UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2020 Statement on Global Response to Covid-19

    Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2020 Statement on Global Response to Covid-19

    Below is the text of the statement made by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Secretary of State for International Development, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the UK’s support for the global effort to tackle the coronavirus pandemic.

    The world is now having to address the biggest threat that it has faced in decades: an invisible killer on a global scale. Here in the UK, communities across the country are united in their determination to beat it, making their own personal sacrifices by staying at home, protecting our NHS and saving lives.

    There is a daunting outlook for countries in the developing world, simultaneously facing a health crisis, a humanitarian crisis and the risk of a protracted economic crisis leading to much greater hardship for years to come. The threat of famines, exacerbated by the worst locust plague for 70 years, fragile healthcare systems that enable the spread of the disease and economic disruptions risk a much longer and harder road back to recovery than for wealthy countries.

    However, through the altruism of the British people and the expertise of our scientists and engineers, the UK is proudly playing a leading role in the global response. On Monday, together with other world leaders, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister co-hosted a virtual global coronavirus response pledging conference. He called on countries around the world to step up their efforts and work together on this, the

    “most urgent shared endeavour of our lifetimes”.

    World leaders responded, and some £6.5 billion was pledged for the covid-19 response, including the UK’s own £388 million commitment for vaccines, tests and treatments. The UK is proud to stand with our international partners—this is a truly global effort, and the only way to fight this pandemic is together.

    The UK is a development superpower, and we are also a scientific and medical world leader. This enables our response to this global pandemic to be greater than the sum of its parts. From Gloucestershire’s Dr Edward Jenner, who laid the foundations for immunology, to our researchers who developed vaccines for measles and Ebola, the UK has led the scientific response to many global health challenges in the past. I am so proud to be able to say that UK-based scientists, such as those at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, are playing key roles in the global response to this deadly new virus. Scientists in Bedfordshire who developed rapid diagnostic devices to manage the recent Ebola outbreak, funded with taxpayers’ money through UK aid, are using that expertise to develop new rapid diagnostic tests.

    Researchers at Oxford University, funded through CEPI— the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations —are now progressing to clinical trials, with funding from the UK Government’s vaccines taskforce, which is also funding a vaccine trial starting soon at Imperial College. In partnership with a British success story, AstraZeneca—one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies—our Oxford researchers are working towards ​their vaccine being manufactured at scale. We know that any vaccine might prove to be the solution, so through our Department for International Development aid budget, the UK is the largest single contributor of any country to CEPI’s international efforts to find a coronavirus vaccine. Through this fund, we are working to improve our understanding of the virus and to support scientists around the globe. CEPI is already backing nine potential vaccines.

    The Foreign Secretary outlined at the launch of the World Health Organisation’s access to covid-19 tools accelerator that the UK is proud to work with our international partners to ensure that new vaccines are accessible to everyone, as quickly as possible. No one will be safe until we are all safe. So we will need vaccines against this deadly disease, at home and abroad. Once a vaccine is found, delivering it globally will be the next big challenge. To help with that, we have invested the equivalent of £330 million a year for the next five years in GAVI, the global vaccine alliance that delivers vaccines in 68 of the poorest countries around the world. On 4 June, the UK will be hosting the global vaccine summit to co-ordinate international investment efforts for GAVI. Together with the announcement made by the Prime Minister on Monday, that is a combined additional investment in global health security that comes to more than £2 billion, helping combat the spread of disease. In investing globally, we are helping to protect our citizens—our families—from future waves of infection, and protecting our NHS.

    The global pandemic is one part of the challenge facing the world. DFID’s immediate coronavirus response to date amounts to £744 million. But this is on top of our work to pivot much of our existing work to provide health, humanitarian and economic support where it is needed most, as part of our response to these crises, with a health response that builds on the UK’s long-standing record of supporting countries to prepare for and respond to large disease outbreaks, including as the third largest donor to the World Health Organisation. We are investing on the frontier of research into new rapid diagnostics and therapeutics that can detect and treat coronavirus. Working in partnership with Unilever, we have launched an innovative hand-washing campaign that will reach 1 billion people around the world—a major contribution to global sanitation and hygiene. With the support of British and international non-governmental organisations, and advice from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, we will reach one in seven people around the world with information on the most effective ways to stop the virus spreading and save lives.

    We are also working to reduce the global economic impact of the virus by preventing its spread, protecting both the UK public and the stability of our economy. Last month, the UK, together with other G20 countries, announced a commitment to suspend debt service payments to the poorest countries until the end of 2020. This will create up to $12 billion of additional fiscal space. DFID has also made up to £150 million available to the International Monetary Fund for debt relief. These measures will enable developing countries to direct greater domestic resources to their own healthcare efforts, helping to prevent the virus from spreading around the world. We are supporting developing country Governments to make proportionate, evidence-based trade-offs between containing the virus and maintaining open trade, so that ​essential goods and services, including critical medical and food supplies, can continue to move around the world. That supports developing countries, but it also means that British consumers will get the vital goods they need.

    Covid-19 is a global pandemic. It does not respect national borders. Individual efforts will succeed only as part of a global response. The UK will continue to play a leading role in galvanising the most effective co-ordinated international action. In 2017, the scientific community in the UK proudly played a key role in the international response to the Ebola outbreak in west Africa. I am proud to update the House that we are doing so again.

    We are using British expertise and funding to demonstrate leadership internationally. Recognising that needs will be great, we are doing whatever it takes to ensure that vaccines, treatments and technologies are available, to save lives and to support economies in the most vulnerable countries, and to help end the pandemic. That will help reduce the risk of the world being attacked by a second wave of infection. As the Prime Minister said on Monday:

    “It’s humanity against the virus—we are in this together, and together we will prevail.”

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Andy McDonald – 2020 Speech on Lifting the Lockdown

    Andy McDonald – 2020 Speech on Lifting the Lockdown

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andy McDonald, the Labour MP for Middlesbrough, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2020.

    Last Sunday, the Government sent trade unions and businesses seven consultation documents outlining proposals for a return to workplaces. We all share a common objective of a safe return to work at the appropriate time that protects public health. However, when the Government’s plans fall short, it is our duty to say so. Trade unions were given just 12 hours to respond. The documents were not shared with the Opposition and the proposals themselves are wholly inadequate.

    No worker should have their life or the lives of their loved ones risked simply by going to work. This is a legal right, which held true before this crisis and, crucially, must not be cast aside now. The documents present measures to maintain safe workplaces, such as hand washing and social distancing, as being at the discretion of employers, when in fact they are requirements of the law. The Government must make this clear and inform workers and businesses of their respective rights and duties. I share the surprise of trade unions that the documents provide no recommendations on personal protective equipment, without which it is impossible to make judgments on safe working practices.

    Critically, the proposals exclude workers. A safe return to work is a significant challenge that can be met only if Government and business work with staff. My ask of the Minister is that the Government now bring forward guidelines requiring specific covid-19 risk assessments for most businesses, and that assessments are made public and registered with the Health and Safety Executive. Given the lack of capacity for inspections, these assessments must be agreed with staff. In workplaces with trade unions, this can be done by health and safety reps. In those without them, the Government should enable trade unions to assist workforces in their sectors to elect or appoint a rep to be consulted and involved in the settling, implementation and enforcement of assessments.​

    Finally, workers need to have confidence and trust that the Government have got their back, so will the Minister confirm that employees will not be prejudiced in any way for drawing attention to safety failings in the workplace? This time, we are truly all in this together. I trust that my comments are received in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.

  • Sarah Jones – 2020 Speech on Local Government in Manchester

    Sarah Jones – 2020 Speech on Local Government in Manchester

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sarah Jones, the Labour MP for Croydon Central, in the House of Commons on 5 May 2020.

    We are living through extraordinary times. Covid-19 has dealt a great blow to our country—its health, its economy and its way of life—and we are mourning the loved ones we have lost. But in the midst of this crisis, we have seen countless acts of extraordinary resilience and bravery.

    As usual, as the Minister just said, the fire service has been front and centre in this battle, answering our calls for help, driving ambulances, delivering personal protective equipment, helping to distribute food and even, I hear, delivering babies. The fire service is the most trusted of all our emergency services because it is always there when we need it, so it would not be right to begin this debate without paying tribute to the work of our firefighters across the UK. Yesterday was Firefighters Memorial Day. The minute’s silence at midday was a moment to reflect on the more than 2,300 UK firefighters who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Each one of those tragic lives lost paints a stark picture of the realities faced by firefighters. They risk their lives every day to ensure the safety of each and every one of us.

    We are here to debate the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) (Amendment) Order 2020. The Labour party supports the order. It is nearly two years since the Greater Manchester Combined Authority asked to bring responsibility of fire and rescue services into the hands of the deputy mayor for policing and crime, with no particular reason for the delay, as far as I can see, and there is precedent elsewhere in England for this model.

    This relatively straightforward order represents the gentle evolution of devolution. As Donald Dewar said at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, devolution is ​not an end, but a “means to greater ends.” We should be constantly open to change, to better serve our local populations.

    The order allows the Mayor to make arrangements for fire and rescue functions to be exercised by the deputy mayor for policing and crime, and amends the remit of the Greater Manchester police and crime panel to include scrutiny of the exercise of those fire and rescue functions in addition to their existing remit of police and crime commissioner functions. That allows the Greater Manchester police and crime panel to scrutinise the delivery of all the main functions of the deputy mayor for policing, fire and crime.

    The order will build on the success of devolution that we have already seen in Greater Manchester. Under Andy Burnham, we have seen real action to tackle rough sleeping, real support for young people and the biggest investment in cycling and walking outside London. Devolution enables good local, joined-up and effective policy making.

    I would like to take this opportunity to commend the efforts of the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, his deputy mayor and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority for their recent work on fire and rescue services. Following the tragic fire at Grenfell, where 72 people lost their lives, they set up the Greater Manchester high-rise taskforce, chaired by Salford City Mayor Paul Dennett, to provide fire safety reassurance. They carried out proactive inspections of all high-rise residential premises to ensure that all buildings comply with fire safety regulations.

    Greater Manchester has 78 high-rise buildings that have had to adapt interim safety measures because of serious fire safety deficiencies and slow Government action to support remediation. In late February, I watched Andy Burnham, City Mayor Dennett and other civic leaders and MPs from across the country join residents caught up in the cladding crisis at a rally on Parliament Square, calling for urgent action from the Government in the Budget. The Government listened, and the Chancellor announced the £1 billion building safety fund for the removal of dangerous cladding of all forms from high-rise buildings.

    With thousands of leaseholders across the country still living in buildings wrapped in unsafe cladding, the focus must now be on completing remediation works as quickly as possible. We only need to briefly read the accounts of the Manchester Cladiators to know the dire situations they face on a daily basis.

    From blocks like Imperial Point in Salford Quays to Albion Works in central Manchester, the stories are painfully similar: lives put on hold as residents are trapped in unsafe buildings, unable to sell their properties, and living in constant emotional and financial distress. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments from last week’s Fire Safety Bill, but we know that there is much more to be done by the Government and that we must move faster. I press the Minister again to provide an update on the progress of the review and the costs that residents are incurring while paying for waking watches. Is this review looking into the whole costs of interim fire safety measures?

    As the Fire Brigades Union said yesterday, each time a firefighter dies at work, we need to understand what led to their death and what could have been done to ​prevent it. Yesterday we remembered the 2,300 firefighters who have died in service, but we must never accept their loss as inevitable. It is our duty to learn from every firefighter death and to fight for the improvements to operational practices that could save lives into the future. But that job has been immeasurably harder over the last decade, as we have seen brutal funding cuts.

    After a decade of austerity, we have 11,000 fewer fire- fighters, so when fires sadly do occur, fire engines may answer the call without enough firefighters to tackle the blaze. That is not only dangerous for the public, but potentially deadly for firefighters too. We could not debate this order without considering the heavy hand of 10 years of cuts to our fire services in Greater Manchester and across the country. The landscape of complexity post Grenfell, with the enormous fire risk of so many buildings across the country, compounds an already difficult situation. Given the extent of the crisis in recent years and the number of individuals who live in unsafe buildings, we need a strong fire service to be ready to deal with what can perhaps be described as a ticking time bomb for as long as the cladding remains in place. Central Government funding for fire and rescue services in Greater Manchester has been decimated over the past decade; it has fallen by almost a third from £75.2 million in 2010 to £52.9 million now. Across the UK, between 2010 and 2016, the Government cut central funding to fire and rescue services by 28% in real terms, followed by a further cut of 15% by 2020. These cuts have led to a cut of 20% in the number of firefighters.

    When a Grenfell Tower resident first called 999 just before 1 am on 14 June 2017, it was five minutes before a fire engine was at the scene and 13 minutes before the first firefighters entered the building. Equally, it was only a matter of minutes after the first call was made that fire services were on the scene of the fire at the student accommodation in Bolton in November last year. Clearly, when operating on such fine margins as the hazard of fire presents, fire services rely on rapid turnaround to be effective. It is shocking, then, to see that fire response times across Greater Manchester since 2010 have risen from seven minutes and 14 seconds to seven minutes and 20 seconds, with a rise of over 40 seconds across England. It may seem like only a matter of seconds, but with the fine margins that exist in fire and rescue situations, a rise in fire response times is unacceptable.

    But this is no damning indictment of the fire service across central Manchester or anywhere else. No—it is far more a wrong that stems from a decade of successive Conservative Governments’ neglect of fire and rescue services. While funding has been cut, the number of firefighters across Greater Manchester has fallen by 29% since 2010—down from 1,923, to 1,368 in 2019. The number of operational appliances has fallen by 14% over the same period. The Mayor and deputy Mayor in Greater Manchester, and their teams, are doing their best in these circumstances—namely, with their pledge to bring in 108 new firefighters—but, despite their best efforts, there remains a gaping hole left by increasingly scarce central Government funds.

    On Friday, we will celebrate VE day, marking the end of world war two. In the first 22 nights of air raids during the blitz, firefighters fought nearly 10,000 fires. According to Winston Churchill, the fire service

    “were a grand lot and their work must never be forgotten.”

    Well, the Opposition—and I am sure the Government—agree. With such extensive cuts across the past decade in ​provisions for fire and rescue services, and with a far more precarious environment facing those services in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy, will the Minister tell us when the Government are going to begin to make fire and rescue services in Greater Manchester and across the rest of the country a priority? With firefighters risking their lives to save our lives, the bare minimum they can expect is a properly funded service. After a decade of cuts and a covid crisis where our firefighters have gone above and beyond, we must now see real change.

  • James Brokenshire – 2020 Statement on Local Government in Manchester

    James Brokenshire – 2020 Statement on Local Government in Manchester

    Below is the text of the statement made by James Brokenshire, the Minister for Security, in the House of Commons on 5 May 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 9 March, be approved.

    The purpose of this order is to improve the delivery of public services in Greater Manchester by driving greater collaboration and bolstering the accountability of how those functions are exercised. The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 allows, in certain areas of the UK, the devolution of a number of municipal functions. In 2017, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order conferred responsibility for the management of the Greater Manchester fire and rescue authority on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Fire and rescue services therefore came under the authority of the directly elected Greater Manchester Mayor, and arrangements were introduced to oversee the operational discharge of functions, with the scrutiny of fire and rescue functions being added to the remit of the corporate issues and reform overview and scrutiny committee.

    In 2017, police and crime commissioner functions were transferred to the Mayor, and the role of deputy Mayor for policing and crime was established. The exercise of police and crime commissioner functions is scrutinised by the police and crime panel. Devolution of the exercise of fire functions to the Mayor, in parallel with the devolution of the police and crime commissioner functions, has provided for greater direct accountability of both functions under one individual, and has allowed opportunities for strategic and joined-up thinking in the blue light sector in Greater Manchester.

    In July 2018, the Mayor of Greater Manchester wrote to the Home Secretary to request further changes to the governance arrangements for fire and rescue functions within the GMCA. He sought authority to delegate the exercise of the majority of those functions to the deputy Mayor for policing and crime, and to amend the scrutiny functions of the existing police and crime panel to include scrutiny of fire and rescue functions. The then Home Secretary approved the Mayor’s request in September 2018.

    The order before the House today gives effect to the Mayor’s request by amending the 2017 order. It brings the exercise of police and fire functions closer together by allowing for the exercise of all delegable fire and rescue functions by the deputy Mayor for crime and policing. Some non-delegable functions—namely, those listed under article 6 of the 2017 order—remain the sole responsibility of the Mayor. These include the hiring and firing of the chief fire officer, signing off the local risk plan, and approving the annual declaration of compliance with the fire and rescue national framework.

    To ensure that there are appropriate scrutiny arrangements of the exercise of delegated functions, the order also extends the remit of the Greater Manchester police and crime panel to include scrutiny of the exercise of fire and rescue functions, whether they are exercised by the Mayor or by the deputy Mayor for policing and crime. To reflect its wider role, the panel will become known as the police, fire and crime panel. The order will ​provide a clearer line of sight for the exercise of fire and rescue functions, with delegable functions being exercised by the deputy Mayor for policing and crime rather than by a committee. This will make it clearer to the public who is responsible for which decisions and bring further clarity to the governance process. It will also ensure that police and fire matters are scrutinised in the round by extending the role of the police and crime panel.

    This brings similar scrutiny arrangements to fire as already exist for policing. Crucially, by bringing together oversight of policing and fire under the Deputy Mayor for policing and crime, it will also help to maximise the opportunities for innovative collaboration, foster the sharing of best practice, and ensure that strategic risks are reviewed across both services. The Kerslake report on the tragic Manchester Arena attack emphasised the need for greater collaboration between fire services and other public bodies. This order takes important steps to do just that.

    Finally, I want to comment on the fantastic collaboration efforts taking place in Greater Manchester as part of the response to the covid-19 pandemic. I thank the incredible fire and policing personnel for everything they are doing in Greater Manchester and beyond. They have stepped up to volunteer to assist and protect their communities. It is right that we recognise the critical role they are playing in supporting the country’s response to covid-19, and I pay tribute to them for the difference they are making at this time of need. They are a credit to themselves and to the services they work within.

  • Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the NHS Covid-19 App

    Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the NHS Covid-19 App

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 5 May 2020.

    Yesterday we launched the NHS covid-19 app (“the app”) for initial roll-out on the Isle of Wight over the next two weeks.

    This is the first phase in the development and roll-out of a national “test and trace” programme which will bring together the app, expanded web and phone-based contact tracing, and swab testing for those with potential covid-19 symptoms. This is a vital part of our plans as we move towards the second phase in our battle against covid-19.

    The app has been built by a team including world-leading doctors, scientists and tech experts. If someone installs the app, it will start logging the distance between their phone and other phones nearby that also have the app installed. If a person becomes unwell with symptoms of covid-19, they can report this through the app, which will then anonymously alert other app users that they have come into significant contact with over the previous few days and provide appropriate advice. The app, which takes full consideration of privacy and security, has already been tested in closed conditions at an RAF base.

    This initial roll-out will provide valuable insights into how the public respond to and use the app and how we can improve it further. There will be no changes to social distancing measures during this initial roll-out phase.

    Using the app is voluntary but the more residents who download the app, the more informed our national response will be. The Isle of Wight is leading the way for the UK, for which we thank them.​

    The more rapidly we can identify people at risk of infection and provide them with advice on what action they should take, the more effectively we can reduce the spread of the virus. The test and trace programme will play an increasingly important part in our wider strategy to save lives and protect the health and care system.

    Further details of the national roll-out will be available soon.

  • Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 5 May 2020.

    We have flattened the curve of this epidemic, ensured that the NHS is not overwhelmed and expanded testing capacity to over 100,000 tests a day. As a Government, we are working resolutely to defeat the coronavirus, and there are two important areas where I want to update the House today.

    First, on the expansion of our work to test, track and trace, we have now built a national testing infrastructure of scale, and because we have this extra capacity, we will be delivering up to 30,000 tests a day to residents and staff in elderly care homes, making sure that symptomatic and asymptomatic staff and residents can all be tested. Our care system represents the best of us, supporting our loved ones with tenderness and dedication at their time of greatest need. Through this unprecedented expansion of testing, we can give them the certainty and confidence that high-quality testing can provide.

    Secondly, we are working to build the resilience of the NHS. We currently have 3,387 spare critical care beds in the NHS and that does not include the capacity provided by our Nightingale hospitals, including the 460-bed Sunderland Nightingale, which opened earlier today. We should all be very proud that we built up the NHS so fast and that our collective national effort has helped to protect the NHS and flatten the curve. As a result, we are now able to start to restore some NHS services and we are in a position to be able to place the London Nightingale on stand-by. This is good news, because our NHS has not been overwhelmed by this crisis and remains open to those who need care, and that means that this nation’s shared sacrifice is having an impact.

    Throughout its time, this Chamber has borne witness to so much, and it has borne witness to the nation’s resolve once more. I am delighted that the British people are well and truly rising to this incredibly difficult challenge.

  • Therese Coffey – 2020 Statement on DWP and Covid-19

    Therese Coffey – 2020 Statement on DWP and Covid-19

    Below is the text of the statement made by Therese Coffey, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 4 May 2020.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement updating the House on the work of my Department. First, I want to pay tribute to the civil servants in my Department as well as our contractors and partners, who have been working tirelessly to provide help and support to those in need. They are the hidden heroes for many people in this country, and they should take great pride in their hard work in and dedication to supporting people through these difficult times.

    From 16 March to the end of April, we received over 1.8 million claims for universal credit, over 250,000 claims for jobseeker’s allowance, and over 20,000 claims for employment and support allowance. Overall, that is six times the volume that we would typically experience, and in one week we had a tenfold increase. The rate for UC claims appears to have stabilised at about 20,000 to 25,000 a day, which is double that of a standard week pre-covid-19. I am pleased that my Department is standing up to the challenge. We have redeployed a significant number of DWP staff—about 8,000 so far—and staff from other Government Departments, about 500 so far, to process these claims. Our payment timeliness for universal credit is running at a record high.

    We have also issued almost 700,000 advances to claimants who felt that they could not wait for their first routine payment, and the vast majority of those claimants received money within 72 hours. Where possible, and mindful of risk, we have streamlined our processes. We will consider learnings carefully from this time in the response phase, and whether any of them can be made permanent.

    We have also sought to make it possible for people to work from home, and have deployed 10,000 computers. We are now at a level of deploying 750 new devices a day to enable working from home, and have added to the IT capacity for remote users. However, if staff need to continue to work at the office, we are applying social distancing. Making sure that our claimants and civil servants are safe is a key priority. From 17 March we suspended all face-to-face assessments for health and disability benefits. We automatically extended awards for existing claimants that were due to be reassessed by three months, and will only undertake reviews or reassessments when claimants notify us of changes that could lead to a higher payment. Any claim made under the special rules for terminal illness continues to be fast-tracked—it takes an average of six days to process those claims.

    Since 24 March, job centres have not been open for regular appointments, but we continue to offer face-to-face appointments in exceptional circumstances if claimants would not otherwise be able to receive support. Claimants can continue to receive support over the phone or through their online journals. All local jobcentres have been turned into virtual processing teams, prioritising advances and the registration and payment of new claims. We have also paired jobcentres across the country to support one another with processing, using fully our network capacity.

    That focus on the processing of claims means that we have stopped checking the claimant commitment on looking for and being available for work for three months. ​We do, however, want claimants to continue to look for work wherever they are able to do so. Ministers are working hard to make sure that existing vacancies can be accessed by people who have become unemployed. We will continue to support those people while they are waiting for the opportunity for work. We have created a new website to guide people—jobhelp.dwp.gov.uk—and we are advertising 58,200 vacancies.

    Although our IT systems have worked—thanks to extensive work by the universal credit team, including our contractors—I know that some claimants experienced significant delays in the verification of their identity. Identity checks are crucial to reduce fraud risk, so we worked closely with the Cabinet Office to increase substantially the capacity of the online Verify system, and average wait times are now below five minutes.

    Call volumes have been extremely high, with more than 2.2 million calls in one day at the peak. Having recognised the delays that people were experiencing—or, indeed, that they were not able to get through at all—we turned it around with our “Don’t call us—we’ll call you” campaign. A bolstered frontline team now proactively calls claimants when we need to check any information provided as part of a claim. This has been successful in freeing up capacity and reducing the time that customers need to spend on the phone.

    In respect of other departmental operations, although we have redeployed staff we have kept critical work ongoing in child maintenance and bereavement. We are monitoring our performance and will return staff to these areas if the response rate is unacceptable. We have cancelled the pension levy increase, supported defined contributions through the job retention scheme, and worked with regulators to assist defined benefit pensions and to combat scams.

    It is worth reminding the House of our financial injection of more than £6.5 billion into the welfare system so that it can act as a safety net for the poorest in society. We have focused on changes that could be made quickly and would have significant positive impact. We have increased the standard rate of universal credit and working tax credit for the next 12 months by around £1,000 per year; we increased the local housing allowance rates for universal credit and housing benefit claimants, so they now cover the lowest 30% of local rents; and we increased the national maximum caps, so claimants in inner and central London should also see an increase in their housing support payments. I have been made aware that some councils have not made the adjustment in housing benefit, and my Department is communicating with them all this week. Furthermore, across England we had already increased the discretionary housing payment by an extra £40 million for this financial year.

    The 1.7% benefit uplift was implemented in April, ending the benefits freeze, and the state pension rose by 3.9%, as per the triple lock, reflecting last year’s substantial rise in average earnings. We have introduced regulations to ease access to benefits: we legislated to allow access to employment and support allowance from day one of a claim; we relaxed the minimum income floor so that the self-employed can access universal credit more readily; we have made it easier to access ESA by launching an ESA portal for online applications; and we legislated to ensure that statutory sick pay was available for employees ​from day one of sickness or self-isolation due to covid-19. I remind the House that statutory sick pay is the legal minimum.

    We will continue to look at issues that arise—for example, we are ensuring that maternity pay is based on standard pay, not furlough pay levels—and see what we can do quickly and straightforwardly to fix either unintended consequences or unforeseen issues, but it is not my intention to change the fundamental principles or application of universal credit.

    We have undertaken a significant project to support the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the national shielding service by establishing the outbound contact centre. Furthermore, we use the contact centre to contact proactively our most vulnerable customers who receive their benefits or pensions solely through Post Office card accounts. I thank the Post Office for helping us to support this group of customers. We have been able to provide contact-free cash payments by Royal Mail special delivery, and we were able to signpost people to extra support from their local council.

    I can inform to the House today that the DWP will stop any new benefit and pension claimants from using the Post Office card account from 11 May, as we prepare for the end of the contract. The uptake of accounts in the past year has been exceptionally low, but, in any event, given that we believe the vast majority of people using POCA already have a bank account, the cost of the contract is poor value for taxpayers. Existing customers who currently receive payment through a Post Office card account will see no change and will continue to receive payment into their accounts for the remainder of the contract period. We can use the HMG payment exception service for people who cannot access any bank account.

    I thank the Health and Safety Executive—an arm’s length body for Great Britain that is sponsored by my Department—for its work on covid-19. It has been doing crucial work with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Public Health England to provide guidelines for employers to adhere to once restrictions can begin to be eased. The HSE is working hard, along with local authorities, to enable work to continue safely in the sectors for which it is responsible. It has developed practical guidance on the enforcement of the law where workers are being exposed to unnecessary risk.

    In conclusion, my Department is standing up to the challenge of unprecedented demand for its services, and we are getting support to those who need it. We will continue to work across Government to help the nation get through this health emergency. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Alan Clark – 1983 Speech on Sex Discrimination [Allegations of Minister Being Drunk]

    Alan Clark – 1983 Speech on Sex Discrimination [Allegations of Minister Being Drunk]

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Clark, the then Under-Secretary of State for Employment, in the House of Commons on 20 July 1983. Clark was alleged to have been drunk when making the speech, with his diaries later admitting that he had indeed consumed a large amount of alcohol.

    I beg to move,

    That the draft Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
    The debate is on the draft regulations to amend the Equal Pay Act 1970. The regulations arise from a need to amend the Act to conform to our European obligations. To do this in a way that is sensible and fair to everyone requires careful balances to be struck, raising complex matters of law and procedure. I apologise if I have to lead the House into matters which are complicated and which may seem to certain hon. Members on first consideration to be unwelcome. I apologise also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that on the first occasion on which I am speaking from the Dispatch Box in your presence I might have to deviate from the injunction for brevity of which you almost constantly remind us. However, there are certain legalistic passages which I might have to deal with at 78 rpm instead of 33. I am sure that the House will understand.

    At first sight, the regulations consist of some simple propositions. The Equal Pay Act allows a woman to claim equal pay with a man, or a man with a woman—I do not propose to repeat that disclaimer on every occasion on which it might arise and in all comparative contexts henceforth a man can also mean a woman and a woman can also mean a man— if she is doing the same or broadly similar work, or if her job and his have been rated equal through job evaluation in effort, skill and decision. However, if a woman is doing different work from a comparable man, or if the jobs are not covered by a job evaluation study, the woman has at present no right to make a claim for equal pay. This is the gap, identified by the European Court, which we are closing. We are providing for those women to make claims to industrial tribunals, which will be helped by newly appointed experts who will furnish independent reports on whether the jobs compared are in fact of equal value.

    It might be helpful to hon. Members if I summarise the history and background of this amendment. The House will recall the Equal Pay Act 1970—a most progressive measure. Five years later, in 1975, there was promulgated a European Community directive on the principle, and a further four years later, in 1979, the European Community Commission started infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom on the ground that the Equal Pay Act did not provide for equal pay for men and women for work to which equal value was attributed unless that work had already been rated as equivalent under a job evaluation scheme.

    I note that some of my hon. Friends are getting slightly restive already—

    Ms Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)

    Speed it up a hit.

    Mr. Clark

    The speedy bit comes later. The European Court of Justice at Luxembourg gave judgment on 6 July 1982 to the effect that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its treaty obligations because United Kingdom legislation did not contain measures to enable employees, where no system of job classification existed, to obtain ​ equal pay for equal work for men and women. We are therefore required to amend the 1970 Act to comply with the court’s judgment.

    The Government accept the principle of equal pay for men and women and are committed to the full implementation of the European Community directive. We accept the need to amend the Equal Pay Act so as to close the small gap between the directive and the Act found by the European Court.

    The European Communities Act 1972 provides a means to do this swiftly and efficiently by regulations, the draft of which we are discussing tonight.

    We circulated draft regulations for comment in February. In drawing up that draft, we sought to retain the existing structure of the Equal Pay Act and machinery for deciding cases while making provision for the assessment of the value of work where no job evaluation had been undertaken, thereby bringing the Equal Pay Act into full compliance with the European Equal Pay directive as required by the court judgment.

    The draft that we circulated in February provided, as does this one, that a woman is entitled to equal pay with a man in the same employment not only in the circumstances laid down in the current Act—where she is employed on work which is “like” or already “rated as equivalent” under a study—but also where her work is of equal value to a man’s in terms of the demands made on her.

    Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

    I am sure that my hon. Friend understands, as I do, that we joined the European Community so that we could trade with our partners in the European Community. Why do we have this nonsense tonight? What have the regulations to do with trading? Why must we put up with this rubbish?

    Mr. Clark

    I do not think that my hon. Friend has fully comprehended the scope of our commitment to the European Community, which is set out in the treaty of Rome, and on which subject we do from time to time have the benefit of his views. I hope that if he should catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will hear those in extended form later.

    Where a claim for equal pay arises under the new equal value provision, the draft regulations provide for the industrial tribunal to commission a report from an independent expert on whether the jobs are of equal value. The experts are to be appointed by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, to which I shall henceforth refer as ACAS.

    Three specific areas in the February draft were criticised, and as a result we have made changes. The criticisms came from the Equal Opportunities Commission, to which I shall continue to refer as the Equal Opportunities Commission and not as the EOC.

    Mr. Michael Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)

    Get on with it.

    Mr. Clark

    Does the hon. Gentleman want me to abbreviate the text or to speak more rapidly?

    First, in the February draft the burden of proving sex discrimination in pay was placed on the woman. We did this because we were anxious to emphasise that a claim should be brought for equal pay for work of equal value only if sex discrimination was involved. On reflection, however, we felt this was unnecessary and what was ​ needed instead was a provision for employers to be able to argue in appropriate cases that sex discrimination was not involved. I shall explain later precisely what provision we have made for this.

    The second area in which there was criticism of the February draft was a provision that people already covered by a job evaluation scheme could not bring a case under the new equal value provision. We introduced this limitation because the European Court judgment did not suggest that we needed to enable people whose job had already been evaluated to make a claim. However, representations were made to us by the Equal Opportunities Commission and others that the exclusion of people whose jobs have been evaluated would be contrary to the European equal pay directive.

    We appreciate that the fact of creating a new provision to claim equal pay for work of equal value may highlight the difficult position of people whose jobs have been evaluated but who feel that there may have been sex discrimination—particularly indirect sex discrimination — in the evaluation itself. With that in mind, we decided on this point alone to go further than the European Court judgment required and provide that employees whose jobs had already been evaluated might have a claim considered under the new provision on the ground of sex discrimination in the original job evaluation study. Regulation 3(1) of the draft regulations gives effect to that.

    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

    Would it be possible for my hon. Friend to take time off from dealing with these regulations to take a rapid reading course?

    Mr. Clark

    I am surprised at my hon. Friend’s intervention. I feel that it is desirable that the House should be able to digest what is an exceedingly complex matter.

    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

    Certainly, but a little faster, please.

    Mr. Clark

    I know that my hon. Friend has a capacity to absorb data at a speed greater than some other hon. Members, but in the general interest of the House I will, for the time being, retain my existing pace.

    Ms Clare Short

    Does the hon. Gentleman believe in what he is saying? If not, is he not demeaning the office of a Minister of the Crown? Does he feel it right that he should stand at the Dispatch Box acting the part, just reading out words? He should either mean what he says or resign.

    Mr. Clark

    I applaud the hon. Lady’s sentiments. When she has been here longer she will appreciate that a certain separation between expressed and implied beliefs is endemic among those who hold office.

    Ms Short

    Disgraceful.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

    Order.

    Mr. Clark

    I regret that the atmosphere should have been sullied in this way.

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

    We have heard the hon. Gentleman speak from below the Gangway on many occasions. If he feels that it was worth while taking ministerial office, he should put the ​ Government’s view that they, and he, believe in equal pay, and if he believes in equal pay, he should speak about it with enthusiasm and not in the manner in which he is speaking tonight.

    Ms Short

    If not, resign.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. Perhaps we might now return to the regulations.

    Mr. Clark

    Plainly, an assessment of enthusiasm is a completely subjective matter.

    Representations have been made that any delay in implementation must be shown to be reasonably necessary to comply with European law; and in view of the fact that the administrative arrangements can be made within six months, we have decided to advance the date of implementation to 1 January 1984.

    I now summarise the provisions of the draft regulations as laid before the House on 6 July, and inevitably I shall have to go into some technical, legal language, and I hope that the House will bear with me. In deference to the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) I shall accelerate my pace of delivery for this passage. The draft contains regulations which provide that a woman is entitled to equal pay with a man in the same employment—or a man with a woman—where her work is of equal value to a man’s in terms of the demands made on her, for instance, under such headings as effort, skill and decision—regulation 2(1). Where a claim for equal pay is to be determined under the new equal value provision, a tribunal will be able to dismiss an application if it is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for determining that the jobs are of equal value—regulation 3(1).

    Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

    Will the Minister pause and explain the meaning of that last paragraph, because some of us who are skilled in understanding these provisions find it impossible to understand that one? Instead of racing through it, will he pause long enough to say what he believes it means, as presumably he is inviting the House to accept it? Will he remember that he is dealing with a matter which some of us regard with great concern?

    Mr. Clark

    I welcome so early a revelation of the fact that when one tries to please an hon. Friend one immediately offends an Opposition Member. I had hoped to disarm criticism on the Government Benches, but I find that I have aroused it on the Opposition Benches. I shall settle for a median rate of delivery between the two extremes.

    If the tribunal is satisfied that there are no such grounds, it will dismiss the application.

    Mr. Janner

    What does it mean?

    Mr. Clark

    The hon. Gentleman—

    Mr. Janner

    Honourable and learned.

    Mr. Clark

    The hon. and learned Gentleman corrects me, using the very adjective that I was about to choose to suggest that his mastery of such language doubtless exceeds my own and that in the fullness of time he will form his own Government.

    The draft regulations explicitly provide that if jobs are already covered by a job evaluation scheme and there is ​ no evidence that that scheme is itself sexually discriminatory, there are no reasonable grounds for the tribunal to let the claim go forward.

    Ms. Clare Short

    On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have read in the newspapers that in the House one is not allowed to accuse another hon. Member of not being sober. However, I seriously put it to you that the Minister is incapable. [HoN. MEMBERS Withdraw.”] It is disrespectful to the House and to the office that he holds for the hon. Gentleman to come here—

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. The hon. Lady ought not to make allegations of that kind. She should withdraw.

    Ms. Short

    I shall not withdraw.

    Hon. Members

    Withdraw.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. The hon. Lady should withdraw the allegation.

    Hon. Members

    Withdraw.

    Ms. Short

    No. I am speaking the truth.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. The hon. Lady should withdraw the allegation.

    Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)

    Name her.

    Ms. Short

    I should be grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean what I say, but I do not understand the rules of the House. How I am allowed to tell the House that I mean it, without being penalised for saying it?

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. I understand how the hon. Lady feels. She has not been long in the House. However, she really ought to withdraw that allegation. It is not permitted to accuse an hon. Member in that way.

    Hon. Members

    Withdraw.

    Ms. Short rose—

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

    On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not permissible for an hon. Member to ask you a question? As I understand it, the hon. Lady did not make an allegation but suggested to you that you should give—

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. I have given the hon. Lady time to consider, and I ask her to withdraw the allegation.

    Ms. Short

    If I am allowed to withdraw when the House understands that I meant what I said, I withdraw.

    Hon. Members

    No.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    I shall accept that as a withdrawal. We should now continue with the debate.

    Mr. Wareing

    On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for any right hon. or hon. Member to address the House if he were drunk?

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    That is a hypothetical question. I think that we should continue with the debate.

    Mr. Clark

    The regulations expressly provide that there shall be taken to be no reasonable grounds for determining that the work of a woman is of equal value if her work has already been given a different value to that ​ of her male comparator on a job evaluation study and there are no reasonable grounds for detenning that the evaluation contained in the study was made on a system that discriminates on grounds of sex.

    The draft regulations provide, in regulation 2(2), that a material factor which is not the difference of sex must, in the case of work which is like or already rates as equivalent, be a material difference between the woman’s case and the man’s. This is a test applied in the current Equal Pay Act. However, in the case of work which it is claimed is of equal value in terms of the demand made on the employees, the regulations provide that the material factor may be, but need not be, such a material difference.

    The purpose of this provision is to enable unequal pay to be justified in situations where the work is of equal value but there is no sex discrimination. We consider that a wider test is required in equal value cases than under the current Act, because “material difference” under current case law has been interpreted as meaning factors personal to the employee concerned, and in these new equal value cases, where the scope for comparison will be much wider than under the current Act, we consider that the scope of the employer’s defence needs to be widened accordingly.

    I shall come back to that point a little later in my speech.

    Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

    In widening the scope of the defence, is the Minister satisfied that he is not undermining the purpose of this legislation, which is intended to bring the law into conformity with a judgment of the European Court?

    Mr. Clark

    The decision to widen the scope was taken after consultation. I shall return to that point shortly, but I think that I am satisfied in that regard.

    To resume my summary of the regulations, if the tribunal is satisfied at this early stage that the employer has shown that the variation in pay is due to a material factor other than sex, it will dismiss the case. Otherwise, the tribunal will commission a report from an independent expert on whether the two jobs in question are of equal value. The independent expert will be drawn from a list of people designated by ACAS. The experts will have experience of industrial relations and the evaluation of jobs, though they will not necessarily be expected to use formal job evaluation in considering the value of the two jobs in question.

    The expert will report to the tribunal on the value of the jobs and the tribunal will make a decision on equal value, taking such account of the expert’s report as it considers appropriate. If the tribunal decides that the jobs are of equal value, and unless at this stage the employer can show that the variation is due to a material factor other than sex, the tribunal will award equal pay.

    In addition to the draft regulations whose contents I have just been describing, provision needs to be made in procedure regulations for rules governing the operation of the independent expert and of these cases generally.

    Mr. Marlow rose—

    Mr. Clark

    I shall give way, but because of various interruptions this speech is taking an inordinately long time to make, even by the standards of a full debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot give way indefinitely.

    Mr. Marlow

    I shall be as brief as my hon. Friend has been in giving way. He says that equal pay will be ​ awarded. I assume that that means that the man or woman in question will receive more pay. Does that not mean that the product or service that she is providing is likely to become more expensive? If the product or service becomes more expensive, is there not a possibility that the company for which she works will go bankrupt and that she will lose her employment? Is not my hon. Friend a Minister in the Department of Employment, and is it not his job to secure maximum employment opportunities? If so, why is he introducing this measure?

    Mr. Clark

    It is, of course, true that where wage increases are reflected in the price of the article produced, they may also be reflected in the balance sheet. However, whether that subsequently leads to bankruptcy depends on the individual case.

    In the event that a report is commissioned, we propose to provide for the tribunal to make the necessary request to the expert, for the parties to be sent copies of the expert’s report by the tribunal and for the parties to be able to make representations and produce evidence in respect of the expert’s report in certain circumstances. The expert would not be open to examination.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

    Full stop.

    Mr. Clark

    Having outlined the legal framework, I should like to say a word or two about the practical effect of these regulations.

    The current Equal Pay Act will, of course, still operate. This means that people doing work which they claim is similar to or already rated as equivalent to work done by a person of the opposite sex may have their claim considered by an industrial tribunal, which will consider their claim and also any defence the employer wishes to make to the effect that the difference in pay is genuinely due to a material difference other than sex.

    As I mentioned earlier, under the current case law the defence of a genuine material difference other than sex has been interpreted to mean factors personal to the employee concerned—for example, merit, qualifications or length of service.
    To take a concrete example, if a woman claims equal pay with a man who is doing the same work but who has worked in the establishment for 15 years longer, the employer is entitled to justify a higher pay for the man on the ground of his length of service, provided this is a genuine reason and not just an excuse for underpaying the woman.

    Under the amending regulations which are the subject of this debate, an employee will be able to bring a claim for equal pay with an employee of the opposite sex working in the same employment on the ground that the work is of equal value. When this happens, conciliation will first be attempted, as in all equal pay claims. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the industrial tribunal will take the following steps. First, it will check that the work is not in fact so similar that the case can be heard under the current Act. Secondly, it will consider whether the jobs have already been covered by a job evaluation scheme and judged not to be of equal value. If this is the case, the claim may proceed only if the original job evaluation scheme is shown to have been sexually discriminatory.

    Having decided that the case should proceed, the tribunal will first invite the parties to see if they can settle ​ the claim voluntarily. If not, the tribunal will consider whether to commission an independent expert to report on the value of the jobs. It will not commission an expert’s report if it feels that it is unreasonable to determine the question of value — for example, if the two jobs are quite obviously of unequal value. Nor, as I have already explained, will it commission an expert’s report if the employer shows at this stage that inequality in pay is due to material factors other than sex discrimination.

    Mr. Janner rose—

    Mr. Clark

    I have given way twice to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might be interesting if he develops his theme at greater length.

    Let me here digress for a moment on the intention of this “material factors” provision, to which I said I would return. The draft regulations specifically provide that in these equal value cases the defence of material factors may go wider than the current defence of material difference other than the difference of sex.

    What we have in mind are circumstances where the difference in pay is not due to personal factors between the man and the woman, but rather to skill shortages or other market forces. If a man is paid more than a woman for work of equal value because his skills are in short supply, this is not sexually discriminatory, provided the reason is genuine and the employer can show this.

    Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham)

    The Minister mentioned market value as a material factor which could deny a woman her equal pay claim. Does he not recognise that the market awards higher pay to a man than it does to a woman because of the undervaluation of women’s work in the market? The Minister will be providing a complete let-out if he allows market value as a way of excluding equal pay.

    Mr. Clark

    Market values on their own cannot operate in that way. What is true is that the market in some cases assesses women higher than men. I feel that it is safe to rely on the market, particularly as more women enter employment and their special skills become apparent in a wider area.

    If a man is paid more than a women for work of equal value because his skills are in short supply, that is not sexually discriminatory, provided that the reason is genuine and the employer can show that. In making this provision, we have had regard to the reality that pay is not determined just by the demands made on the worker. At the same time, it must be possible for a woman to get equal pay if there is no good reason for the difference in pay other than sex discrimination.

    I return to the procedure that will operate. If a tribunal considers that a claim of equal pay for work of equal value is clearly not going to succeed, either because the work is obviously not of equal value or because the employer has shown material factors unrelated to sex, the tribunal will dismiss the case. Otherwise, it will commission a report from an independent expert on the value of the jobs. Once the experts have reported, the tribunal will copy the report to the parties and at the subsequent hearing the parties will be able to make representations about the report, though not to cross-examine the expert. The tribunal’s task will be to come to a decision on equal value in the light of the report.

    Ms. Harman

    Will the Minister give way?

    ​Mr. Clark

    I have just given way to the hon. Lady. I am greatly looking forward to hearing her speech if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are nearly at the end.

    If the tribunal finds the work to be of equal value, and comes to the view that there are no genuine material factors other than sex justifying the inequality of pay, it will make an award of equal pay. an award may be backdated to two years, as is the case in the current Act, but no backdating before the new regulations come into force will be possible. That means that, as the regulations will come into force on 1 January 1984, that full award of two years’ back pay will not be possible until 1 January 1986.

    Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

    What my hon. Friend is reading out is of enormous complexity. Bearing in mind that just before the Dissolution his predecessor came to the Select Committee on Employment to give advance warning of this measure, would it not be more sensible for there to be a delay before implementation, so that the Select Committee, when it is set up, can examine not only the complexity of what my hon. Friend is reading out but its impact on British industry? We should have a proper inquiry before we rush into this complicated measure.

    Mr. Clark

    Alas, the manner in which the regulations are submitted and verified is not for me. There may be an implied reproach in my hon. Friend’s reference to my reading my speech, but as he has been in the Chamber throughout he will appreciate that the complexities are such that it can be presented only by copious reference to the printed word.

    Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

    There are considerable difficulties for the Minister and the House. He said that the matter could be understood only by copious reference to the printed word. It would have been much easier if the House had had a chance to read his speech before he delivered it.

    In all seriousness, if we are to make a measured judgment, which has been made somewhat difficult by the interruptions of Opposition Members, would it not be to the advantage of the House and the good name of Parliament if hon. Members had a chance to read the speech and make a decision on it later?

    Mr. Clark

    To make a measured judgment requires a high level of concentration.

    I hope that it will be apparent from what I have said that our aim has been to implement the European Court judgment sensibly and quickly, having regard to the need to comply with European law and at the same time safeguard employers against having to give equal pay where there is no sex discrimination.

    We have responded to criticisms from the Equal Opportunities Commission and others and the draft regulations incorporate amendments which have been made as a result of comment and discussions during the consultative period.
    I commend the regulations to the House.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on the Fire Safety Bill

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on the Fire Safety Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Labour MP for Torfaen, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2020.

    I thank the Security Minister for his speech and his welcome. I shadowed him briefly in a previous role over recent months, and I look forward to working with him on issues of national interest.

    In our deliberations today, at the forefront of our minds are the 72 people who lost their lives and the more than 70 who were injured in the terrible tragedy of Grenfell on 14 June 2017. All of us in this House and, indeed, the whole country will remember where we were when we first saw those devastating scenes in west London. It was one of the most heart-wrenching tragedies we can all imagine, and what made it unbearable was the fact that the event that unfolded was wholly preventable. It is and always will remain a stain on our national conscience. For those who escaped, for the emergency services at the scene and for all the family, the friends and the wider community, the events of that awful day will live with them forever.

    The fact that such a tragedy could happen in one of the wealthiest boroughs in one of the wealthiest countries in the world shines a piercing light on the inequality in modern Britain and the many ways in which it manifests itself. Over the course of this debate, we will, of course, discuss the legislation, the numbers and the finance, but at the heart of it, we must always remember first and foremost that this is about people, and most strikingly, those who lost their lives and those who managed to escape but will live forever with the memories of that night. That is why people will rightly look to this House for not just words but action.

    Getting the Bill right is vital, not just to address the failings so horrifically exposed by Grenfell but to guard against similar incidents—incidents that may appear unlikely or unimaginable today, but could be all too real ​in future. Labour Members support the Bill, but we urge the Government to go further and faster on fire safety so that there are no more Grenfell Tower tragedies and people are kept safe and secure in their own homes.

    In October, we welcomed the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, which addresses the events of the night itself: when the fire began, when the first 999 call was made, at six minutes to one in the morning, and when the first firefighters reached the tower, five minutes later. We await phase 2 of the inquiry and its investigation into the broader causes, but we already know from the first phase report how it happened. The report says:

    “Once the fire had escaped from Flat 16, it spread rapidly up the east face of the tower. It then spread around the top of the building in both directions and down the sides until the advancing flame fronts converged on the west face near the south-west corner, enveloping the entire building in under three hours.”

    The report also sets out that there is

    “compelling evidence that the external walls of the building failed to comply with…the Building Regulations 2010, in that they did not adequately resist the spread of fire having regard to the height, use and position of the building. On the contrary, they actively promoted it.”

    It continues:

    “It is clear that the use of combustible materials in the external wall of Grenfell Tower, principally in the form of the ACM rainscreen cladding, but also in the form of combustible insulation, was the reason why the fire spread so quickly to the whole of the building.”

    Given the particular focus on the actions of the London Fire Brigade at the scene in the first phase report, recommendations made to the fire service should be given the full response that they require. At the same time, while recognising what the first phase report says and learning the lessons, we continue to pay tribute to the heroic actions of firefighters in our country every day, including on the night of the Grenfell Tower fire, when so many put themselves at serious risk to save the Grenfell Tower residents. We will continue to press the Government to give all survivors the support that they need, to bring those culpable to justice, and to put in place every measure needed to prevent a fire such as Grenfell from ever happening again.

    As the Security Minister said, the Bill’s provisions clarify that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to external walls, including cladding, balconies and windows, and individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. Responsible persons will need to ensure that they have assessed the fire safety risks of the relevant premises and have taken the necessary fire precautions, with fire and rescue authorities having enforcement powers, including the ability to remove cladding and to put in place prohibitions until changes are made. However, we have to be absolutely clear who the responsible persons are and allow nobody—owners or anyone else—to shirk their responsibilities under the Bill.

    Although those powers are welcome, they are clearly not enough in themselves to meet the Government’s pledge to prevent another tragedy from happening. Clause 2 gives the Government powers to make further changes through secondary legislation, and the Government have said that that will provide a foundation to take forward recommendations. The Government have said they will launch a consultation on the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in spring 2020, and that that ​will include proposals for implementing the Grenfell Tower phase 1 report recommendations, which will be delivered via secondary legislation.

    However, the Government have not given a timetable for when they will deliver those recommendations through secondary legislation. They must do so urgently. There is an urgent need for the fire safety measures recommended, and that urgency must be reflected in the actions of Ministers. Indeed, almost three years after Grenfell, this three-clause Bill is the first and only piece of primary legislation on fire safety that the Government have put before the House.

    The Bill does not include provisions for the inquiry’s recommendations. The Government had already promised, in October 2019, to implement the inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay. The 2019 Conservative manifesto repeated that commitment, but even the simpler recommendations, such as the inspection of fire doors and the testing of lifts, are not in the Bill. Long-overdue reforms of building safety are also not included in the legislation—they are to be in a separate building safety Bill. The Security Minister indicated that the draft version of that Bill would appear before the summer, but that process still needs to be moved forward as quickly as it possibly can be. He should clarify when it will appear in final form.

    The House cannot escape the way in which the inquiry report was repeatedly critical of the Government: for the failure to remove ACM cladding from other blocks; for not funding the fire service efficiently to be properly equipped; for failing to publish national guidelines on the evacuation of tall buildings; and for ignoring recommendations to retrofit sprinklers in social housing blocks in the years leading up to the Grenfell tragedy.

    The Bill will require a higher level of inspection and enforcement and will increase the workload on fire and rescue services. There has to be clarity about the funding to carry out such work. The Fire Brigades Union has said today that there are 1,100 fire-safety inspectors left; there have to be more to carry out the duties in the Bill. Between 2010 and 2016, the fire and rescue services were cut centrally by 28% in real terms, with a further cut of 15% by 2020. That led to 12,000 fewer firefighters—20% of the whole service.

    As Mayor of London, the Prime Minister was responsible for deep cuts. An independent review by Anthony Mayer found that in the eight years of the Prime Minister’s mayoralty, the London Fire Brigade was required to make gross savings of more than £100 million, leading to the cutting of 27 fire appliances, 552 firefighters, 324 support staff, two fire-rescue units and three training appliances, along with the closure of 10 fire stations and a reduction of fire rescue unit crewing levels.

    Grenfell was not the first fire in a high-rise block of flats that resulted in loss of life. In 2013, coroners wrote to Ministers about two separate fires: in Camberwell in 2009, in which six people died; and in Southampton in 2010, in which two firefighters died. The coroners’ letters included clear points of criticism and recommendations, important parts of which—including recommendations to retrofit sprinklers in high-rise housing blocks and to urgently overhaul building regulations—were either rejected or ignored. Letters were sent to the then Housing Minister by the all-party group on fire safety and rescue, with the last sent just 26 days before the tragedy.​

    An issue that must be recognised is the reaction to the Grenfell fire, with the Government not acting swiftly enough to remove Grenfell-style cladding from tower blocks and a failure to support residents with interim safety costs. To give an example, waking watches, when fire wardens patrol residences, can cost residents £10,000 or more for very short periods of time.

    Coronavirus is an unprecedented challenge and I recognise what the Security Minister said about action continuing where it can and the crisis that we are currently in. We of course recognise that it absolutely changes working patterns, but it cannot ever be an excuse for failing to take strong and swift action on the removal of cladding, because 60,000 worried residents are still living in buildings wrapped in cladding that needs to be replaced. Almost nine in 10 private sector buildings and half of social sector buildings have not had cladding removed.

    The Security Minister will, I am sure, remember setting a deadline of the end of 2019 for social sector blocks to be made safe, and of June 2020 for private sector blocks—a deadline that now looks likely to be missed. In addition, the Government have yet to publish their findings from the audit of how many buildings are covered with dangerous non-ACM cladding, such as high-pressure laminate. I urge the Minister to make that audit’s findings, which I understand were available at the end of March, fully available as soon as possible.

    After Grenfell, the Government accepted that there were flaws in the building safety regime and commissioned the Hackitt review, as the Security Minister said. That was published in May 2018. The Government accept that they did not go far enough. That led to the ban on combustible cladding in November 2018 and the restrictions on desktop studies. As I have indicated, the Government have yet to publish that primary legislation. While the draft will be available in the summer, as the Security Minister said, the process must be faster.

    Labour will look to improve the Bill during its passage through Parliament. I urge the Government to have an open mind in the short Committee stage they have allocated and to give reassurance on a timetable for the measures they intend to take. Anything less than that would be a breach of promise to those who were lost and every person affected by the terrible tragedy of Grenfell, which none of us wants to see ever happen again.

    I will conclude by taking a moment to pay tribute to all those who were impacted by the Grenfell tragedy and the remarkable community efforts that grew up and have been maintained to support people. In this, the most awful of incidents, we also saw the very best in people. I commend the work that they have done campaigning for justice.

  • James Brokenshire – 2020 Statement on the Fire Safety Bill

    James Brokenshire – 2020 Statement on the Fire Safety Bill

    Below is the text of the statement made by James Brokenshire, the Minister for Security, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2020.

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

    Almost three years have passed since the tragic events on the night of 14 June 2017. It was the greatest loss of life following a residential fire since the second world war. None of us will ever forget the events of that terrible night, and the Government are resolute in their commitment to ensure that they are never repeated. Those 72 people should never have lost their lives. Our thoughts today are very much with the victims’ families, survivors and fellow residents, who have had to rebuild their lives over the past three years.

    I know from my time as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government the profound effect the events have had on the Grenfell community, but also that community’s sense of purpose and its clear demands for justice and change. I have had the privilege to meet survivors and their families, as well as those in the local community who joined together to support them. Those discussions have been humbling and harrowing. They have underlined the responsibility—indeed, the duty—on us to act. The Government will continue to provide support to the affected families and support the creation of a memorial on the site of the tower, a process that is rightly being led by the bereaved and the local community.

    The House has had the opportunity to debate the tragic events at Grenfell Tower on a number of occasions. Despite the unusual circumstances we are operating under today, I have no doubt that we will hear once again many powerful and impactful contributions. There is considerable experience across the House, and we will continue to listen to views from all interested colleagues, as well as working with the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue. I welcome the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) to his new role as shadow Home Secretary. We will continue to engage constructively with him and his team.

    Our home should be a place of safety and security. At a time when we are asking the people of this country to stay at home—indeed, many of us will contribute to this debate from our homes—we are reminded of the overriding importance of people being safe and feeling safe at home, especially in high-rise properties.

    In the days following the terrible tragedy, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced that there would be a full independent inquiry, led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, to get to the bottom of what happened on that night and to understand why the building was so dangerously exposed to the risk of fire. Alongside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Home Office commissioned an independent review of building regulations and safety, which was led by Dame Judith Hackitt. Dame Judith’s findings have underpinned our unprecedented programme of building and fire safety reform. We are resolute in our commitment to ​delivering on them, and significant steps have already been taken to address building safety and fire safety risks.

    Where a fire and rescue service has been advised of a high-rise residential building with aluminium composite material cladding, the National Fire Chiefs Council is confident that that building has been checked by the local fire and rescue service and, where appropriate, additional interim measures have been put in place to ensure the safety of residents. The Government have established a fire protection board, chaired by the National Fire Chiefs Council, to provide oversight of the programme to ensure that all high-rise residential buildings are inspected or reviewed by the end of 2021; £10 million has been allocated to support the fire and rescue service in this endeavour.

    In December 2018, the use of combustible materials on new high-rise homes was banned, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in this year’s Budget that the Government will provide £1 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems for both the social and private residential sectors on buildings of 18 metres and above. The prospectus for this new building safety fund will be published in May and open for registrations soon after. The funding is an addition to the £600 million we have already made available to ensure the remediation of the highest-risk ACM cladding of the type that was in place on Grenfell Tower.

    In January, MHCLG issued specific advice for building owners on assurance and assessment and how to ensure fire doors meet appropriate fire safety standards. We have pushed owners and local authorities hard to identify and remediate unsafe buildings. We work closely with local fire authorities and fire and rescue services to ensure that interim safety measures are in place in all buildings until the cladding is replaced, but there is an urgent need for remediation to progress, even at this challenging time, recognising the continuing risks and the financial burdens on leaseholders in maintaining waking watches. I therefore want to be clear that remediation work can and should continue wherever it can be done safely—wherever it can, whenever it can.

    It is critical that this work continue, and to help support that we have published information for industry and stakeholders on the gov.uk website on how to ensure sites can operate appropriately under the current restrictions. We have also appointed a firm of construction consultants to provide specific advice for those carrying out cladding remediation work.

    While the focus of much of our activity has been high-rise residential buildings, it is important to stress that our work rightly goes far beyond that. To support the protection work targeting other high-risk buildings. the Home Office will be providing fire and rescue services with a further £10 million to help deliver protection work within their communities.

    While talking about essential work within communities, at this time of incredible national challenge I want to use this opportunity to recognise, and pay tribute to, the essential role fire and rescue services are playing in our response to the coronavirus pandemic. In addition to their core duties, fire and rescue services have around 4,000 volunteers working to support ambulance services, coroners and local communities, as well as helping the vulnerable and those isolated at this incredibly difficult time. I want ​to thank firefighters and staff up and down the country for their incredible service, their dedication to duty and their desire to help others where they can, and for the incredible difference that is making.

    The Queen’s Speech committed the Government to bringing forward two Bills on fire and building safety. The first is this short, technical, Home Office-led Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The second, the building safety Bill, led by MHCLG, will put in place an enhanced safety framework for high-rise residential buildings, taking forward the recommendations from Dame Judith’s review. The purpose of the Bill before the House today is to clarify that the fire safety order applies to the external walls, including cladding and balconies, and individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. The fire safety order requires responsible persons, often building owners or managers, to assess the risk from fire, to put in place fire precautions so far as reasonably practicable to keep premises safe, and otherwise to comply with the requirements of the order. The order does not apply to domestic premises, except in limited circumstances.

    The Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report found compelling evidence that the external walls of the tower were not compliant with building regulations. In January this year, the independent expert advisory panel on building safety set up by the Government shortly after the Grenfell fire published its consolidated advice. That includes advice on measures that building owners should take to review ACM and other cladding systems to assess and assure their fire safety and the potential risks to residents of the spread of external fire.

    We have established that there are differing interpretations of the provisions in the order as to whether external walls and, to a lesser extent, individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings are in scope of the order. For that reason, we submit that the Bill is a clarification of the fire safety order. It will apply to all multi-occupied residential buildings regulated by the order. The current ambiguity is leading to inconsistency in operational practice. That is unhelpful at best and, at worst, it means that the full identification and management of fire safety risks is compromised, which can put the lives of people at risk.

    Twenty flats in Barking were destroyed in June 2019 when a fire spread from a wooden balcony. Richmond House was a four-storey timber-framed block of flats in Worcester Park that burnt down in September. Only last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) highlighted a further significant fire in her constituency. Such fires are stark reminders of how a conflagration can spread on the external envelope of a building, and why those risks need to be identified or mitigated.

    The Bill will therefore ensure that, when the responsible person makes a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks, it takes account of the structure, external walls, balconies and flat entrance doors in complying with the fire safety order, and allows enforcement action to be taken confidently by fire and rescue authorities. That will complement existing powers that local authorities have under the Housing Act 2004.​

    The Grenfell inquiry’s phase 1 report, published last October, provided a comprehensive picture of what happened on the night of 14 June 2017. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at the time of publication, the Government accepted in principle all of the 14 recommendations addressed to the Government directly.

    For high-rise residential buildings, the inquiry’s recommendations included new duties on building owners and managers: to issue information to the fire and rescue services; to ensure that there are premises information boxes; to carry out regular inspections of lifts; and to ensure that building floor numbers are clearly marked. For all multi-occupied residential buildings, the inquiry also called for new duties for regular checks of fire doors.

    The objective is to ensure that fire and rescue services can plan for and respond to a fire in a high-rise residential building, alongside overall fire safety benefits for residents. As we said in our initial response to the report, we are committed to working closely with other organisations to ensure that the right changes are brought about to protect the public.

    The Bill will also provide the firm foundation on which the Government will bring forward secondary legislation to enact those recommendations. Our proposals will be the subject of public consultation, to be published in the coming months. The consultation will also set out proposals to ensure that the fire safety order continues to regulate fire safety effectively in all the premises it covers, as part of the ongoing improvements to building safety following our 2019 call for evidence on the order.

    The Bill will give the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to amend or clarify the list of premises that fall within scope of the fire safety order. That will enable us to respond quickly to any further developments in the design and construction of buildings and our understanding of the combustibility and fire risk of construction products.

    As the order and therefore the Bill relate to matters within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly, the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government in the Welsh Assembly has confirmed that she will put the matter before the Assembly for a legislative consent motion.

    I am aware that the provisions of the Bill will require potentially significant numbers of responsible persons to review and update their fire risk assessments. For many, that will require specialist knowledge and the expertise of the fire risk assessor. We are working with representatives of the sector to understand the particular challenges in delivery. That will inform our approach to the implementation of the Bill, while maintaining a clear and consistent approach to fire risk assessments. In any event, and in line with the independent expert advisory panel’s consolidated advice, I would none the less encourage those with responsibilities to carry out a fire risk assessment under the order as a matter of good practice and to consider flat entrance doors and external wall systems as part of their fire risk assessment for multi-occupied residential blocks as soon as possible, if they have not already done so.

    As I have highlighted, there is further legislation to follow. Following the 2019 consultation, the building safety Bill will put in place an enhanced safety framework ​for high-rise residential buildings. It will establish a new system to oversee the performance of building control functions, with stronger enforcement and sanctions, and give residents a stronger voice in the system, ensuring that their concerns are never ignored. That Bill will be published in draft form before the summer recess.

    We will also establish a new national building safety regulator within the Health and Safety Executive. The new regulator will be responsible for implementing and enforcing a more stringent regulatory regime for high-rise residential buildings, as well as providing wider oversight of safety and performance.

    The Fire Safety Bill complements all the actions that we have taken to date. It demonstrates that we are applying the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy and will continue to do everything within our power to ensure the safety of people in their homes. While legislation alone can never provide all the answers, I believe that it will make a significant and lasting contribution to the safety of residents. It will provide a catalyst to drive the culture change that is needed within our building and construction sector to put safety and security at the forefront and provide responsibility and accountability where people fall short. Above all, it will help to provide the legal foundations to ensure that such a tragedy can never happen again. I commend the Bill to the House.