Tag: 2021

  • Alister Jack – 2021 Comments on Scottish Economic Figures

    Alister Jack – 2021 Comments on Scottish Economic Figures

    The comments made by Alister Jack, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 24 February 2021.

    Today’s figures reflect the challenges we continue to face as a result of this global pandemic.

    The UK Government has taken quick and decisive action to support jobs and businesses across all parts of the UK. Our £280 billion support package which includes furlough, business loans and self employed schemes have so far protected nearly one million jobs and 100,000 businesses in Scotland.

    This direct support is on top of £9.7 billion additional funding provided to the Scottish Government.

    We are also taking action to create new jobs and support economic recovery in Scotland. Investing billions as part of our Plan for Jobs, City and Region Deals, a new Shared Prosperity Fund and in the supply of vaccines which are important in lifting restrictions and reopening the economy.

    At the budget next week, the Chancellor will set out the next stage of our plan to support and create jobs in all corners of the UK.

  • Boris Johnson – 2021 Address to the UN Security Council on Climate and Security

    Boris Johnson – 2021 Address to the UN Security Council on Climate and Security

    The address made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 23 February 2021.

    For more than 75 years, this Security Council has been tasked with maintaining peace and security and it’s been difficult. We haven’t always agreed about how to achieve that goal.

    But one thing is absolutely clear to me: that we are committed to tackling threats to our security, and as you’ve heard from Antonio, and from Nisreen it is absolutely clear that climate change is a threat to our collective security and the security of our nations.

    And I know there are people around the world who will say this is all kind of “green stuff” from a bunch of tree-hugging tofu munchers and not suited to international diplomacy and international politics.

    I couldn’t disagree more profoundly.

    The causes of climate change we’ve got to address, but the effects as you’ve heard from Nisreen, and as you’ve heard from Antonio, in those speeches just now, are absolutely clear.

    Think of the young man forced onto the road when his home becomes a desert, one of 16 million people displaced every year as a result of weather-related disasters – weather-related disasters that are associated with climate change.

    He goes to some camp, he becomes prey for violent extremists, people who radicalise him and the effects of that radicalisation are felt around the world.

    “Think of the girl who drops out of school because her daily search for water takes her further and further from her family – and into the clutches of human traffickers and the international criminal gangs who profit from them.

    Or think of a farmer who has lost harvest after harvest to drought and then switches to poppies because poppies are a hardier crop, with the impacts that the opium crops have on the streets of all our cities, quite frankly.

    Or think of the impoverished and fragile nation whose government collapses when critical infrastructure is overwhelmed by increasingly frequent extreme weather – of a kind that sends shockwaves of instability around the world.

    Now if that kind of result, in terms of political, economic, humanitarian impact, if that was being triggered by some kind of despotic warlord or civil war, then nobody would question the right and the duty of this UN Security Council to act, and therefore this is not a subject we can shy away from.

    This isn’t by the way, like so many of the issues that I know you confront, Antonio, this isn’t some bafflingly complex diplomatic minuet, this isn’t some modern equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein question – can you remember the answer to the Schleswig-Holstein question, Antonio? I bet you can.

    People know the answer to climate change and they know how to tackle this crisis.

    And as Bill Gates put it in his new book, what we’ve got to do is go from 51 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year to net zero, so the increase in global temperatures remains at manageable levels. And as we do so we must support the most vulnerable and fragile nations that are feeling the effects of climate change, help them to adapt and to build resilience.

    And that’s what we’re doing. So last year [sic: 2019] we passed a law committing us, the UK, to achieving net zero carbon-emissions by 2050. And we’ve pledged to slash emissions by 68 per cent by 2030, that’s the steepest reduction for any major economy.

    Our climate finance commitments for the next five years, supporting the rest of the world to achieve this, stand at £11.6 billion. And, ahead of the COP26 summit we’re going to be putting climate change firmly at the top of the agenda for our G7 presidency as well.

    So my message to you all today is now the UN Security Council has got to act too.

    Because climate change is a geopolitical issue every bit as much as it is an environmental one. And if this Council is going to succeed in maintaining peace and security worldwide then it’s got to galvanise the whole range of UN agencies and organisations into a swift and effective response.

    “If we don’t act now, when will we act? That’s my question. When are we going to do something if we don’t act now?

    When changing sea levels are affecting our navigation around our coasts? Or when, as Nisreen said, when huddled masses fleeing drought or wildfire, or conflict over resources arrive at our borders?

    Whether you like it or not, it is a matter of when, not if, your country and your people will have to deal with the security impacts of climate change.

    So let’s do what this Council was created to do and let’s show the kind of global leadership that is needed to protect the peace, the security and the stability of our nations, of our regions and of our world.

    Thank you all very much.

  • Gavin Williamson – 2021 Comments on Catch-Up Education Funding

    Gavin Williamson – 2021 Comments on Catch-Up Education Funding

    The comments made by Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Education, on 24 February 2021.

    Our package of measures will deliver vital support to the children and young people who need it most, making sure everyone has the same opportunity to fulfil their potential no matter their background.

    I know that longer-term support over the length of this parliament will be vital to ensure children make up for lost learning. Our Education Recovery Commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, will be engaging with teachers, school and college leaders and families over the coming weeks and months to develop our longer term plans.

  • Boris Johnson – 2021 Comments on Catch-Up Education Funding

    Boris Johnson – 2021 Comments on Catch-Up Education Funding

    The comments made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 24 February 2021.

    Teachers and parents have done a heroic job with home schooling, but we know the classroom is the best place for our children to be.

    When schools re-open and face to face education resumes on 8 March, our next priority will be ensuring no child is left behind as a result of the learning they have lost over the past year.

    This extensive programme of catch-up funding will equip teachers with the tools and resources they need to support their pupils, and give children the opportunities they deserve to learn and fulfil their potential.

  • Brandon Lewis – 2021 Comments on Investment in Northern Ireland

    Brandon Lewis – 2021 Comments on Investment in Northern Ireland

    The comments made by Brandon Lewis, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 24 February 2021.

    I am absolutely delighted to sign the Heads of Terms for the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane City Deal. The UK Government has committed £105 million of capital funding to support and encourage economic development across the region, creating jobs, boosting opportunity and encouraging further inward investment.

    Today’s announcement is part of the UK Government’s commitment to developing and delivering a comprehensive and ambitious set of City Deals across Northern Ireland and delivering a stronger economy that works for everyone.

  • Jonathan Reynolds – 2021 Comments About Number of Universal Credit Claimants

    Jonathan Reynolds – 2021 Comments About Number of Universal Credit Claimants

    The comments made by Jonathan Reynolds, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, on 23 February 2021.

    Britain is facing the worst economic crisis of any major economy because of this Government’s incompetence and indecision. As a result millions more families are struggling to get by on Universal Credit.

    Cutting Universal Credit by £20 a week – over £1,000 a year – will push children into poverty and leave out of work support is at its lowest level in decades at a time when unemployment is set to peak.

    Rishi Sunak must take action to secure our economy now by cancelling his economically illiterate cut to Universal Credit.

  • Chris Matheson – 2021 Comments on Boris Johnson’s Remarks About Journalists

    Chris Matheson – 2021 Comments on Boris Johnson’s Remarks About Journalists

    The comments made by Chris Matheson, the Shadow Media Minister, on 23 February 2021.

    For Boris Johnson to say journalists are ‘always abusing people’ probably says more about his own career.

    It is particularly troubling coming so soon after the Prime Minister stood by one of his ministers who attacked a journalist who was just trying to do her job.

    We know from Donald Trump that these kind of assaults on the free press are dangerous and designed to stir up distrust and division.

    Boris Johnson should withdraw these remarks and apologise.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Comments on NHS Face Masks Not Meeting Requirements

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Comments on NHS Face Masks Not Meeting Requirements

    The comments made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, on 23 February 2021.

    This is yet another example of ministers buying duff PPE that is inadequate for protecting our hardworking NHS staff. Ministers should apologise and ensure every penny for every piece of unusable PPE is recovered.

  • Jessica Morden – 2021 Speech on the Terminally Ill and the Benefits System

    Jessica Morden – 2021 Speech on the Terminally Ill and the Benefits System

    The speech made by Jessica Morden, the Labour MP for Newport East, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2021.

    I have brought this debate to the House tonight to urge the Government to announce the results of their review of how the benefits system treats the terminally ill. The review was announced over 19 months ago now, on 11 July 2019, in response to campaigning by charities Marie Curie, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and others. I pay tribute to those charities for all their work on this issue and their support for me in bringing forward my ten-minute rule Bill, the Welfare (Terminal Illness) Bill, last summer. I also thank individual campaigners like Mark Hughes, Dave Setters and so many others who have continued to make a compelling case for change. The same is true of my friend Madeleine Moon, the former MP for Bridgend, who did so much good work on this issue during her time as chair of the all-party group on motor neurone disease. She had first-hand experience of the mental and emotional toil that comes with supporting a loved one with terminal illness. The Bill she brought to the House on this issue in 2018 is the inspiration for the Bill that I brought forward last summer. I have no doubt that the pressure exerted by these and other extraordinary individuals and organisations was instrumental in pushing the Government into announcing the review in July 2019.

    So on their behalf, I again call on the Government today to take urgent action on two elements of the special rules for terminal illness guidelines that are not fit for purpose: the six-month rule, which means that someone is obliged to provide medical proof that they have six months or less to live so that they can access benefits quickly, more sensitively and at a higher rate; and the three-year award, which forces terminally ill people to reapply for benefits in the minority of cases where they are lucky enough to live longer than three years after the benefit is awarded. The special rules for terminal illness process is intended to enable people who are terminally ill to access benefits such as the personal independence payment or universal credit rapidly at the highest level of payments without going through the standard application process. Claiming under the special rules requires the person’s doctor, consultant or specialist nurse to submit a DS1500 form stating that the person is reasonably likely to die within six months. That forces people who have unpredictable terminal illnesses such as motor neurone disease or those expected to live longer than six months to apply via the standard claims process, which involves filling in long forms, attending assessments, delays in payment, lower rates, and even meeting work coaches—all while waiting months for payments. Clearly, that is highly inappropriate for people who have been given the devastating news that their condition is terminal.

    The six-month rule is flawed and urgently needs to change. The all-party group on terminal illness, chaired by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), found in its 2019 report that it was outdated and arbitrary with no basis in clinical reality. This six-month hard deadline is too much to ask of carers and claimants. It creates a completely understandable resistance to applying, prompting the added pain of writing down the grim reality of daily life and the inevitable future darkness. It gives no hope, no joy in life in a world where hope and joy are often all that can keep you going. In the case of unpredictable illnesses like MND, heart and lung failure and many neurological conditions, it is all but impossible for clinicians to make an accurate prediction of life expectancy. It is little wonder that nearly a third of clinicians told the all-party group that they have never signed a DS1500 form for a patient with a non-cancer condition. That means that patients like Simon, who was diagnosed with MND in December 2020, are not able to access the special rules. His wife Nichola told the MND Association:

    “The doctor said that the DS1500 was designed for cancer patients…He looked at Simon and said ‘you won’t be dead in six months’. We had to complete the whole form and apply under the standard rules. It’s so long winded, so time consuming because you just don’t think about how long you spend on helping him get dressed etc. People need that support…often it feels like you’re banging your head against the wall.”

    This unpredictability is why the three-year award also needs to change. Half of all people with motor neurone disease, for example, die within two years of being diagnosed, while only around 10% live for more than five years, but there is no reliable way for doctors to determine who that 10% will be, and, as with many progressive illnesses, their condition has no prospect of improvement and will only deteriorate further as time goes on. Emma Saysell, from the wonderful St David’s Hospice in Newport, tells me it is seeing more and more cases of cancer patients having to reapply for benefits with the DS1500 after three years. That comes in part due to improvements that have been made in palliative treatment, but while patients are living longer, they are still living with a terminal illness.

    One particular example St David’s presented to me was of a lady in her mid-40s diagnosed with advanced breast cancer. The lady’s prognosis at diagnosis was very poor, and she had two teenage children. It was quite right to submit the DS1500 at diagnosis. Her disease is still progressing, but due to the palliative chemotherapy she has received, the process has been slowed, and she has now lived longer than three years. She has recently had to reapply for all her benefits due to the three-year rule, which has been hugely stressful for her and her family.

    It is a clear anomaly that terminally ill people are awarded benefits for only three years. Employment and support allowance claimants with progressive conditions are entitled to the severe conditions exemption, meaning that they do not have to repeat work capability assessments, while higher-rate PIP claimants can qualify for an ongoing award, with a light-touch review after the 10-year point. It is cruel and absurd that people living with a lifelong condition are entitled to a 10-year or lifetime award, while those with terminal illnesses have been told they must reapply for benefits or risk losing them after just three years. Those who do happen to live longer than three years tell me they feel they are being punished by the system for living too long.

    It is now seven months to the day since I presented my ten-minute rule Bill, and more than 19 months since the then Secretary of State, Amber Rudd, announced a review of how the benefits system treats terminally ill people. In all that time, we have had no official word from the Government on when they intend to bring forward these vital and long-awaited changes to the benefit system.

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

    I commend my hon. Friend for the campaigning work she has been doing on this issue for an extended period, following the work that Madeleine Moon was doing. Scotland introduced its changes to SRTI back in 2018. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is seems very late for the Government here not to have done anything about it? This is all about funding people who desperately need money in the last few months of their lives.

    Jessica Morden

    I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and he reads my mind—I am just about to come to that section of my speech. This is an issue across the whole UK, and the devolved Governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland appear to be treating it as a higher priority than the UK Government do. The Scottish Government passed a law to change the six-month rule for devolved benefits back in 2018, and that will be coming into force later this year. The Northern Ireland Assembly unanimously backed a motion to scrap it in October, and the Executive are proactively looking to fix this issue and deliver reform quickly. Why, then, is Westminster dragging its heels?

    When I introduced my Bill last July, the Minister for Disabled People, Welfare and Work indicated that change would be coming shortly. He confirmed in the House on 19 October last year that the Government would be changing the six-month rule following their review. However, all this time later, we are still waiting to hear exactly what it would be changed to and when that change will be introduced. If Ministers have made up their minds that change is needed, why is there any need for further delay? Why the long silence?

    Every day the Government postpone an announcement on the outcome of their review, more people are diagnosed with a terminal illness and risk being unable to get fast-track support from the benefits system if they cannot prove they have less than six months to live. These people are facing exactly the kind of inappropriate medical and work capability assessment that the special rules for terminal illness are supposed to exempt them from before they can access the support they need. They also face huge delays in getting payments. The average wait for a first personal independence payment is now 16 weeks, at a time when someone’s illness may mean that they cannot work and have no other money coming in. These are people like Alan, who has terminal pulmonary fibrosis, and who told Marie Curie:

    “When I was diagnosed, I was told I would have five years’ life expectancy, as an average. Day to day, it affects everything I do. I can’t get dressed by myself. I can’t go to the shop by myself. I get very breathless doing anything. When I first applied for PIP, they were very dismissive. One of the things they did was, because I walked from a lift to a room, which was about 10 steps—on that basis they judged I could walk 200 yards. Because I was refused PIP, I couldn’t get hold of things like a parking card or a discount for train travel. So, I was in receipt of no benefits at all, although I do have a terminal illness, which gets worse year after year, month to month.”

    For some, that delay will mean they die without receiving any support at all. Between April 2018 and October 2019, 2,140 people who applied for PIP—only one of the benefits affected by this rule—had their claim turned down under the normal rules only to die within six months of making their claim. Many of them will have been terminally ill people unable to claim via the special rules because they could not prove they had six months to live.

    Even when the DWP does accept a claim, that often comes too late. According to the DWP’s own figures, an average of 10 people die every day while waiting for a decision on their PIP claim. End-of-life charity Marie Curie estimates that that means more than 5,900 people have died waiting for a decision since the DWP announced its review. That is nearly 6,000 families put through needless distress and anguish, and more will face it every day because of a rule that the Government have already admitted needs to change.

    That is families like Michelle’s. Her mum, who died aged 62 in 2018, was initially awarded zero points for PIP and told she was capable of working. She was hooked to a feeding tube 16 hours a day, seven days a week and weighed 32 kilograms when she died. She had several illnesses including Crohn’s, osteoporosis and terminal lung cancer, yet she was awarded nothing. Michelle took her mum’s case to a tribunal, but by the time the decision came back that her mother should be awarded maximum points for PIP, she had died. Michelle says:

    “This should have been money that my mum had to make her final days better. It should never have gone as far as a tribunal.”

    Dying people deserve to be treated with dignity by the benefits system. Nobody given the devastating news that their illness is terminal knows how long they have left—not their loved ones, not their doctor and not a DWP benefits assessor. However much time they have left should be spent living as well as they can for as long as they can, making memories with loved ones. It should not be spent worrying about money, filling in endless forms, being dragged to assessments and fighting for the support they need. As Madeleine Moon said back in 2018,

    “The unknown time you have must not be spent worrying about accessing benefits or keeping a roof over your head; it must be spent in love, laughter, and taking the painful journey together with dignity and compassion.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 456.]

    People living with terminal illness and their loved ones have been campaigning tirelessly for change for more than two years. Many of them will not have lived to see the change they have fought for: an end to the six-month and three-year rules and a change to the system to allow anyone who has received the devastating news from a clinician that they are terminally ill to get fast-tracked access to benefits via the special rules. The clinician’s judgment should be evidence enough.

    We all understand that since the Government announced their review there have been unforeseen circumstances with covid-19, but people do not have time to wait further. For the past 19 months, they have been waiting in a frustrating limbo, told that change is coming but with no announcement in sight from Ministers. They, and the charities campaigning on their behalf, are understandably impatient with 19 months of warm words from the Government and promises that change is always coming soon. For many, soon is already too late and, with each day that passes, soon will be too late for many more.

    I urge Ministers to do better than soon. Will the Minister give us a date today for when the outcome of the DWP review will be published, give the campaigners who have called for change some clarity and give us a timeline setting out when the Government will make the changes to the law, which they have already accepted are needed, without further delay?

  • Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on Local Government Reorganisation

    Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on Local Government Reorganisation

    The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2021.

    As I told the House on 12 October 2020, c. 6-7 WS, I have issued invitations under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (the 2007 Act) to principal councils in Cumbria, North Yorkshire, and Somerset, including associated existing unitary councils, to submit proposals for moving to unitary local government in those areas.

    On 9 December, I received eight locally led proposals—four from councils in Cumbria, two from councils in North Yorkshire and two from councils in Somerset. In the case of each area there is a proposal made by the county council for a unitary authority covering the whole area. In the cases of North Yorkshire and Somerset, there is a proposal from district councils for two unitary authorities in each area. In Cumbria district councils have made three proposals, each of which involves establishing two unitary authorities.

    Today I have launched a consultation on all eight proposals. I would welcome views from any interested person, including residents, and I am consulting the councils which made the proposals, other councils affected by the proposals, and councils in neighbouring areas. I am also consulting public service providers, including health providers and the police, local enterprise partnerships, and certain other business, voluntary sector and educational bodies.

    The consultation period will run for eight weeks until Monday 19 April. The consultation document is available and those responding may do so on the Department’s online platform “Citizen Space” or by email or post. The consultation will provide information to help my assessment of the merits of each proposal, and I will carefully consider all the representations I receive, along with all other relevant information available to me.

    The context of this consultation is that the 2007 Act provides that before any proposal is implemented I must consult any council affected by the proposal that did not make it and any other persons I consider appropriate. Once the consultation is concluded, I will decide, subject to parliamentary approval, which, if any, proposals are to be implemented, with or without modification. In taking these decisions I will have regard to all the representations I have received, including those from the consultation, and all other relevant information available to me, and reach a balanced judgement assessing the proposals against the three criteria—whether they are likely to improve local government and service delivery across the area of the proposal, whether they command a good deal of local support as assessed in the round across the whole area of the proposal, and whether the area of any new unitary council is a credible geography.

    I am also announcing today that I intend as soon as practicable to make and lay before Parliament orders under the Local Government Act 2000 to reschedule the ordinary elections to principal councils in the three areas due to be held on 6 May 2021 for one year to May 2022. The elections for local police and crime commissioners, as well as elections to any town or parish councils, will continue to take place in May 2021.

    In deciding to reschedule the 6 May 2021 local elections to principal councils in the three areas, I have carefully considered all the representations I have received including the views expressed by councils. I have also had regard both to the importance of local elections as the foundation of our local democracy and ensuring the accountability of councils to local people, and to the risks of continuing with the May 2021 elections in the areas when consultations are taking place on proposals which could, if implemented, result in the abolition of those councils. Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms.

    Accordingly, I have concluded that, irrespective of what my future decisions might be on the restructuring proposals, the right course is to reschedule the May 2021 local elections. If no unitary proposal is implemented in an area, the rescheduled elections will take place in May 2022. If a unitary proposal is implemented the rescheduled elections will be replaced by elections in May 2022 to the new unitary authority or authorities which could be in shadow form or a continuing council taking on the functions of the other councils in the area.

    Finally, I would reiterate that the Government will not impose top-down Government solutions. We will continue, as I am now currently doing, to follow a locally led approach where councils can develop proposals which have strong local support. This has been the Government’s consistent approach since 2010, when top-down restructuring was stopped through the Local Government Act 2010. When considering reform, those in an area will know what is best—the very essence of localism to which the Government remain committed.