliamentary procedure and relates almost exclusively to the affairs of Chartered bodies.”

    The process is therefore not a normal procedure, and the Opposition have concerns about its use in the Bill. The process is reserved for things such as when the University of Westminster changed its name, or when the Trading Standards Institute became the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, and so on. Changes of that type required Orders in Council, which raises the important question of whether this is the right procedure to use for the adoption of new parliamentary constituencies. It seems to me that the answer is clearly no.

    The new reports will be approved automatically by Order in Council, without debate or approval by either House of Parliament. The Government argue that the change will allow for the reviews to be passed “without interference or delay”, but this is quite simply not the case. As Professor Sir John Curtice said in evidence to the Bill Committee, if the Administration at the time did not like the review, it would be

    “perfectly possible for a future House of Commons”

    to say,

    “‘Actually, we should delay it’, and all they need to do is to introduce a quick piece of primary legislation to overturn it.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 94, Q176.]

    The change is a dangerous step that would by definition grant any Government unequal and undue influence over the boundary review process. A Government have the power to shape and manipulate the rules that govern the boundary review process. Although the commissions are fundamentally independent, they work to the advice and instructions given by Government; the question of a 600-seat or 650-seat Parliament is an example of how the Executive can determine the outcome of the process.

    Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)

    I have been listening intently to what the hon. Lady has been saying, and at the very beginning of her speech she lamented the fact that it has been so long since we implemented the recommendations of a boundary review. The explanatory note to amendment 1, to which she is now speaking, says that the amendment

    “aims to maintain the status quo”.

    Does what she said not prove that the status quo has not been working, hence why we have brought forward this Bill?

    Cat Smith

    Quite the opposite: I am arguing that under the status quo the only blockage to the passing of a boundary review has been the Government, and they would, under this Bill, still have the power to put up the same block as they have the past two times that a boundary review has failed to go through this House. It is worth noting that if it was not for parliamentary oversight, we would have a 600-seat Parliament today. Perhaps that is an example of parliamentary scrutiny at its best.

    John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)

    My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the issue. The reason why the Government failed to put the past two boundary commission reviews to the House of Commons was that their stubbornness in sticking to 600 seats meant that they would not be carried. The fault lay with the Prime Minister rather than with the House of Commons. That is the real problem.

    Cat Smith

    My right hon. Friend made some thoughtful and interesting contributions in Committee and continues to do so on Report. The points he raised are entirely correct. The Government would do away with Parliament’s role in the process—a role that Parliament has always had. In short, the Bill removes the power from Parliament and hands it to the Executive. The Government’s justification for the change simply does not stack up. The Minister says that her Government are removing Parliament from the process to prevent delay and interference from MPs, but according to Professor Sir John Curtice—and who are we to challenge him?—delay and interference by the Executive will still be “perfectly possible”.

    Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)

    I apologise for interrupting the shadow Minister’s train of thought, but she keeps repeating this “fact”, which is not a fact at all. The Bill actually takes away power from the Executive; it does not give the Executive more power, because it removes the reserve powers of Government to amend the boundaries. The hon. Lady needs to set the record straight; otherwise, she risks misinterpreting the Bill for a wider audience.

    Cat Smith

    I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am afraid that I quite simply disagree. This Bill takes power away from the whole of Parliament and hands it to the Executive. After all, they are the ones who can table primary legislation and choose to bring forward or not to bring forward the report for a vote. The power has been in their hands, which is why we are in the mess that we are in today with boundaries that are 20 years out of date, and looking to be a quarter of a century out of date by the next election if we do not make progress with this Bill.

    In her speech on Second Reading, the Minister stated that the removal of parliamentary oversight and approval would quicken the process, thereby avoiding wasting public time and money. If she is so concerned about wasting public time and money, why did she allow the commissioners to carry on with their sixth periodic review and then not bring it to Parliament for a vote?

    New clause 1, which stands in my name and in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, is a pragmatic and constructive amendment. I very much hope that Members will consider supporting it. It seeks to alleviate the inevitable break-up of communities resulting from the too narrow 5% quota. While the commissioners should always aim to hit electoral quota, in some particularly challenging cases this new clause would allow them to have a greater flexibility of 7.5%. This 5% variance from electoral quota was first introduced at the sixth periodic review, and it was introduced alongside reducing the number of constituencies to 600. That is important because, at 600 constituencies, a 5%

    variance is approximately 4,000 electors either side of quota, but at 650 constituencies, which is what we have before us today, a 5% variance narrows and is approximately just 3,500 electors either side of quota, making it even more difficult to keep wards whole and communities together. The 5% variance needs to be adjusted in line with the number of constituencies. When we consider that the average urban ward in England is around 8,000 electors, we can appreciate the significance of needing at least 4,000 electors either side of quota to prevent the breaking up of wards and communities.

    Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)

    A further point about the need for this 7.5% is that it would particularly help seats in Wales, where the geography of seats, including my own, covers three or four valley communities. The extra flex would allow communities to stay together, especially where the physical geography means that people cannot travel from one valley to another without going up and down the other. These sorts of changes, therefore, really do make a difference in lots of rural and ex-industrial communities that have, shall we say, not-flat land masses.

    Cat Smith

    My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the particular geography in the Welsh valleys where the mountains prevent communities being drawn across those mountain ranges when there are issues with the transport links.

    Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)

    The hon. Lady talks about keeping communities together and about breaking up wards. Why does it matter if a ward is broken up? Surely communities are created through small building blocks. By discarding this almost obsession the Boundary Commission has had with entire wards, huge changes could be avoided and communities could stay together. Will she not support the idea that smaller building blocks are the way to create better constituencies that are community based, rather than artificial communities based on entire wards?

    Cat Smith

    I would argue that the wards, which are obviously drawn by the Local Government Boundary Commission, do actually reflect communities to a great extent. If we are to go down the path of splitting wards, we will end up with the ridiculous situation, like we did at the previous review, where constituencies such as Port Talbot had a shopping centre in one constituency and the high street in another constituency. My new clause seeks to minimise the chances of such ridiculous situations occurring again. Under the current Bill, the Commission will struggle to respect the factors laid out in rule five, which, of course, Members will know, are the existing constituencies, local government boundaries, local ties and geography.

    During the evidence sessions of this Bill, the secretariat for the Boundary Commission for England spoke about the difficulties caused by this small tolerance, which makes it

    “much harder to have regard to the other factors…such as the importance of not breaking local ties, and having regard to local authority boundaries and features of natural geography.”

    He said:

    “Basically, the smaller you make the tolerance, the fewer options we have…The larger you make it, the more options we have and the more flexibility…to have regard to the other factors”.––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 7, Q3.]

    So while the Government keep saying the boundary commissions will listen to the views of communities in the drawing of the boundaries, some communities will literally be wasting their time putting forward those arguments if the restrictive quota will mathematically prevent the commissioners from respecting their views and the community ties.

    Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)

    The hon. Lady raises the case of Port Talbot in a previous review. Does she not accept that this was actually one of the reasons why it should be easier for the boundary commissions to split wards, because the whole point of the Port Talbot proposals was that they have to come to those combinations because they are working with entire wards?

    Cat Smith

    I think in the case of Port Talbot it was the 5% quota that meant that that decision had to be reached. When we are talking about quotas, we know that internationally a larger quota is used and promoted as best practice for securing fair representation. Indeed, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission’s code of good practice in electoral matters recommends allowing a standard permissible tolerance of an average of plus or minus 10%.

    As the Minister knows, there is a consensus amongst respected experts such as David Rosser and Professor Charles Pattie who agree that the 5% rule causes significant disruption to community boundaries.

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

    We have heard from the other side a suggestion that we should use polling districts as the building blocks, not wards, but is there not a problem with deviating from wards? Wards are agreed by an independent commission, whereas polling districts are decided based on the location of the local church hall for use as the polling station. Surely we need independent commissions that create the building blocks of wards that then form the building blocks of constituencies. The only way to do that is with the 10% or 7.5% variance.

    Cat Smith

    My hon. Friend makes an important point about the legal standing of polling districts. Wards that are drawn up by the local government boundary commission have that independence in terms of the boundaries that they represent, whereas polling districts are for administration of elections done by local councils and, as he says, can be decided basically on their proximity to a church hall.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) mentioned Wales earlier, and this restrictive quota will disproportionately impact Wales. I know that many more Welsh colleagues will express their concern about the geographical challenges that the quota will throw up in Wales. With mountains and valleys dividing communities, the task of creating constituencies that make sense to those communities becomes extremely difficult.

    I shall conclude by highlighting the fatal flaw in the Government’s arguments on the 5% quota. Throughout the Bill’s progress, the Minister has argued that a robust boundary review with a 5% quota will magically ensure that every vote carries the same weight. But the Government’s central argument turns on the ludicrous suggestion that the 5% quota will achieve parity of representation for all electors across the United Kingdom.

    On what planet does every vote count equally in this country? Leaving aside the fact that there are so-called safe seats, which effectively disenfranchise huge swathes of the population at every election, it simply is not true that every vote would count equally as a result of the Bill. At any given election, in the region of 9 million eligible voters are incorrectly registered and lose out on their chance to vote, and millions more will join them with the Government’s voter ID plan set to lock more people out of democracy simply for not having the right form of ID.

    The new boundaries will not be based on the reality of the British electorate, with millions of eligible voters missing from the register, so can the Minister stop rolling out the line that somehow a 5% quota will revolutionise our electoral system and suddenly make every vote count equally? The truth is that she knows exactly what measures will make our electoral system more equal, because 11 months ago the Electoral Commission made clear recommendations, including encouraging the introduction of automatic voter registration. The Government still have not responded to those recommendations, meaning that the electoral register to be used as the basis for these boundaries is incomplete and patchy at best. When will the Government start to prioritise democratic engagement?

    It is clear that the Government’s central argument about making every vote count falls at the first hurdle and that their secondary argument about the removal of Parliament’s role preventing delays to the process just does not hold water. As Professor Sir John Curtice pointed out, the Government can easily delay the process. The Labour party fundamentally rejects the Government’s attempt to end parliamentary approval for new constituency boundaries, and we ask that Members think hard and long about the impact of removing Parliament from the process. In its current form, this Bill is an insult to the House.

  • Martyn Day – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    Martyn Day – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    The text of the speech made by Martyn Day, the SNP MP for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2020.

    I thank the Secretary of State for his statement; it represents a welcome step towards preparing for any potential new second wave of coronavirus infections this winter. The virus has not been eliminated, so as we lift lockdown and people increasingly interact with one another, we need to use every tool we have to reduce the risk of a second wave.

    A report commissioned by the UK chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, has concluded that July and August must be a period of intense preparation for a potential winter resurgence of the virus, with R potentially rising to 1.7 by September. The report’s worst-case scenario forewarns of an estimated 119,000 associated hospital deaths between September and June—more than double the deaths we saw during the spring wave. This outcome, of course, does not take any account of likely actions that the Government may take. I sincerely hope that an elimination strategy is adopted as part of that.

    The move to compulsory face coverings is a welcome and helpful intervention, but I am in no doubt that effective uptake will require consistent and effective public messaging. So far, we had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying on Sunday that face coverings should not be mandatory, the Justice Secretary saying that they perhaps should be, the Prime Minister saying that he is looking at the evidence and, thankfully, the Health Secretary today saying they will be mandatory. Will he confirm the implementation date? Press speculation has suggested 24 July. When the head of the World Health Organisation said yesterday that mixed messaging from leaders is one of the worst challenges in tackling covid-19, who do we think he had in mind?

    The chair of the British Medical Association said that

    “each day that goes by adds to the risk of spread and endangers lives.”

    While I welcome the UK Government’s falling into line with Scotland and 120 other countries worldwide on mandatory face coverings, they need to be one component of a wider elimination strategy, not just about keeping the virus down. I hope the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to commit to an elimination strategy.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    The text of the speech made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2020.

    I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. After days of ministerial muddle, we finally have a decision. I have long warned that this virus exploits ambiguity and that mixed messaging in a pandemic is so damaging. On Friday, we had the Prime Minister saying he favoured face masks. On Sunday, we had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying he did not favour face masks. Yesterday, the Justice Secretary, unsure what to say, had to say in the end he was perhaps in favour of face masks.

    It did not have to be this way: we did not have to have this confusion. We have long known about airborne transmission via aerosols. The Secretary of State has long warned about asymptomatic transmission. The Royal Society and the World Health Organisation have long recommended wearing face masks. Even Donald Trump now wears a face mask, although admittedly it is because someone told him he looks like the Lone Ranger. The former Chair of the Health Committee has long warned about wearing a face mask. The Secretary of State’s own advice, published on 11 May, advised in favour of wearing face masks. So why has it taken two months for him to make this advice mandatory, and why will it take another 11 days for the measure to come into force? The World Health Organisation has said throughout this pandemic, “Act with speed”, but yet again this Government appear to be in the slow lane.

    All we need and want is clarity, so may we have it in other areas? What now is the position on workers returning to offices? Do the Government want them to return to offices, yes or no? Will the Health Secretary offer greater clarity to the people of Leicester, who are now in the 17th week of lockdown in my city? What metrics will be used to judge whether Leicester can ease out lockdown later this week? When will he make that decision? How will he communicate that decision to the people of Leicester? Will he clarify why the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), has ruled out extra support for Leicester businesses and employers, contradicting the indications that the Health Secretary gave to the people of Leicester? When people are worried about their jobs this mixed messaging is the last thing they need.

    On the other parts of the country that have been identified as being of concern, will the Secretary of State instruct the Health and Safety Executive to inspect all factories, meat packing plants, distribution centres and large employment sites as a matter of urgency?

    On testing, local authorities still need specific data that can facilitate action. [Interruption.] The Health Secretary disagrees, but they still need person-identifiable data, not just postcodes. They need not just positive test results, but the negative results, so that they can understand the overall infection prevalence, and they need contact tracing data, so that they know who has been asked to isolate by Test and Trace and can follow them up. They need this data daily. The virus does not wait a week, so why should local directors of public health have to wait a week? I note that in the financial statement £10 billion has been allocated to Test and Trace. Can the Health Secretary itemise what that £10 billion has been spent on? Can he rule out spending more on private outsourced companies, and invest more in NHS labs and testing instead?

    Finally, today we have a report from the Academy of Medical Sciences warning of a new wave of infection this winter. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has also warned that the transmission of the virus

    “could be elevated under UK winter conditions”.

    Yet missing from last week’s financial statement was any increase in NHS England’s revenue budget. Instead we have a mooted NHS reorganisation, with suggestions that Public Health England could be abolished and speculation that a new centre for disease control could be set up in its place instead. NHS staff need certainty, now more than ever, so will he ensure that the NHS and the social care sector get the winter funding they need to prepare for a second wave? People want to do the right thing. Muddled messaging hinders that. As George Osborne said yesterday, people just “want answers”. Can the Health Secretary give our constituents answers today?

  • Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    The text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2020.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about coronavirus.

    Thanks to one of the greatest national efforts in peacetime, this deadly virus continues to diminish. Yesterday’s figures show 530 new cases, down around 90% since the peak, while 162 patients are currently in mechanical ventilator beds with coronavirus, down around 95% since the peak. The latest number for deaths recorded in all settings across the UK is 11—the lowest figure since 13 March. According to today’s Office for National Statistics data, for the third consecutive week, total deaths are lower than normal for this time of year.

    Due to this substantial progress, we have been able to restore freedoms and carefully and methodically restore the fabric of this country. However, we cannot let our progress today lead to complacency tomorrow, so we must remain vigilant to keep this virus under control. Our strategy is to protect the NHS, get the virus down and keep the virus down, while restoring as much of normal life as possible. Our tactic is to replace national lockdown with ever more targeted local action as we work hard to defeat this virus once and for all.

    Our NHS test and trace system gets stronger all the time. Since launch six weeks ago, 144,000 people have now been asked to self-isolate who otherwise simply would not have known that they had to. Where we find clusters or outbreaks, we take local action, tackling over 100 incidents a week. Mostly these are small, in an individual care home, pub or factory. But we are prepared to take action on a wider basis if that is what it takes, just as we did in Leicester. Four permanent test sites and 10 mobile testing units have been deployed across the city, meaning that Leicester now has the highest rate of testing in the country. We have launched one of the biggest communication programmes that Leicester has ever seen, including targeted social media posts, website banners, radio ads, billboards and even bin stickers. We have been working closely with all parts of the local community, including community leaders, local businesses and the local football and cricket clubs to get the message out. We have also established a process for making decisions to lift the lockdown, with the first decision point later this week.

    Local action is one way in which we can control the spread of the virus while minimising the economic and social costs. Another is to minimise the risk as we return more to normality. In recent weeks we have reopened retail and footfall is rising. We want to give people more confidence to shop safely and enhance protections for those who work in shops. Both of those can be done by the use of face coverings. Sadly, sales assistants, cashiers and security guards have suffered disproportionately in this crisis. The death rate of sales and retail assistants is 75% higher among men and 60% higher among women than in the general population. As we restore shopping, so we must keep our shopkeepers safe.

    There is also evidence that face coverings increase confidence in people to shop. The British Retail Consortium has said that, together with other social distancing measures, face coverings can

    “make shoppers feel even more confident about returning to the High Street.”

    The chair of the Federation of Small Businesses has said:

    “As mandatory face coverings are introduced, small firms know that they have a part to play in the nation’s recovery both physically and financially, and I’m sure this will welcomed by them.”

    We have therefore come to the decision that face coverings should be mandatory in shops and supermarkets. Last month, we made face coverings mandatory on public transport and in NHS settings, and that has been successful in giving people more confidence to go on public transport and to a hospital setting when they need to, providing people with additional protection when they are not able to keep 2 metres from others, particularly people they do not normally come into contact with. Under the new rules, people who do not wear face coverings will face a fine of up to £100 in line with the sanction on public transport and, just as with public transport, children under 11 and those with certain disabilities will be exempt.

    The liability for wearing a face covering lies with the individual. Should an individual without an exemption refuse to wear a face covering, a shop can refuse them entry and can call the police if people refuse to comply. The police have formal enforcement powers and can issue a fine. That is in line with how shops would normally manage their customers and enforcement is, of course, a last resort. We fully expect the public to comply with these rules, as they have done throughout the pandemic.

    I want to give this message to everyone who has been making vital changes to their daily lives for the greater good. Wearing a face covering does not mean that we can ignore the other measures that have been so important in slowing the spread of this virus— washing our hands and following the rules on social distancing. Just as the British people have acted so selflessly throughout this pandemic, I have no doubt they will rise to this once more. As a nation, we have made huge strides in getting this virus, which has brought grief to so many, under control. We are not out of the woods yet, so let us all do our utmost to keep this virus cornered and enjoy our summer safely. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2020 Speech on Huawei

    Chi Onwurah – 2020 Speech on Huawei

    The text of the speech made by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2020.

    I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. All sides of the House agree that the first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens, and we have confidence in our national security services, which go to such lengths to keep us safe. It has been clear for some time that there are serious questions over whether Huawei should be allowed to control large sections of our country’s telecoms networks, yet the Government refused to face reality. Their approach to our 5G capability, Huawei and our national security has been incomprehensibly negligent. The current Education Secretary was sacked as Defence Secretary for leaking parts of the security services’ advice on Huawei, yet the Government went on to ignore large parts of it. In January, the Foreign Secretary said in a statement to the House that the Government would legislate at “the earliest opportunity” on high-risk vendors. They then refused to work with us and their own Back Benchers to enable that to happen. Will the Secretary of State tell us when he will bring forward the legislation on high-risk vendors, including the robust regulatory and enforcement powers required to limit or eliminate their part in our network? “As soon as possible” and “shortly” will not wash any more.

    Will the Government publish the security advice on which today’s decision has been taken? What new information have they been given that was not available to them when the initial decisions were made? I would also like to ask the Secretary of State what discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary and the Trade Secretary on likely retaliation. Where else are we dependent on Chinese suppliers—for example, in our nuclear sector—and how are we working with our democratic allies, including but not limited to the United States, to develop alternatives in these areas? The Secretary of State says that this change is being made in response to US sanctions, but in the past he has emphasised how closely he was working with the United States, so were the sanctions a surprise? Is our security policy being led by the US? Did the very visible human rights violations by the Chinese in Hong Kong and against the Uyghurs play no part in the decision?

    The reality is that the original decision on Huawei was made because, over the past decade, this Government have failed to deliver a sustainable plan for our digital economy. Almost exactly a year ago, the “UK Telecoms Supply Chain Review Report” was published. It stated:

    “We will develop and pursue a diversification strategy—including by working with our international partners—to ensure a competitive, sustainable and diverse supply chain.”

    Now the Secretary of State claims to have set out a “clear and ambitious diversification strategy”. This will come as a surprise to anyone who has looked at the Government’s statements. I would like to ask the Secretary of State: what are the actions to implement the strategy—which has effectively been set out somewhere and which I have not seen—and can he tell me where it is set out?

    This is a car crash for our digital economy, but one that could have been visible from outer space. BT and other vendors have put the cost of this decision in the billions. The Secretary of State says £2 billion. What is the basis for that estimate, and how will he ensure that the cost is not passed on to consumers? Today’s announcement refers to 5G, but what are the implications for our emergency services network—a saga even longer than this one, in which BT was planning to use Huawei?

    Open standards such as open RAN limit dependence on any one supplier; what is the Secretary of State doing to mandate such standards and open our networks to UK companies such as Cambridge company ip.access and the north-east company Filtronic? Crucially, what proportion of the additional money that is spent will go to UK companies and how many jobs will be created here? The Government recently announced a £500 million investment in bankrupt American satellite broadband provider OneWeb; are similar investments planned for 5G or 6G companies?

    Labour has repeatedly offered constructive ideas to get the UK out of the Huawei hole; we have consistently argued to end our national dependence on all high-risk vendors and improve corporate responsibility for global supply chains. This entire saga has shown that the Government cannot sort this mess out on their own. We need a taskforce of industry representatives, academics, start-ups, regional governments and regulators to develop a plan that delivers a UK network capability and secure mobile network in the shortest possible timeframe. Will the Secretary of State commit to that and return to the House regularly to update on progress?

    Will the Secretary of State get a grip, get a plan and secure our critical communications infrastructure, our digital economy and our national security?

  • Oliver Dowden – 2020 Statement on Huawei

    Oliver Dowden – 2020 Statement on Huawei

    The text of the statement made by Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 14 July 2020.

    Digital connectivity is an increasingly vital part of our lives. During this period of global crisis, it has brought home the profound importance of a reliable connection. The 4G technology has enabled rapid internet connection over mobile phones: alongside superfast broadband at home, it has allowed people to do everything from Zoom calls to downloading movies. But the Government need to look to the future. That means developing world-class, next-generation digital technology through 5G for mobile and gigabit-capable for fibre. It is only by doing this that we will remain at the forefront of the technology revolution.

    In order to realise the full benefits of those technologies though, we have to have confidence in the security and resilience of the infrastructure on which they are built. Keeping the country secure is the primary duty of Government to their people. This consideration precedes all others. There is, of course, no such thing as a perfectly secure network, but the responsibility of the Government is to ensure that it is as secure as it possibly can be. That is why we conducted the telecoms supply chain review to look at the long-term security of our 5G and full-fibre networks.

    The review set out plans to implement one of the toughest regimes in the world for telecoms security: one that would shift from a model where the telecoms industry merely follows guidance to a model where standards would be enforced by legislation; one that would require all operators to raise security standards and combat a range of threats, whether from cybercriminals or state-sponsored attacks; and one that gave the Government the necessary powers to keep our approach up to date as the technology develops.

    A critical aspect of that was how we address so-called high-risk vendors—those which pose greater security and resilience risks to the UK’s networks—so in January we set out to the House our conclusions on how we would define and restrict high-risk vendors, keeping them outside the network’s core and away from critical infrastructure and sites. We have been clear-eyed from the start that Chinese-owned vendors Huawei and ZTE were deemed high risk, and we made clear that the National Cyber Security Centre would review and update its advice as necessary.

    Clearly, since January, the situation has changed. On 15 May, the US Department of Commerce announced that new sanctions had been imposed against Huawei through changes to the foreign direct product rules. This was a significant material change, and one that we had to take into consideration. The sanctions are not the first attempt by the US to restrict Huawei’s ability to supply equipment to 5G networks. They are, however, the first to have potentially severe impacts on Huawei’s ability to supply new equipment in the United Kingdom. The new US measures restrict Huawei’s ability to produce important products using US technology or software.

    The National Cyber Security Centre has reviewed the consequences of the US actions and has now reported to Ministers that it has significantly changed its security assessment of Huawei’s presence in the UK’s 5G network. Given the uncertainty that this creates around Huawei’s supply chain, the UK can no longer be confident of being able to guarantee the security of future 5G equipment affected by the change in US foreign direct product rules. To manage the risk, the NCSC has issued new advice on the use of Huawei in UK telecoms networks.

    This morning, the Prime Minister chaired a meeting of the National Security Council. Attendees at that meeting took full account of the National Cyber Security Centre’s advice, together with the implications for UK industry and wider geostrategic considerations. The Government agree with the National Cyber Security Centre’s advice: the best way to secure our networks is for operators to stop using new affected Huawei equipment to build the UK’s future 5G networks. To be clear: from the end of this year, telecoms operators must not buy any 5G equipment from Huawei. Once the telecoms security Bill is passed, it will be illegal for them to do so.

    However, we also recognise the range of concerns voiced in the House regarding Huawei’s role in our 5G network. I have listened carefully to those concerns, and I agree that we need clarity on our position and to take decisive action. I have previously set out our plans to safely manage the presence of high-risk vendors in our 5G network, and of course our ambition right from the beginning was that no one should need to use a high-risk vendor for 5G at all, but I know that hon. Members sought a commitment from the Government to remove Huawei equipment from our 5G network altogether. That is why we have concluded that it is necessary, and indeed prudent, to commit to a timetable for the removal of Huawei equipment from our 5G network by 2027. Let me be clear: this requirement will be set out in law by the telecoms security Bill. By the time of the next election, we will have implemented in law an irreversible path for the complete removal of Huawei equipment from our 5G networks.

    We have not taken this decision lightly, and I must be frank about the decision’s consequences for every constituency in this country. This will delay our roll-out of 5G. Our decisions in January had already set back that roll-out by a year and cost up to £1 billion. Today’s decision to ban the procurement of new Huawei 5G equipment from the end of this year will delay that roll-out by a further year and will add up to £500 million to costs. In addition, requiring operators to remove Huawei equipment from their 5G networks by 2027 will add further hundreds of millions of pounds to the cost and will further delay the roll-out. That means a cumulative delay to 5G roll-out of two to three years, and costs of up to £2 billion. That will have real consequences for the connections on which all our constituents rely.

    I have to say that to go faster and further beyond the 2027 target would add considerable, and indeed unnecessary, further costs and delays.

    The shorter we make the timetable for removal, the greater the risk of actual disruption to mobile telephone networks.

    The world-leading expertise of NCSC and GCHQ has enabled us to publish one of the most detailed analyses of the risks to the 5G network. The UK is now acting quickly, decisively and ahead of our international partners. Our approach reflects the UK’s specific national circumstances and how the risks from the sanctions are manifested here in the UK. It has not been an easy decision, but it is the right one for the UK’s telecoms networks, for our national security and for our economy, both now and in the long run.

    We also need to look at other networks. Although they are fundamentally different from 5G, they need to be as secure and resilient as our new mobile technology, as many Members of this House have pointed out in the past. Reflecting again the advice of the National Cyber Security Centre, we will need to take a different approach to full-fibre and older networks—one that recognises they are different from 5G in their technology, security and the vendors supporting them. Given that there is only one other appropriate scale vendor for full-fibre equipment, we will embark on a short technical consultation with operators to understand their supply chain alternatives so that we can avoid unnecessary delays to our gigabit ambitions and prevent significant resilience risks. That technical consultation will determine the nature of our rigorous approach to Huawei outside of the 5G networks.

    All of those things have implications for the telecoms security Bill. I am fully aware of the commitment I made in this House in March to introduce it before the summer recess. As I am sure Members will appreciate, today’s decision will substantially change what is in the Bill. We will introduce the Bill to the House in the autumn. It is in all our interests for the legislation to be introduced and passed as soon as possible, because—this is the key point—we have to ensure that our telecoms security advice is on a secure statutory footing.

    As the House knows, one reason we are in this situation is a global market failure. Put simply, countries around the world—not just the United Kingdom—have become dangerously reliant on too few vendors. We have already set out a clear and ambitious diversification strategy. That strategy will include wide-ranging action in the short, medium and long term, with the aim of driving competition and innovation to grow the market and deliver greater resilience across all our networks.

    The strategy will focus on three core elements. First, we need to secure the supply chains of our incumbent non-high-risk vendors by putting in place measures and mitigations that will protect supply chains and ensure there is no disruption to our networks. Secondly, we need to bring new scale vendors into the UK market by removing barriers to entry, providing commercial incentives and creating large-scale opportunities for new vendors to enter the UK markets. Thirdly, we need to address the existing structure of the supply market by investing in research and development and building partnerships between operators and vendors that will mean operators using multiple vendors in a single network will become the standard across the industry.

    Success will require a shared commitment between Government and industry to take the necessary steps to address this issue. We are already engaging extensively with operators, vendors and Governments around the world to support and accelerate the process of diversification. We recognise that this is a global issue that requires international collaboration to deliver a lasting solution, so we are working with our Five Eyes partners and our friends around the world to bring together a coalition to deliver our shared goals.

    In addition, I know that many Members of this House have considered the Government’s policy on high-risk vendors in the context of the United Kingdom’s wider relationship with China. Let me assure Members that this Government are clear-eyed about China. We have been robust in our response to the imposition of new security laws in Hong Kong, including through our generous offer to British national overseas passport holders. We want a modern and mature relationship with China based on mutual respect where we can speak frankly when we disagree, but also work side-by-side on the issues where our interests converge. Today’s decision, however, is about ensuring the long-term security of our telecoms network, specifically in the light of those new US sanctions.

    The security and resilience of our telecoms networks is of paramount importance. We have never compromised, and will never compromise, that security in pursuit of economic prosperity. It is a fact that the US has introduced additional sanctions on Huawei, and as the facts have changed, so has our approach. That is why we have taken the decision that there can be no new Huawei equipment from the end of this year, and set out a clear timetable to exclude Huawei completely by 2027, with an irreversible path implemented by the time of the next election. Telecoms providers will be legally required to implement this by the telecoms security Bill, which we will bring before the House shortly. This important decision secures our networks now and lays the foundations for a world-class telecoms security framework in the future. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Alex Chisholm – 2020 Speech on the Civil Service

    Alex Chisholm – 2020 Speech on the Civil Service

    The text of the speech made by Alex Chisholm, the Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, on 14 July 2020.

    Hello, I’m Alex and it’s great that so many of you are here.

    With over 39,000 registered, if we were together in person we would need one of the larger football stadiums in the country – and I would be hearing not the echo of my own voice against the muted silence of an online audience, but the buzz of a vast crowd.

    I like to think that so many of you have registered to take part today because you think this is a special moment for all of us who serve the public.

    Because, like me, you have seen during the pandemic how much our fellow citizens have needed in support from all of us in public service.

    I am so pleased there are so many of you here, because it means that, like Sir Mark, I can thank you all, from the bottom of my heart, for what you do every day; and invite you to explore with me, ways we can do even better.

    It also means that in front of all of you, I can say on the record to Mark, from all of us: Thank you for your service, you have been a brilliant and brave leader, we salute you!

    Our work has never mattered more. In the Civil Service we work every day to improve the lives of people in this country.

    That has always been true but never more clearly or more importantly than during this crisis, where our collective actions have been essential to saving lives and livelihoods.

    The media talk about ‘the government’, as if there is some impersonal institution or machine – or Leviathan – that has all this control and influence in our lives.

    But we who work in government know it as a collection of individuals and teams – friends, colleagues, characters.

    And it is teams of civil servants who have helped perform the brilliant feats of the last 4 months as we have struggled with the virus:

    shielding over 2 million vulnerable people
    protecting millions of jobs in the furlough scheme
    preserving businesses and communities across the country with vital grants
    distributing thousands of laptops to help schools deliver online education, and
    dispensing benefits to help the many who badly needed financial help.

    All of this has required extraordinary ingenuity and effort from an army of civil servants, from you – working your socks off.

    To give examples from just two departments:

    In that first, strange, period of lockdown, 35,000 DWP staff managed to process over 1.8 million Universal Credit claims – six times the previous number.

    And HMRC colleagues, in just four weeks, and largely from their spare rooms, designed, built, tested and launched the Job Retention Scheme; even while staging webinars for 40,000 worried taxpayers.

    And you have done all of this while living through the same pandemic as everybody else – threatened and in some cases infected by the virus, coping with lockdown, caring for loved ones.

    As I have talked with colleagues across the Service – people working in benefits offices, in the prison service, collecting tax, procuring equipment, advising ministers, running digital services – what I have heard, more than anything, is a mix of pride and wonder.

    Pride in what we have been able to do, to help manage the toughest public health crisis and the biggest economic shock we have faced in decades.

    But also wonder that we have been able to do this so quickly, and so inventively.

    We have built new hospitals in weeks, set up digital services for the vulnerable in days, established new grant schemes in hours, and learnt to process Universal Credit claims in minutes.

    This must give us all great hope – confidence even – that we can rise to the challenge that lies before us.

    And let’s face it: it is some challenge.

    I remember the moment – twenty long months ago – when Mark as Cabinet Secretary addressed all of us Permanent Secretaries at the height of the Brexit frenzy, and told us solemnly that we all needed to make No Deal planning our Main Effort.

    And I remember how in March this year, as the full horror of the Coronavirus pandemic hit us, Mark again had to bring us together, and tell us that responding to this unprecedented threat must now be, for every department, the Main Effort.

    It is sobering to reflect that, even with all the progress we have made, we are still contending with the challenge of EU Exit, and with the response to Covid–19; and we cannot have two Main Efforts.

    Sobering also to reflect that the Manifesto on which the Government was elected included over 400 commitments, some of which – such as Levelling Up – require a reversal of trends that have run for decades, and others – such as Net Zero – a profound change in our systems for power, heating, transport, housing and food.

    Much is needed from the Civil Service to deliver these mighty objectives.

    We shall have to blend all we’ve learned about teamwork from our can-do Covid response with what the Prime Minister calls the ‘psychic energy’ that has hummed through the nation over the last few months, and bottle it with the indefatigable zest of Captain Tom, who at the age of 100 has raised so many millions for charity by yomping round his garden.

    And to that formula add another refreshing ingredient for the Civil Service: a newly ‘have-a-go’ attitude to trying new stuff, without the fear of failure holding us back.

    Inventiveness and bold experimentation were championed by Michael Gove, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, in his recent speech at the Ditchley Foundation which highlighted key themes in Civil Service reform. It is, he said, ‘common sense to take a method and try it’ – and if it fails, ‘admit it frankly and try another’.

    It’s an idea that has found its time in the era of coronavirus, when the complexity and urgency of the response, and the need for sophisticated modeling and real-time data, has made a powerful case for more experimentation and innovation, and increased awareness of the value of data and of science.

    And it adds renewed weight to our need to tackle the other, frustrating, side of the Civil Service – where we get bogged down in costly, inefficient processes, and teams on the ground see problems only too clearly, but their proposed solutions go nowhere.

    The speed at which we had to scramble a response has underlined the merits of breaking down any barriers that stop us working together, of embracing new technology and of making sure all our people have had the necessary training and support to do the best possible job – even when having to operate ‘at the edge of deliverability’, as one of my most hard-pressed PermSec colleagues put it last week.

    Michael Gove and I are going to be talking about this at CS Live! tomorrow at 11.30am, when you have the chance to put questions to the two of us. He has invited us to help renew and even reinvent a Civil Service that can meet the expectations of our fellow citizens for brilliant public services.

    I’d like us to accept that challenge, and want you to join with me and thousands of other civil servants who have already begun to engage with the next chapter in Civil Service reform – a chapter whose title you have yourselves already chosen in the registration process for this event, when you voted overwhelmingly for ‘Shaping Our Future’ .

    The change agenda – what does modernising the Civil Service mean?

    With Michael tomorrow, and in other sessions here, we’ll be challenging ourselves at every stage: about the best and most effective ways to strengthen our structure and culture and method, so that we are ready and able for the challenges we face today.

    I would draw out three key areas to ask you to focus on: innovation; data; and barriers to joint working. Recognising these in turn bring into play key issues of skills and training, IT systems, office locations – in sum, what our 21st century workplace should look and feel like.

    Do we have the people with the knowledge and skills to do their jobs well? Do we all value sufficiently the time and effort it takes to learn and practice new skills?

    Does the Civil Service truly reflect the people we serve? And make the most of all the talents available?

    How can we overcome the frustrations of antiquated IT systems, and do a better job of sharing data?

    Can we relearn how to set up major programmes, so that they reliably deliver on time and on budget and achieve

    Big issues, which flow into countless smaller ones: why can’t one Civil Service pass get you into any building? Why do we operate with incompatible video conferencing systems? Why is it sometimes easier to join as a new recruit from outside, than to transfer between two different departments?

    This Civil Service reform programme must make colleagues feel their efforts are valued, their successes rewarded, their ambitions fulfilled.

    We are focusing on People and Place, and whether you have what you need to do your jobs.

    Because in so many ways, what’s good for civil servants is also good for the country.

    Like our commitment to becoming less London-centric – so that you can make progress even if you’re not wanting to be based in the South-East. This means more jobs becoming available in the regions; and our people being more closely rooted in local needs – social, economic, health-related – when they make decisions.

    With better defined paths to promotion and recognition, colleagues will no longer feel they must switch roles to secure a promotion and higher pay, instead building the deep knowledge and expertise that helps drive continuous improvement.

    And with redoubled awareness of our need to provide a fully diverse and inclusive working environment – where everybody can give of their best – we can be sure every government policy and action reflects the full range and diversity of thought, from people of every social, educational, and ethnic background.

    As the Civil Service Diversity and Inclusion champion, I recognise that there is much good work happening to create the fully open, welcoming and supportive work environment we want – as expressed in our core HR policies and practices, in the inspiring work of our staff networks, in a thousand daily actions to support colleagues and lend a hand, or make a stand.

    But there is also evidence of continuing prejudice, unacknowledged biases, and unequal opportunities. So we have much work to do, and must go faster and further to create a Great Place to Work for everyone.

    And by place, I mean not just your physical location. I also mean your place in your organisation, and on the career ladder.

    And whether you’re in a good place mentally. Are you feeling stressed – or well supported? Overwhelmed – or suitably stretched? Unfocused – or purposeful? Daunted by the challenges we face – or excited?

    My wish is that you feel stretched and excited by your work, well supported by colleagues, pleased to be part of something bigger than any of us – our mission of public service.

    Conclusion

    Thank you for listening to me. In a moment there will be a chance for you to ask some questions of me. Before that I would like to ask something of all of you.

    Please take the chance to reflect. Here today at CS Live! And when you are back to daily work. Think about where you are now, and where you’d like to be. Think about where we are now, and where you’d like us to be. Think what you might do to help build an even better Civil Service.

    Perhaps start talking to your manager or your team about doing things differently. Ask colleagues from other teams and agencies what works well for them. Get the ideas flowing – and importantly, please share them with us. We would love to hear from you.

    Let me end on a personal note. Many years ago – ok, decades ago – when I was starting out in the world of work, I met an inspiring leader. He had great responsibilities but was modest with it. His job, he said simply, was to help other people be successful. I remember that dictum so well and so often it has become like a part of me.

    It is what I said to myself when I applied to do the job I do now. And now that I have that job, it is what I offer to you: my promise to work for you, to help you be successful, to help us deliver for the public, to help us be truly A Brilliant Civil Service.

  • George Eustice – 2020 Comments on Tackling Flooding

    George Eustice – 2020 Comments on Tackling Flooding

    The text of the comments made by George Eustice, the Secretary of State for the Environment, on 14 July 2020.

    The devastating impacts of last winter’s flooding were an important reminder of the need to continue to invest and accelerate action to reduce the impact of flooding on our communities.

    Our record investment and ambitious policies will better protect homes, schools, hospitals and businesses, but we also recognise that we cannot prevent flooding entirely, which is why we will ensure that communities at high risk are more resilient.

    Working closely with the Environment Agency, local authorities, business and the third sector we will create a better protected and prepared nation.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Comments on Tackling Flooding

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Comments on Tackling Flooding

    The text of the comments made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 14 July 2020.

    Last winter I saw for myself the misery and upheaval that flooding can bring to lives and livelihoods and I said we would do more to help people.

    This long-term plan will help push back the flood waters and protect hundreds of thousands of homes, businesses and livelihoods.

    Our record investment will also stimulate economic growth across the UK as we build back better.

  • Gavin Williamson – 2020 Comments on Overhauling Higher Technical Education

    Gavin Williamson – 2020 Comments on Overhauling Higher Technical Education

    The comments made by Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Education, on 14 July 2020.

    For too long we have been training people for the jobs of yesterday instead of the jobs of today and tomorrow.

    Employers are struggling to find the computer programmers, engineers, electricians and technicians they need, and students of all ages are missing out on the high skill, high wage jobs that higher technical education can lead to.

    The measures I have announced today will boost the quality and take-up of these qualifications to help plug skill gaps, level up opportunities and support our economic recovery.