UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Luke Pollard – 2020 Speech on Flooding

    Below is the text of the speech made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in the House of Commons on 4 March 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That this House notes the damage caused by Storms Ciara, Dennis and Jorge and expresses thanks to workers from the Environment Agency, emergency services, local councils and volunteers; and calls for Ministers to set up an independent review into the floods, including the Government’s response, the adequacy of the funding provided for flood defences and prevention, difficulties facing homes and businesses with getting insurance and what lessons need to be learnt in light of the climate emergency and the increased likelihood of flooding in the future.

    It is a pleasure to move this motion on flooding on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Flooding has devastated our communities after three successive storms—Ciara, Dennis and Jorge—each compounding and deepening the damage caused by the storm that preceded it. I start by paying my respects to those who lost their lives as a result of these storms. I also thank all those involved in mitigating and fighting the floods: our fire and rescue service, police, local councils, the Environment Agency, and all who have helped to protect homes and businesses, rescue people and animals from rising flood waters, and reinforce flood defences. The motion thanks them for their service.

    The motion also pays tribute to the work of the BBC in keeping communities informed about flooding incidents, diversions and emergency measures. BBC local radio, in particular, but BBC Online as well, have been invaluable lifelines to those communities under water. I hope the Secretary of State will add his voice to mine in thanking them when he gets to his feet.

    It would be very easy to dismiss the recent flooding as a freak accident, an act of God, and leave it at that, but we need to take a difficult step and recognise that more could have been done. As the climate crisis produces more severe weather more often, we will be having more flooding more often, so we need to learn the lessons.

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    As the climate emergency produces more and more flooding, so flooding will become more frequent, and yet the resources for the Environment Agency have been severely cut over the last decade. Does the hon. Member agree we need long-term, not just short-term, funding for the Environment Agency?

    Luke Pollard

    The hon. Member pre-empts my speech. It is important that we have a long-term plan for flooding with long-term funding attached to it so that we can protect communities at risk of flooding.

    We know that more could have been done to ensure that our fire and rescue services were fully equipped to deal with this national emergency; that more could have been done to put in place long-term flood defences; and that more could have been done to slow down the impact of the climate emergency.

    ​Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)

    I recently visited a natural flood management project in the Wychwoods, in my constituency, a partnership project with local councils, Wild England and many others, involving flood diversion, wildlife creation, habitat, leaky dams and so forth. It has been very valuable in protecting the villages of the Wychwoods. Is this something we could see much more of elsewhere?

    Luke Pollard

    Having more natural solutions to flooding is part of the solution; it is not the sole solution, but it is a very important part, and I will come on to that in a moment.

    Our motion makes a very simple ask—one that I am amazed but not surprised that Ministers are running from: that we have an investigation to learn the lessons from the floods, an investigation that will seek to protect more homes and businesses in the future, an investigation that will look at the difficulties people encounter in buying affordable insurance for their homes and businesses and in receiving timely pay-outs, an investigation into what measures are required from Government to fund flood protections and upstream catchment management measures and to resource emergency responses.

    When choosing the wording of the motion, the Opposition had two choices: we could have chosen wording that went hard on a part-time Prime Minister who was missing in action throughout the floods, a part-time Prime Minister who refused to call a Cobra meeting and unlock the scale of funding necessary for flooded communities, a part-time Prime Minister who failed to show national leadership when it was required; or we could choose wording that could unify the House in a sensible effort to learn the lessons, calmly and sincerely, from this disastrous series of floods. Labour chose to rise above that partisan debate, which is why every single Member of the House should feel able to support our motion. How is learning the lessons from an incident—in a review of what actions took place, what actions did not work as well as was hoped and of where improvements could be made—not a sensible and proportionate step to take after a national emergency such as the recent floods?

    Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)

    I represent the most flood prone constituency in the country—my constituents are presently under 400 million cubic metres of water. How does the hon. Member envisage this inquiry working with the section 19 inquiries already commenced in my area and in many other flooded areas, given that their purpose is to determine exactly those things.

    Luke Pollard

    There will be local inquiries and there will be different agencies looking at their own responses, but we need an overarching investigation into the whole response—the consequences of austerity, the flood prevention measures that could and should be taken, the fact that flooding will become more frequent, and so on. That is what is on the table in the motion today and what I hope hon. Members on both sides will vote for.

    Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)

    In light of the fact that places such as the Calder Valley have had three 100-year floods in the last seven and a half years, ​does the hon. Member not think that another review would only cost more money and waste more time? We need action. We already have this information. We know exactly what happened in the floods. We had four times the monthly average rainfall in 24 hours.

    Luke Pollard

    I agree we need action, but it was action we did not get during the floods. It was action we required from the Prime Minister to call a Cobra meeting that we did not get. It was action to unlock the necessary funding that we did not get. I agree we need action and hope he will support this motion so that we get a lessons learned review that helps Ministers to make better decisions next time and get the action he desperately wants.

    The review we are asking for would look at how we learn lessons as a country, how the Government learn lessons and how the work and innovations of local communities can be recognised, but the Government’s amendment seeks to do only one thing: not learn the lessons of the flooding. It would delete the lessons learned review and silence the voices of flooded communities. I want the voices of those communities under water heard in the review we are proposing. I want to hear from the small business owners in Telford whose shops have been flooded about the difficulties they face replacing stock when insurance companies refuse to insure them. I want to hear from the farmers next to the River Severn who fear that their crops will have been destroyed by the water damage in their fields. I want to hear from the homeowners in west Yorkshire who have yet again had to wash dirty water from their homes, wash the smell of sewage from their homes, replace their furniture and carpets and worry about whether the insurance will pay out and how much the premiums will be next year, if they are to be covered at all. I want to hear the voices of the emergency services who have had their numbers cut and cut again by years of Tory austerity. I want to hear from the Welsh coal mining communities who are now living in fear of a landslide from water-sodden spoil tips.

    I want to hear from all of them in this review, and yet Ministers have proposed an amendment that says they will not have a lessons learned review, will not look at what worked well and what did not, and will not ask communities what works for them. Every Tory MP who votes against our motion will be doing something very simple: refusing to listen and learn the lessons of the flooding and refusing to improve their response to flooding in a calm and independent manner. Those under water communities, many of which are represented by Conservative MPs, will wonder what happened to their Members of Parliament. When given an opportunity to get the voice of those communities heard, they will have decided to turn against that—that is not leadership.

    Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)

    The hon. Member talked about the role of insurance companies. I chair the all-party group on insurance and financial services and work quite closely with Flood Re. Since it was launched in 2016, Flood Re has been a great example of the Government and the insurance industry working together: 300,000 more properties have now been insured and four out of five properties with previous flood claims can now get insurance at half the price it ​was before. I am sure he will welcome that fact. It is a great example of the Government working with the industry to help solve this problem.

    Luke Pollard

    Flood Re has resulted in some improvements—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but it does not insure homes or provide cover for homes built since 2009, and he will know that it does not include support for small businesses, so there are huge holes in the scheme that need to be filled. We need a scheme that works. At the moment, Flood Re is not delivering as was originally intended for all affected communities. The Government are carrying out a review of the Flood Re scheme, and I urge Ministers to encourage it to report quickly, because we need the Flood Re scheme to work properly to ensure that there are no gaps in it.

    The reason that we are calling for a review today is that the flood waters will, we hope, soon subside and the camera crews will pack up, but as the media agenda moves on, the damage, disruption and destruction of the floods will remain for those communities that have been affected. It will take many months for those communities to recover, but we know from past floods that it will actually take many years for the damage to be undone, for payments to be received and for the mitigations to be put in place. That is why a lessons learned review is so important.

    We know that the Prime Minister was missing during the floods, but he now has an opportunity to create a lessons learned review to learn the lessons of what has happened. However, he has decided against doing that. We know that the Conservatives’ political choice to implement a programme of brutal austerity over the past 10 years has made the fight against the climate crisis so much harder. The Environment Agency has again and again asked for extra money—£1 billion a year just to mitigate the impacts of floods and defend our communities. We need long-term structural change if we are to combat future floods, including restoring nature in uplands, ending the rotational burning of peatlands, implementing proper catchment area management strategies and building proper flood defences where appropriate. All these changes need genuine funding and a long-term plan.

    But it is not just the Environment Agency that has been cut; our local councils have too, and our fire and rescue services. There is a regional disparity in the cuts for fire and rescue services as well. Across England, 23% of our firefighters have been lost in Tory cuts since 2010, but West Yorkshire, where some of the most severe flooding has happened, has lost over a third of its firefighters in austerity cuts. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) has raised this issue directly with Ministers before, but I would like to invite the Secretary of State to look again at whether fire and rescue services need a statutory duty around flooding, as they have in Scotland and Wales.

    It is also important that we look at the effect of the flooding on our farmers. That includes considering short-term actions such as a derogation of crop diversification and a reinstatement of the farming recovery fund to mitigate the damage that flooding has caused. The Secretary of State came unstuck at the NFU conference and answered concerns about the three-crop rule very poorly, but there is now a genuine opportunity to help ​farmers by using the powers that he already has to support them. In the long term, we need to ensure that our farmland is used sensibly to prevent flooding and to restore the ability to keep more water upstream.

    We also need to recognise the need for change on match-funding. I have raised this matter before. Poorer communities should not be asked to match the same as wealthier communities, because we know that in that situation the wealthier communities have their flood defences funded and the poor ones do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has raised this in relation to her city time and again, but she has still not had a satisfactory answer. The Budget next week is an opportunity for Ministers to fund flood defences properly. I would like to see the Budget used as a climate budget to recognise the true scale of the climate crisis and have funding directed accordingly. I suspect we will not have that, but I hope there will be some mention of flooding. I hope that funding will be directed at those communities that are currently under water and that a long-term plan is put in place in relation to this.

    We have our criticisms of the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, for failing to act with the seriousness that the climate emergency requires, but setting that aside, we have before us in this motion a modest proposal to learn the lessons of the three storms and to conduct an independent review into what happened. We owe it to those communities that are currently under water, those that have been flooded and those that are repairing the damage from the storms to listen to them and to do everything in our power to learn the lessons to ensure that it does not happen again.

    I say to every Tory MP whose communities are under water and who votes against this modest ask that I wish them well on their return to their flooded communities. I wish them well in explaining why a review into the lessons learned will not be happening and why they voted against it. I wish them well in explaining to the people whose homes and businesses were flooded why they are denying them a voice. I wish them well in that, because they have the chance today to vote for such an independent review, and for those flooded communities, that will be a very modest ask as they scrub their floors to clean up the sewage that has come through the pipes, as they repair their homes and as they work out how to restore the stock in their businesses that have been so damaged. For them, this is a modest ask, and it is something that should be supported by everyone in this House. I hope that Tory MPs will reflect on this before they back the Government’s amendment to not learn the lessons of the flooding incidents. I hope that, as a Parliament, we can come together on this. I hope that the warm words that will be no doubt come from the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box in a moment can be added to with the action that is so desperately needed. I commend this Labour motion to the House.

  • Peter Bone – 2020 Speech on New Public Holiday

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Bone, the Conservative MP for Wellingborough, in the House of Commons on 4 March 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for an annual national public holiday on the Friday nearest to 23 June; and for connected purposes.

    I thank my excellent senior parliamentary assistant, Jordan Ayres, for his help with this.

    This public holiday will be called United Kingdom Day. In the recent Queen’s Speech, the Government included an employment Bill, which is intended to

    “Protect and enhance workers’ rights”

    in the UK post Brexit, and one very important issue that the Government should consider when enhancing workers’ rights is that of public holidays. In England and Wales, we have only eight of those each year. We have the lowest number of bank holidays in Europe—Germany has nine; France, Poland and Italy have 11; Greece and Belgium have 12; Austria has 13; Malta has 14; and Cyprus has 17. In the ranking of public holidays throughout the world, the UK is drastically low, at 226th out of 246 countries.

    Given that ours is the fifth largest economy in the world, and given that we have world-leading experts on medical research, financial services, aerospace technology, artificial intelligence, electronic systems and much more, it is time that the Government recognised the tremendous work carried out by British people. If we are serious about wanting to enhance workers’ rights, let us at least create one extra bank holiday. Critics will argue that businesses will have to absorb an extra day of paid leave for their workers, but every four years, owing to the leap year, millions of people up and down the country already work an extra day for free on 29 February.

    I spent more than 30 years in business, and anyone who has run a business knows that its success is down not to them, but to the quality and productivity of their employees. Companies do not succeed by making workers work as for many hours as possible; they succeed if their employees are happy and productive.

    Apart from those in Northern Ireland, there are no bank holidays between May and August, and a bank holiday in June would help to break up that long gap. Workers would have a day off to look forward to, at a time when the weather should be good, which would not only have a positive effect on their health and wellbeing, but be a great boost to their productivity, in turn helping businesses to thrive and prosper.

    There are a number of reasons why the Friday nearest to 23 June each year should be the new bank holiday. First, the second Monday in June is Her Majesty’s official birthday. She is the longest-serving monarch in our history, and this would be a fantastic opportunity to celebrate her service and dedication to our great country. Moreover, the Queen was crowned in June. Throughout the intervening time, she has been a steadfast and devoted monarch. It would be fitting to allow the people of the United Kingdom to celebrate Her Majesty’s birthday, all her wonderful achievements, and the way in which she guides the country through all its highs and lows.​

    Since 2003, 23 June has already been recognised as United Nations Public Service Day, so it is a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic people who work in our public services—those in our national health service, armed forces, police, fire services and schools, and all the many, many others who are unsung heroes. Unfortunately, however, the occasion has barely been recognised in the United Kingdom, and I believe it is time we corrected that. Millions of people devote their lives to public service and make great sacrifices for the good of the country. They deserve our thanks and recognition for their services, and by creating this public holiday, we would be giving them just that.

    Of course, 23 June 2016 was the day on which the United Kingdom voted on our membership of the European Union, in the largest act of democratic participation that the country has ever seen—33,551,983 people voted in the referendum. According to the Office for National Statistics, that figure is higher than that of the whole UK workforce. During the referendum, I worked alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and Councillor Helen Harrison, travelling the length and breadth of the United Kingdom on behalf of the cross-party campaign group Grassroots Out. Whether we were in Glasgow, Newport, Belfast or London, and whether the people whom we met were big Brexiteers or real remainers, the public were energised. Fundamentally, the people of the United Kingdom were engaged. Many felt for the first time that their vote really mattered, and, indeed, many voted for the first time.

    Whether those people felt happy or sad about the outcome, nothing in history has invigorated the country as much as that political debate. The outcome of the vote has changed our relationship with Europe forever. We did not do this through revolution, we did not do it through war, and we did not do it through violence. Millions of people did not lose their lives. Instead, it was done peacefully—it was done through the ballot box. I remember the Cameron Government saying, “The people aren’t interested in the EU,” and, “We should stop banging on about Europe.” How wrong could they be?​

    As for the current Government, they have been quite sniffy about my Bill to create a new bank holiday entitled United Kingdom Day, which has rather surprised and disappointed me. I can understand the former Government’s reservations, as they always saw the UK’s leaving the EU as a duty rather than an opportunity. However, the present Government wholeheartedly believe in it, so my question to them would be, “Why not mark this great democratic event?”

    Finally, why do we not we celebrate our United Kingdom? We do not have a day to do so. Many countries throughout the world celebrate their national day with a public holiday. For example, France has Bastille Day, Canada has Canada Day, Sweden has the National Day of Sweden, and the United States, of course, has Independence Day. However, there is no day in the year on which we celebrate the Union of our four great nations as one United Kingdom. I believe that that should be corrected, and that the people of this country should be able to come together and rejoice as one. I do not believe that there is anyone in our great United Kingdom who does not support either the monarchy, the referendum, our public services, or the Union—surely everyone supports at least one of them—but if there is a handful of people who reject all those things, they can always work on United Kingdom Day.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Mr Peter Bone, Mr John Baron, Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Dr Julian Lewis, Andrew Rosindell, Nigel Mills, Esther McVey, Graham Stringer, Henry Smith, Sammy Wilson and Mr William Wragg present the Bill.

    Mr Peter Bone accordingly presented the Bill.

    Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 101).

  • Andrea Leadsom – 2020 Personal Statement

    Andrea Leadsom – 2020 Personal Statement

    Below is the text of the personal statement made by Andrea Leadsom, the Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, in the House of Commons on 4 March 2020.

    I want to use this personal statement to place on record what an incredible job this is, and to encourage others, particularly women, who are thinking about public service that they really can make a positive difference.

    Since 2010, we have lived through three general elections and three referendums, and I have worked for three different Prime Ministers and even had two tilts at the top job myself. During that time, we have learned a lot. First, there is the value of a punchy catchphrase, from “long-term economic plan”—remember that?—to “take back control” and “get Brexit done”, or as we like to say, “got Brexit done.” But it is the action behind those words that has given us the highest employment there has ever been, a superb Conservative majority, and a free and independent United Kingdom.

    I have also learned the value of knowing exactly what you are voting for. For example, colleagues, if your Whip tells you, as a newbie MP, to go through the Aye Lobby and vote for something called the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, just say no. The House has learned a lot about “Erskine May”, from the precise meaning of “forthwith” to the specific purpose of Standing Order No. 24, and even how a Speaker should vote in the event of a tie. But the key lesson for me has been the importance of focusing on your beliefs and behaving with honour whatever the cost. When I arrived in this place, bright eyed and bushy tailed if not strictly youthful after 25 years in finance, my ambitions were for what I called my three Bs: Brussels, banks and babies.

    Brussels, or Brexit, started out as an enthusiastic attempt to reform the EU from inside. I set up the Fresh Start project with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), with support from 200 colleagues. We set out the case for EU reform, but it soon became clear that that was not on offer, and the rest is history.

    That time coincided with my first ever rebellion against a three-line Whip, as one of 81 Conservatives to vote for a referendum on EU membership, leading to media speculation that I had told the Chancellor, George Osborne, to—if you will forgive me, Mr Speaker—“eff off”. Well, I can assure you that there is only one person to whom I might be tempted to provide such frank advice, and that would not include any former or current Chancellor, and certainly not any current Speaker. [Laughter.]

    My second B, banks, was a personal mission after seeing the damage done by the financial crisis and Labour’s lack of oversight. As a new MP elected to the Treasury Committee, I could hold the banks to account over LIBOR rigging, stop their plans to scrap chequebooks and challenge our brand new rock star Bank of England Governor, as he was described at the time, over quantitative easing and the euro crisis.​

    City Minister was my first job in David Cameron’s Government, working to introduce new pensions freedoms, setting out the ring-fence for banking groups, arranging for the Post Office to provide banking services on the high street, and recovering over £1 billion from the Icelandic Government after the bail-out of Icesave.

    After David Cameron’s excellent win in 2015, I was moved to Energy. With my good friend Amber Rudd as Secretary of State, we rebalanced the needs of the fuel poor with speedy growth in renewables, we announced that coal would come off the grid entirely by 2025, and we kept the lights on through one of the tightest winter energy margins ever. And that was the year of Paris COP21. It is a real source of pride to have joined that global effort to tackle climate change. I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy huge success as COP president when the UK plays host later this year.

    The result of the EU referendum in June 2016 is right up there with England winning the rugby world cup 16 years ago and with the look on John Bercow’s face when I told him to apologise for calling me a stupid woman, but it is a bit behind the happiness of my wedding day. Not surprisingly, the leadership election that followed is also forever etched in my memory. My own part in Brexit was always about doing what I thought was best for the UK. Whatever has been said about it, my decision to withdraw from the final two was to give the country the urgent certainty it needed. I am tempted to say something about a mother, but I am just not going there.

    As the new Environment Secretary in 2016, it was amazing to set up the huge Brexit project in the Department to deliver for farmers and fishing communities the bright future they were promised, to develop the 25-year environment plan, to ban the sale of modern ivory, to create the first ever litter strategy and to introduce CCTV in slaughterhouses. Those are just a few of the highlights.

    Throughout the time I spent in her Cabinet, I fully supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in her determination that Brexit should mean Brexit. During my two years as Leader of the House of Commons after the 2017 election, the challenges of a hung Parliament were so evident right from day one. Delivering pizza was hard enough; delivering Brexit proved nigh on impossible. In spite of that, amazingly we achieved Royal Assent on almost 60 Bills and passed more than 600 pieces of secondary legislation to prepare for Brexit. But like the proverbial swan, while we were gliding on the surface, the business managers were paddling furiously underneath. I pay tribute to each of them and to my superb private office.

    When the harassment and bullying scandal hit Parliament in 2017, I was so proud to pull together the cross-party coalition that devised the independent complaints and grievance scheme, with the clear goals that everyone who works in or visits Parliament should be treated with dignity and respect, and that confidentiality should underpin everything.

    As Leader of the House, I had one of the most beautiful offices in the Palace; its only limitation was the rat living in my waste paper basket. So when a legislative slot appeared for the restoration and renewal Bill, we grabbed it. Preserving this iconic Palace as the seat of our democracy for future generations will be a huge achievement for all those involved, and I wish them success.​

    A long-awaited change that I was so glad to introduce was to give all Members of this House the same right as workers across the country to spend time with their newborn or adopted babies, which we did via a new proxy voting system.

    Which brings me to the third of my three Bs: babies. As many in this House know, better support for the early years is essential to levelling up, to solving health inequalities and to promoting lifelong emotional well- being. In 2011, I launched the “1,001 critical days” campaign with support from every party in the House, many Members of the other place and almost every early years stakeholder. Frank Field, the late Dame Tessa Jowell and the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) always worked on a cross-party basis, and I am grateful to them.

    I set up PIP UK as a charity that would provide support across the country for families struggling with a new baby. I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who took over my early years campaigns and charity responsibilities when I joined the Government. He has done a brilliant job for so many years.

    As Leader of the House, the former Prime Minister asked me to chair an inter-ministerial group looking at early years and how the Government could provide better support. The team spent a year researching existing provision, from health visiting to breastfeeding advice and from talking therapies to parenting groups, and Select Committees held detailed inquiries into the impact of early years experiences on later outcomes. There is no doubt that a focus on this area could be life-changing for millions.

    So resigning as the Leader of the House last summer was a tough decision, driven by my concern that the withdrawal agreement Bill as then proposed, with the potential for a second referendum, would not have delivered our exit from the EU. As Leader of the House, I would have had to bring that Bill forward and I could not in all conscience do so. I was sorry to see the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, the leadership of our country and party once again being challenged by the decision on the EU. No one could have worked harder than her and I feel sure that history will judge her kindly.​

    In the new leadership election, a number of candidates, myself included—supported by my great friends the hon. Members for Daventry and for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler)—sought to offer a way forward for the country, but after defeat in the first round, I gave my wholehearted support to the Prime Minister. I genuinely believe he is the right person to seize the opportunities that await us outside the EU, and it was an honour to serve as Business Secretary in his first Cabinet.

    Brexit readiness was the urgent priority, but setting a new, clear direction for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was top of my agenda. With my ministerial team, we agreed our mission to build a stronger, greener United Kingdom and, to achieve that, our priorities—first, that the UK will lead the world in tackling global climate change; secondly, that we will solve the grand challenges facing our society; and thirdly, that we will quite simply make the UK the best place in the world to work and to grow a business. One key observation I would highlight from my six months in BEIS, and that is that our climate change ambitions are not just about doing the right thing: I believe there is also a huge early mover advantage. UK science and innovation could make the UK green tech sector as big in years to come as UK financial services are today, and I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will seize this opportunity.

    The last general election showed that when people said in 2016 that they wanted to leave the EU, they really did mean it, and I applaud the Prime Minister for his single-minded focus on getting Brexit done. For my own part, I will now focus my attention in Parliament on that third B—babies—and I look forward to renewing my passion for giving every baby the best start in life. When the Prime Minister asked me to step aside, he also gave me his word that he would enable me to take forward the early years work, and I am delighted that the wheels are in motion. I heartily congratulate him and Carrie on their decision to do their own bit of early years research—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister did not write it.

    I will of course continue to work hard for my fabulous South Northamptonshire constituency, and I look forward to spending some more quality time with my family. It has been an incredible 10 years, and it ain’t over yet. There is no greater honour than to serve community and country, and I will continue to do so with pride.

  • Victoria Atkins – 2020 Statement on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Victoria Atkins – 2020 Statement on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the statement made by Victoria Atkins, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2020.

    I am pleased to announce that today the Government will be re-introducing the Domestic Abuse Bill in the House of Commons.​

    This landmark Bill will help better protect and support the victims of domestic abuse and their children and bring perpetrators to justice.

    The measures in the Bill seek to:

    Promote awareness—to put domestic abuse at the top of everyone’s agenda, including by legislating for a statutory definition of domestic abuse, emphasising that domestic abuse is not just physical and sexual violence, but can also be emotional, coercive or controlling, and economic abuse. Statutory guidance will accompany the definition to assist in understanding and dissemination of this important feature of the Bill, including taking account of the fact that the majority of victims of domestic abuse are women.

    Protect and support victims, including by introducing a new domestic abuse protection notice and domestic abuse protection order, and placing a new duty on tier one local authorities in England to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation.

    Transform the justice response, including by helping victims to give their best evidence in the criminal courts through the use of video evidence, screens and other special measures, and ensuring that victims of abuse do not suffer further trauma in family court proceedings by being cross-examined by their abuser.

    Improve performance—the new Domestic Abuse Commissioner will help drive consistency and better performance in the response to domestic abuse across all local areas and agencies.

    The Bill was originally introduced in July 2019 having had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses, chaired by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller). In the Government’s original response to the Joint Committee’s report (CP 137), we undertook to publish a further response addressing the outstanding recommendations; the Government have today published this further response alongside the re-introduction of the Bill (CP 214). Copies of the further response will be available from the Vote Office and it will also be published on the www.gov.uk website.

    Part 2 of the Bill establishes in law the independent office of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. Clause 10 makes provision for a framework document which, in effect, sets out how the Home Secretary and the Commissioner will work together. The document deals with, among other things, matters relating to governance, and the funding and staffing of the Commissioner’s office. To assist the scrutiny of the Bill, I have today published a draft of the framework document which has been agreed with the designate Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs.

    The draft framework document, together with other Bill documents including a revised impact assessment and policy equality statement are available at: https://www. gov.uk/government/collections/domestic-abuse-bill.

  • Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on Prescriptions

    Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on Prescriptions

    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 3 March 2020.

    The National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (“the Amendment Regulations”) will be laid before Parliament to increase certain national health service charges in England from 1 April 2020.

    This year we have increased the prescription charge by 15p from £9 to £9.15 for each medicine or appliance dispensed. The cost of prescription pre-payment certificates (PPC) will also be increased: three-month PPC increases by 55p to £29.65 and 12-month PPC increases by £1.90 to £105.90. The increase is in line with inflation. Charges for wigs and fabric supports will also be increased in line with inflation. Details of the revised charges for 2020-21 can be found in the table below:

    Charge from 1 April 2020

    Prescription Charges

    (£)

    Single Charge

    9.15

    3 Month PPC

    29.65

    12 Month PPC

    105.90

    Surgical Brassiere

    30.05

    Abdominal or Spinal Support

    45.35

    Wigs and Fabric Supports

    Stock Modacrylic Wig

    74.15

    Partial Human Hair Wig

    196.40

    Full Bespoke Human Hair Wig

    287.20

  • Andy Slaughter – 2020 Speech on Hammersmith Bridge

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andy Slaughter, the Labour MP for Hammersmith, in Westminster Hall on 3 March 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered a proposal for Government funding for the repair of Hammersmith Bridge.

    It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. As a fellow London MP, you are no doubt aware of the intricacies of crossing the River Thames.

    It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister in her place with her new brief, given how helpful she was at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the many issues I pestered her with there. I look forward to a favourable response today—I am definitely in buttering-up mode, because I am asking for money.

    In the short time we have for this debate, I will do a tour d’horizon of the history, the life, the engineering and the strategic importance of Hammersmith bridge. At the end, however, to spoil the denouement, we come down to one fact. We know where we are going with the methodology, the necessary works—complex as they are—and what to do about temporary river crossings, and although with most of those issues, we do not have a final timescale or costing, we know the ballpark figures. What we do not have, to put it crudely, is the money.

    We have had £25 million, which has taken us thus far with the works that are necessary to the bridge, but we need a substantial amount more—at least £100 million beyond that. This debate is my pitch, and that of others, so I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) are present. I think they would agree that if this major strategic river crossing and landmark, an important bridge for London, is to be restored, the co-operation will be required of not only the local authorities, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority, but the Department for Transport.

    Baroness Vere is the Minister with direct line of responsibility for the matter, but I am pleased that the Minister present is covering it in the Commons. Since the debate was granted, however, I am grateful that Baroness Vere has agreed to meet me, the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the two borough council leaders most affected on 9 March. I would have loved it if the Minister present had a cheque with her to hand over to me—I would promise to pass it on—but I understand that the discussion is ongoing and may continue at that meeting. Nevertheless, it is useful to set up some of the arguments today, and some of the background, which I will do as briefly as I can.

    In four years’ time, we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Act of Parliament that granted consent for the first suspension bridge over the River Thames. That bridge was constructed at the cost of £80,000 and opened in 1827. I had a look at the debate on Second Reading, and it was a hotly contented matter. Mr Serjeant Onslow opposed the motion in favour of the bridge. He called the Bill “perfectly uncalled for” and said that:​
    “There were already two bridges, Kew-bridge and Putney-bridge, within a mile and a half of the site of the intended bridge, which would lead to a part where there were at present hardly any inhabitants.”

    That is slightly insulting to the people of Barnes who, no doubt, were busily constructing their community even then.

    Sir F. Ommaney spoke in favour of the Bill. He

    “complained strongly of the insecure state of Putney-bridge. Not long since, a friend of his happened to be riding over that bridge, when the fore-feet of his horse sank into a hole, and both horse and rider were placed in a most perilous situation.” —[Official Report, 13 April 1824; Vol. 11, c. 397-98.]

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, for anyone who has driven or walked over Hammersmith bridge in the past few years.

    The bridge we know now, the famous landmark, is the finest of the Thames bridges, although I am obviously prejudiced. It is the work of Joseph Bazalgette, who is perhaps more famous for constructing the London sewer system on which we all still rely today. This bridge was proposed in the 1870s as a consequence of 12,000 people crowding on to the old bridge to watch the boat race, the belief being that it was in danger of collapse. Again, we may have to restrict numbers later this month for the boat race—little seems to change over time. In 1884, a temporary bridge was put up—we are discussing such issues again—until finally the bridge that we all know and love today was erected, on the piers of the original bridge.

    The current bridge opened in 1887, but its piers are still those of the original 1827 bridge. That is relevant today because, had there been a renovation scheme to restore or replace the piers, that might have brought the bridge up to a much heavier standard of weight, allowing many more heavy vehicles to go across it. Again, that would have been a huge additional investment, even beyond the large sums being proposed today—so we will still be using the 1827 piers.

    Most of the rest of the superstructure of the bridge needs substantial replacement. One of the reasons is that over the years Hammersmith bridge has three times been the target of IRA bombing, the first time in April 1939. Again looking at Hansard, I see that a Mr Childs—Maurice Childs, a hairdresser from Chiswick —found the bomb while walking across the bridge and had the foresight to throw it off. It exploded, causing some damage to the bridge but saving the main structure, for which he was awarded an MBE following the debate in Parliament.

    The two more recent examples of bombing were more serious. The 1996 bomb did not detonate—the Semtex did not go off—fortunately, because at the time it was the largest Semtex bomb ever found in Britain and it would have destroyed the bridge had it done so. Four years later, post the Good Friday agreement, the bridge was damaged by a Real IRA bomb planted underneath the Barnes span. That, in part, led to one of the substantial closures of the bridge. Sadly, the post-war history of the bridge has been a succession of closures over time.

    Another debate was held on the 1952 closure, when 13,000 vehicles a day were passing over the bridge—that is slightly more than half the current number—and 2,700 pedal cycles, which I add for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who chairs the all-party group for cycling and walking. In response to the proposed closure, Mr Williams suggested​

    “half closing the bridge or giving the Royal Engineers some practice in building a Bailey bridge across the river”.—[Official Report, 23 June 1952; Vol. 502, c. 1821.]

    Again, we are talking in exactly those same terms now—what the degree of closure needs to be and what temporary bridges need to be put in place. So the 1952 closure was significant. Major refurbishments took place in 1973 and again in 1987. In 1997, an 18-month closure of the bridge was for major works. Following that came the substantial restrictions—down to 7.5 tonnes and a limited number of buses—that have gone on until the present day.

    The point of rehearsing all that ancient history is that this is not new to those of us familiar with the bridge. Hammersmith bridge is in a different category from many other bridges over the Thames. It is a largely cast-iron and wooden structure. There is no other example—I think it is unique in the world in how it is constructed. That makes it rather like Hammersmith flyover which we had a similar problem with some years ago—a unique structure that required major closures, and £70 million of expenditure—and the bridge, too, will need a radical solution. One good thing coming out of the current closure is that everybody is agreed on a way forward: we have to do sufficient work to give the bridge a long life into the future. A further patch-up job, or even further substantive repair jobs of the type done previously, clearly will not work.

    Where are we in the scheme? Thanks to the £25 million that TfL put up when the closure initially happened last April, there has been no impediment to works going forward: the scoping, the planning and feasibility studies defining what is necessary in terms of both the stabilising works and the major works to the bridge. Within a month or two, we will be in a position to let those contracts and to ensure that the work progresses. Although it is taking a substantial amount of time, there is general understanding that it has to be done properly in that way.

    Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a matter of utmost importance in my constituency, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute. While we are considering Government funding to repair Hammersmith bridge, I urge the Minister to consider the difficulties that the bridge closure is causing my constituents in Barnes and further afield. Residents are unable to get to their hospital appointments and face much longer journeys to work. Should the Minister come to Barnes, East Sheen and Mortlake, she would see the appalling congestion being caused. Local businesses tell me that they are suffering reduced takings as a result of the bridge closure.

    TfL is reporting that something in the region of 9,000 daily journeys have now dispersed as a result of the bridge closure. While we welcome fewer cars on the road, we should consider the economic and social opportunity cost of the journeys that are not being made.

    Andy Slaughter

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. One of the ironies is that, while many people are affected by the closure, it is those who need to travel into London from the south, including residents of Barnes and Richmond and those from wider afield—the residents of Brentford and Isleworth, Hammersmith, ​Fulham and Battersea—who are caused additional congestion because of the build-up of traffic going over Putney, Wandsworth and Chiswick bridges.

    Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)

    May I wish you a belated happy birthday, Ms McDonagh? My hon. Friend mentioned the impact on a much wider area than merely Hammersmith borough and Richmond borough. Parts of Hounslow, particularly Chiswick and Brentford, have suffered major congestion since the closure of Hammersmith bridge to vehicle traffic. The economic impact that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) described affects a big area. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to consider the bridge as major infrastructure? I hope they will work with all the local authorities affected, and the MPs, to come to a positive solution.

    Andy Slaughter

    It is no laughing matter for those severely inconvenienced by longer journey times and the changes to their life that have to be made. We take infrastructure such as this for granted; when it breaks down, it causes major problems way beyond the local area or even region.

    There are two matters on which there is clear consensus now. The first is whether the bridge should reopen at least to its previous capacity. I totally understand that cycling and other groups suggest that this could be an opportunity to permanently close the bridge to motor traffic. Analysis by TfL shows that cost-benefit ratio of reopening is 5.8:1, which is very high. Essentially, to relieve the congestion on other river crossings and to make that part of London function again —as much as it ever does in terms of traffic movement—it is a bit of a no-brainer. It is regrettable since we want to promote cycling and walking, and I hope we can hang on to the huge increase in those forms of travel over the bridge. We particularly need bus traffic to be restored, because the bridge is a major bus route, with 24,000 people a day crossing it by bus, as well as more than 20,000 private vehicles.

    The second point is the issue of how to go about the works. There is consensus on the need for a temporary bridge for cycling and walking—the previous Minister made that clear in a letter to the hon. Member for Richmond Park. There were moves to have a temporary motor bridge, but for many reasons that I will not go into—cost, feasibility, disruption and destruction of private property—that would not be possible. We need a temporary foot and cycling bridge; although it will cost a substantial amount of money, it will come out of the TFL money already allocated and will allow the major works to go on unimpeded and more safely on the main bridge. I think that is decided. I believe a brief was sent by TfL to the Ministry in preparation for this debate and for the meeting with Baroness Vere, which sets out clearly what the methodology will be.

    The separate closure of the bridge last year was a matter of safety, when hairline microfractures were discovered in the cast-iron casing around the pedestals that hold the suspension chains. Sadly, that having happened, a major structural survey at the time showed that the corrosion to the suspension mechanisms, the bearings, the decking and so forth means that substantial parts of the bridge will have to be replaced. It will end up like the broom that has had its head replaced three times and its handle four times, but I am sure it will look magnificent when it is finished and reopened.​
    I will finish speaking soon to allow the Minister to reply. We have allocated, if not spent, the £25 million that has come from TfL. It is not in a position to add to that. I will not go through the argument about the subsidy that has been withdrawn or the restrictions on using its capital on assets it does not own. TfL has stepped up to the plate; its expertise and, frankly, its money, has been very useful to get us this far and to ensure that time is not wasted and works delayed.

    Equally, Hammersmith and Fulham council has reacted responsibly, as has the London Borough of Richmond. I pay tribute to Stephen Cowan and Gareth Roberts, the leaders of those two boroughs, who have worked co-operatively together in the interests of their populations and residents. As a borough, Hammersmith, notwithstanding other restrictions on its budget over the last few years, is not in a position to come up with money. Those are not controversial statements to make.

    We have to look to Government when major strategic assets fail. That is the case in most of the rest of the country. The large local majors scheme, which is available and which TfL’s bid addresses, is in funds and is available for this type of work in other parts of the country. The proposition is that, if the Department for Transport accepts that the bridge is part of the strategic road network, it has to reopen to at least its previous capacity to cover single-decker electric buses, as well as similar weights of general vehicle traffic as previously. That will cost a substantial amount of money—at least £120 million on current estimates, and the final estimates will come in a few weeks’ time. Crucially, very soon within the next couple of months, work will stop. Even if there is still some money in the kitty, one cannot go on engaging contractors if the money is not there to pay them to do the stabilisation and major works over the next couple of years. That is what we are looking to the Department to fund.

    I hope I get some encouraging noises from the Minister, even if she has not brought the cheque with her. Locally, there is a lot of co-operation between politicians of all stripes, because we see the absolute necessity of this work; as I said, it is a bit of a no-brainer. We must get the bridge reopened as quickly as possible and restore it at least to its former weight-bearing ability. I look to the Minister at least to give us some encouragement, and I hope that we can progress discussions quickly over the next few weeks so we can get on with the project.

  • Philippa Whitford – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP for Central Ayrshire, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2020.

    I welcome the plan, although I have to say that I would have welcomed receiving the briefing yesterday that the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, which I did not receive. The plan lays out a reasonable worst case scenario, and it is clear about the three time phases. Research is of course ongoing, but this will help to prepare the public for decisions that may have to be made down the line. At the moment, containment is based on self-isolation of cases, contacts and those who have travelled to risk areas, but with the spread elsewhere in the world, it is becoming harder to define risk areas. With regard to north Italy, the chief medical officer talked about those with underlying conditions perhaps interpreting the advice more stringently and not travelling, so will the Government either discuss with insurance companies or even consider legislation to make underlying conditions an acceptable reason to cancel a holiday, so that people can get their money back rather than putting themselves at risk?

    I agree with the Secretary of State regarding asymptomatic workers and sick pay, but there are staff who have no sick pay in their contract, and some protection has to be given to them. He referred to the seven-day period for self-certification, but isolation is for 14 days, and we do not want people turning up at their GP surgery halfway through that period. Can that be looked at? One issue that I have come across is an employer telling a member of staff returning from a holiday in Tenerife that they should not come to work for two weeks, but the employer does not wish to pay them for that period. We need to look at that, even if it is not health advice but an employer stipulation expecting people to have no income.

    As we move into delay, we see that children are not particularly vulnerable to catching this. However, as with other coronaviruses, they may well spread it. Do we have evidence for how much they contribute to transmission, as that will affect decisions on school closures?

    What preparations are being made for the long haul? Previous coronavirus outbreaks have lasted not just for a few months but for over a year, so we could be dealing with this next winter. If we move into mitigation, the situation will reverse and it will be about protecting the vulnerable and early discharge to home care. That might require the changing of staff from hospitals and care ​homes to work in the community, so are the Government in negotiations on such matters as legal responsibility and liability?

    The Secretary of State quite rightly talked about what the public should be doing, but should we not already be thinking about stopping shaking hands and about working from home, if possible, without an economic impact? That would also help the climate emergency. Containment moves into delay without a border, so should we not be thinking about trying to get ahead of the curve?

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2020.

    May I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House for being a few minutes late? I had a problem with my printer when I was trying to print the Secretary of State’s statement. I thank him for advance sight of the statement, and, indeed, for advance sight of the action plan this morning. Let me also record my thanks for the briefing that the Leader of the Opposition and I received yesterday from departmental officials, the chief medical officer and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser. I believe that the chief medical officer will brief parliamentarians later today, and I think that that is a very welcome initiative.

    The Government’s strategy to contain then delay, research and then mitigate has our endorsement, but may I ask the Secretary of State for some specific clarifications? The first relates to containment and self-isolation. The Prime Minister said today—as, indeed, the Secretary of State has said before—that workers who self-isolate are considered to be on sick leave. Can the Secretary of State confirm that those who need to self-isolate will not need to visit a GP to obtain a sick note, given that the Government’s advice is not to visit a GP? As he will know, 2 million workers on low pay or insecure contracts in the gig economy do not even qualify for statutory sick pay. He will also know that those who are receiving benefits are often asked to physically attend appointments. Can he guarantee that no financial sanction will be imposed if they are asked to self-isolate?​

    Does the Secretary of State accept that people should not be forced to make a choice between their health and avoiding financial hardship? We are told that he is considering emergency legislation. Will he introduce legislation to remove the barriers to self-isolation so that all workers can receive the sick pay that they deserve? That is in the interests of public health. If he introduces such legislation, we will help him to get it on to the statute book quickly. He could do it this week or he could do it next week, and we will support him. Let us give all workers the security that they deserve, so that they do not have to put their health ahead of their financial interests or vice versa.

    More broadly on the NHS and social care, I want to look at the response of the NHS and the support that it will be given through the containment and mitigation phases. We know that around 80% of critical care beds were occupied last week. We know that the NHS is short of 100,000 staff, and we also know that staff working in the NHS, particularly those on the frontline such as GPs, need to be protected as well. Even if we take at face value the Government’s insistence that they have provided the NHS with the resources to deliver the commitments of the long-term plan—we obviously disagree on this, but that is a debate for another time—we can surely all accept that covid-19 is going to lead to increased demand on trusts and the wider NHS. Every trust that sends a sample for testing has to pay for it to be couriered. Trusts are likely to take on more agency staff. If retired staff are encouraged to return to practice, the wage bill will increase. By the way, on retired staff, can the Secretary of State reassure us that protections and oversight will be in place, particularly around returning staff who, as we understand it, will not need to go through a revalidation process for their licence?

    The Government have recognised that, as we move into the mitigation phase, non-urgent care may be delayed. I assume that means that trusts will be looking at cancelling elective surgery, which will result in waiting lists growing. Again, this will impact on trusts’ finances. Will the Government provide an emergency funding increase for the NHS resource budget to support the NHS through this next challenging period? Directors of public health still do not know their public health allocations for the next financial year, which starts next month. This means that directors of public health could be cutting the nurse workloads they are responsible for commissioning at a time when those very nurses will be needed to deal with covid-19 cases. Will the right hon. Gentleman announce the public health allocations as a matter of urgency?

    On social care, we know that many who are at risk from the virus are the elderly and those with chronic conditions. Social care is responsible for and has a duty of care to many of the people who are most vulnerable to the outbreak. What advice does the Secretary of State have for social care providers, and will extra resources be announced for social care services? On the emergency powers that he has briefed about, will he sit down with us and other Opposition parties to discuss the contents of that legislation?

    On the global efforts to contain the virus, we know that disease knows no borders. We cannot build a wall or an iron curtain around these islands. Why, then, are the Government apparently walking away from the EU early warning and response system, which plays such a ​vital role in pandemic preparations? We have been led to believe that No. 10 has overruled the Secretary of State on this. Also, to contain the virus internationally, countries with weaker health systems need to be supported as well, otherwise, we will not contain the virus. Can the Secretary of State update us on what help he is offering to the World Health Organisation on that front?

    This is a serious time. Our constituents will be concerned, and many will be frightened. We will raise our concerns responsibly, but we offer to work constructively with the Government, because the public health interest and the safety of our constituents must always come first.

  • 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, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2020.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about the Government’s coronavirus action plan.

    The situation facing the country is increasingly serious. Globally and at home, the number of cases continues to rise. As of 9 am today there were 51 confirmed cases in the UK, and it is becoming more likely that we will see widespread transmission in this country. Our approach is to plan for the worst and work for the best. Yesterday I attended a Cobra meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, during which we finalised our four-part action plan to contain, delay, research and mitigate the virus. The plan has been jointly agreed by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Copies have been sent to Members of both Houses, and made available in hard copy.

    The plan is driven by the science and guided by the expert recommendations of the four UK chief medical officers and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. It sets out what we know so far about the virus and the disease that it causes, what long-term planning we have undertaken to prepare for a pandemic, what actions we have taken so far in response to the current outbreak, and, crucially, the role that the public can play in supporting our response, both now and in the future.

    The UK is well prepared for infectious disease outbreaks of this kind. The international data continue to indicate that for most people, this disease is mild and the vast majority recover fully. We have responded to a wide range of disease outbreaks in the recent past, and the NHS has been preparing for a pandemic virus for well over a decade. We have world-class expertise to make sense of the emerging data, we have a strong base on which to build, and, while covid-19 is a new virus, we have adapted our response to take account of that fact.

    Our plan sets out a phased response to the outbreak. Phase 1 is to contain, and it is the phase that we are currently in. Contain is about detecting the early cases, following up close contacts, and preventing the disease from taking hold in this country for as long as is reasonably possible. That approach also buys time for the NHS to ramp up its preparations. The scientific advice is that if the number of global cases continues to rise, especially in Europe, we may not be able to contain the virus indefinitely.

    At that point, we will activate the delay phase of our plan. Delay is about slowing the spread, lowering the peak impact of the disease, and pushing it away from the winter season. We are mindful of scientific advice that reacting too early or overreacting carries its own risks, so, subject to the primary goal of keeping people safe, we will seek to minimise social and economic disruption.

    The third part of the plan is research. Research has been ongoing since we first identified covid-19, and I pay tribute to the scientists at Public Health England who were among the first in the world to sequence its genome. Research is not just about the development of a vaccine, which we are actively pursuing but which will be many months away at the earliest. It is also about ​understanding what actions will lessen the impact of the coronavirus, including what drugs and treatments—existing and new—will help those who are already sick.

    The fourth phase is mitigate. We will move to this phase if the virus becomes established in the UK population. At that point it would be impossible to prevent widespread transmission, so the emphasis will be on caring for those who are most seriously ill, and keeping essential services running at a time when large parts of the workforce may be off sick. Our plans include not just the most likely case, but the reasonable worst case.

    We will identify and support the most vulnerable. If necessary, we will take some of the actions set out in today’s plan to reduce the impact of absentees and to lessen the impact on our economy and supply chains. We prepare for the worst and work for the best. We commit to ensuring that the agencies responsible for tackling this outbreak are properly resourced and have the people, equipment and medicines that they need, and that any new laws that they need are brought forward as and when required.

    This is a national effort. We need everyone to listen to and act on the official medical advice. We need employers to prioritise the welfare of their staff. And the single most important thing that everyone can do to help—I make no apologies for repeating this—is to use tissues when they cough or sneeze, and to wash their hands more often. That is in their interest, their families’ interest and the national interest.

    We will get through this, and everyone has a part to play. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Nigel Adams – 2020 Statement on Violence in India

    Nigel Adams – 2020 Statement on Violence in India

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nigel Adams, the Minister for Asia, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2020.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will respond to this urgent question as the Foreign Secretary is in Turkey today.

    The British high commission in New Delhi and our extensive diplomatic network of deputy high commissions across India are monitoring closely the recent violence in India and developments around the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. The events in Delhi last week were very concerning, and the situation is still tense. The death of one protester is one too many. We urge restraint from all parties and trust that the Indian Government will address the concerns of people of all religions in India. We also condemn any incidents of violence, persecution or targeting of people based on religion or belief, wherever it happens in the world.

    India has a proud history of inclusive government and religious tolerance. Its secular constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, has been an exemplar of inclusive democracy. After his re-election, I note that Prime Minister Modi promised to continue this under the guiding principles of

    “together with all, development for all and trust for all”.

    These shared strengths and values are central to the governance of both our countries. It is a central message of our foreign policy that societies are stronger and safer when we embrace our diversity rather than fear it.

    Related to this, many people have made it clear that they have concerns about the Government of India recently signing into law the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which expedites the path to citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians, but notably not Muslims or minority sects. The UK Government also have concerns about the potential impact of the legislation. It is because of our close relationship with the Government of India that we are able to discuss difficult issues with them and make clear our concerns where we have them, including on the rights of minorities.

    Most recently, my ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon raised these concerns about the impact of the CAA with a senior member of India’s Ministry of External Affairs on 25 February. Officials from the British high commission in New Delhi also raised our concerns about the potential impact of the CAA and the police response to the protests with the state government of Uttar Pradesh on 7 February. Our former high commissioner in New Delhi, Sir Dominic Asquith, also raised the issue with the Government of India last month, as did Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials with the Indian high commission in London.

    More broadly, the UK engages with India at all levels, including union and state governments, and with non-governmental organisations to build capacity and share expertise to promote human rights for all. We will continue to follow events closely and to raise our concerns when we have them.