UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Tracy Brabin – 2021 Speech on Covid-19 Financial Assistance

    Tracy Brabin – 2021 Speech on Covid-19 Financial Assistance

    The speech made by Tracy Brabin, the Labour MP for Batley and Spen, in the House of Commons on 13 January 2021.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Government to undertake an assessment of any gaps in financial support provided to individuals, businesses and industries over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic; to require the Government to report to Parliament on steps it intends to take in connection with any such gaps; and for connected purposes.

    Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to propose this Bill today. It aims to support those who have been excluded or fallen through the gaps of meaningful support during this pandemic. In preparing my speech, I knew I would be following a recent financial statement from the Chancellor, and I had hoped to be responding to some new initiatives to help some of the people who have been without a penny since March 2020. Sadly, I watched the Chancellor once again give a financial statement without even acknowledging or mentioning the excluded. It left me and so many others bewildered, angry and upset. It is why today’s Bill is sadly so necessary. The Government must identify the gaps in support and inform the House of the steps they will take to right this wrong without delay.

    Thanks to the vaccination programme, there is light at the end of the tunnel, but right now we are still in the grip of the pandemic. Just yesterday, 1,243 people tragically died from the virus. Schools and non-essential businesses are closed, and we have been told that if we can, we must stay at home. So many have lost their jobs and so many businesses have gone under. For some, the Government have stepped in with a financial safety net, but so many others—our fellow taxpayers—have been abandoned and left to fend for themselves. In the words of Manchester’s Metro Mayor, Andy Burnham:

    “Basic fairness demands a solution for those excluded.”

    There are many who agree.

    During the recall last week, Member after Member from all parts of the House stood up and requested support for those who have been left out. Incredibly, the Prime Minister said in response that nobody has been excluded. I would ask him to listen to some of these examples and tell these people that nobody has been left behind.

    Kim is a make-up artist and beauty therapist who has been trading for nine years, operating from a treatment room in her garden and working around her young family. Tragically, Kim in 2018 lost her husband and was entitled to bereavement allowance. When the pandemic struck, her business had to close. She was denied a local authority grant on the grounds that she operates her business from her garden treatment room. She was deemed ineligible for the self-employment income support scheme because HMRC treats bereavement allowance and the pension payments from her late husband as trade income. She therefore falls foul of the 50:50 rule, where someone must make over 50% of their income from self-employment. Perhaps most cruelly—heartbreakingly —had her partner been alive today, Kim would have received 80% of her business trade profits across the past three years with no questions asked. With two young children to care for, this has caused stress and anxiety. I would like to hear the Prime Minister tell Kim that nobody has been excluded.

    Another example comes from a woman I will call Zoe, who contacted me about her sister, Louise, whose business had to close due to coronavirus restrictions. The business opened in May 2019, which meant that Louise was unable to apply for Government support. Her hopes were pinned on obtaining a bounce back loan, which she was denied, despite applying over a six-month period. Louise’s family stepped in and tried to help where they could but, traumatically, Louise has attempted to commit suicide three times in recent months. It is heartbreaking the effect that the lack of support is having.

    James, who was made redundant in 2019, secured a new job in early 2020, only to lose it when covid hit, as the sites he was due to work on were no longer open. He had no employer to furlough him and he was not self-employed, so he fell through the gaps. James started 2020 with savings and a new job to look forward to; he tells me that he starts 2021 claiming universal credit and classed as homeless or at risk of homelessness—savings gone, dreams gone, no job, no income from a partner and going through this alone.

    James has paid taxes and worked all his life, and contributed to a state pension for years. Would anyone in this House really disagree that he has been excluded? I encourage anyone listening to this today to put themselves in those people’s shoes; the sense of injustice that they would feel if they had done the right thing, gone out, worked hard and paid their taxes, only to be abandoned by this Government.

    There are millions of citizens reaching out for help only to find that, just by the nature of how their tax is calculated, they are now left by the wayside: the zero-hours worker in the events industry, who cannot get furloughed and is now on universal credit and in debt; the pay-as-you-earn freelancer working in television, who pays tax at source, whose work has now dried up due to the lockdown and whose last employer will not furlough them; the entrepreneurs who took the jump and excitedly became self-employed recently, only to find themselves ineligible for the self-employed income support scheme, and innovators and businesspeople, now desperate and afraid for the future. All those people form the excluded.

    A number of distinct groups include 200,000 newly self-employed and 200,000 self-employed people previously earning more than £50,000 in profits, 1.1 million people who earn less than 50% of their income from self-employment, 300,000 new starters, 100,000 people denied furlough, 400,000 PAYE freelancers 700,000 limited company directors and nearly half a million people who have lost out due to maternity, parental or adoption leave—all individuals with the same hopes and dreams as us here in this room. Those groups are distinct, and a number of solutions will be necessary to provide the support that they deserve, but difficulty or complication is absolutely not a satisfactory excuse for disinterest, denial and lack of action.

    The Bill I move today calls for the Government to report on the steps they plan to take to rectify the gaps in support, but I would like to assist the Treasury Benches by offering some suggestions that may guide their thinking. While this may sound like a list, each and every suggestion is our trying to find a solution to a human problem and a historic injustice.

    First, the newly self-employed could be included in the fourth round of SEISS. Throughout the pandemic, the number of self-employed has been gradually reducing, so it is unlikely the number of claimants would be more than 300,000—a simple and very fair measure. Many directors of small and medium-sized businesses were unable to furlough themselves, either because it would mean that they were not allowed to do any work at all or because they were ineligible. A directors’ income support scheme could help to support company directors, which is really important because there will be no meaningful recovery from covid if there are no businesses left standing to employ people.

    Many freelancers who have not worked in the last tax year and received no meaningful financial support have lived on money put aside to pay their tax. With their tax bills now due, perhaps the Treasury could waive tax for those whose income is less than their tax bill. It is also nothing short of an outrage that self-employed mothers have no ability to discount their maternity leave from SEISS payments. That leaves tens of thousands of women discriminated against and out of pocket, and it must be changed and backdated without delay.

    For those who are employees, access to furlough was entirely in the hands of the employer. Those who have been refused have been left destitute. People are increasingly desperate; only this week I spoke to a man who had just sold his house, saying, “At least we have something left to sell.” A one-off taxable grant, while far from comprehensive, could work—a flat payment that would be administratively simple and secure in that, if it pushed them against the income spectrum, the grant could return to the Treasury via the tax system. For the excluded, the Treasury could look at a taxpayer targeted support scheme, which would allow people to claim what they would have received in different circumstances. These are just many suggestions that could help, but the Treasury must show the political will and instruct its policy experts to find solutions. With the supermarkets returning £2 billion to the Treasury—money already allocated—this could be the ideal time to put those schemes into practice.

    The coronavirus pandemic has taken so much from us, and the Government have provided unprecedented financial support to millions, which is absolutely to be commended, but the schemes were put in at speed and we now have the bandwidth to attend to the detail and support those left behind.

    In drawing my contribution to a close, I pay tribute to the 3 million excluded, who have campaigned and organised in increasingly difficult personal circumstances. No one could have foreseen the pandemic, and they have been left out of meaningful support through no fault of their own. I hope that the Government and the Treasury understand that now is the time to right this historic wrong.

  • Rosena Allin-Khan – 2021 Speech on the Reform of the Mental Health Act

    Rosena Allin-Khan – 2021 Speech on the Reform of the Mental Health Act

    The speech made by Rosena Allin-Khan, the Labour MP for Tooting, in the House of Commons on 13 January 2021.

    I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the statement. This overhaul of the Mental Health Act has been long-awaited, and we welcome the White Paper and the fact that the Government have accepted the majority of the recommendations from Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review of the Mental Health Act.

    Without a doubt, people need to be at the heart of this legislation. Service users must be involved in framing the legislation going forward, and when we talk of numbers and statistics, we must remember that these are real people with real lives and real families. There is a web of individuals who are affected when things go wrong. Deprivation of liberty and the use of coercion can cause lasting trauma and distress. That is especially true for children and young people who find themselves in these most difficult of situations, whose voices often are not heard when decisions are being made. It is an important step that learning disabilities and autism will no longer be grounds for detention under the Act, and I am sure that we all welcome that. It is also very welcome that the recommendation on nominated persons has been included.

    The best way to reduce coercion and detention is to have alternatives to admission. Will the Secretary of State please outline how that will be achieved? Community provision is vital for mental health services that are truly joined-up and, crucially, work well for patients, so will he also give reassurances on community care?

    It is in our communities where we witness the harsh reality of health inequalities, which so desperately must be addressed. Social inequalities and adverse childhood experience are the drivers of mental ill health, and they cannot be ignored. Children from the poorest 20% of households are four times more likely than those from the wealthiest 20% to have serious mental health difficulties by the age of 11. That will not be solved simply by mental health legislative changes; there must be a commitment to addressing the vast chasm of health inequalities across the country.

    At present, black people are over four times more likely to be detained. We need to advance the mental health equality framework, and there must be culturally appropriate services and freedom for local areas to look at their specific population in order to have the most suitable approaches.

    Mental health staffing levels are crucial to ensuring that mental health services are fit for purpose. The proposals set out by the Secretary of State go well beyond what has been committed in the long-term plan. We need to see true understanding from the Government that mental health is not about promising fancy equipment; it is about people. The promises in the White Paper rely on the workforce—our fantastic frontline mental health staff, of whom there are simply too few at present. Will the Secretary of State please outline when we will get the workforce settlement? What reassurance can he give on filling training places?

    It has already taken so long to get to this point—it was the former Prime Minister who started this process, back in 2016—so will the Secretary of State provide some clarity on the timeframe going forward? Given the complexities of the legislation and the need for it to be robust, what are the plans for a joint prelegislative Committee? It is vital that the blueprint that Sir Simon Wessely’s report sets out is implemented in full. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him and everyone involved for all the work they have done on this review.

    We must act, and quickly. Covid has shown us how all the pressures on mental health are building. We need action now. We all know how rare these pieces of legislation are; this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right for some of the most vulnerable in our society. We simply must get this right for everyone who depends on these services.

  • Matt Hancock – 2021 Statement on the Reform of the Mental Health Act

    Matt Hancock – 2021 Statement on the Reform of the Mental Health Act

    The statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 13 January 2021.

    With permission, I would like to make a statement on reforming the Mental Health Act. Even amidst the pandemic, I am enormously grateful for the work that my team and the NHS have done, led by Sir Simon Wessely and Claire Murdoch and my hon. Friend the Minister for mental health, to deliver this White Paper, which we published today, to bring mental health legislation into the 21st century.

    We are committed as a Government, and as a nation, to see mental health treated on a par with physical health. We are increasing funding for mental health services to record levels, with £2.3 billion extra each year being invested through the NHS long-term plan, and an immediate £0.5 billion in place to support mental health services with the very significant pressures they are under. Our mental health services are now helping more people than ever before. Services are there for the most serious mental illnesses, although those, of course, are under significant pressure. Services are there for better community support through 24/7 crisis services and establishing liaison in A&E, and supporting people to manage their own mental health.

    This programme of transformation is ambitious, and as we support mental health services now, so we must bring up to date the legislative framework for the long term. The Mental Health Act 1983 was created so that people who have severe mental illness and present a risk to themselves or others can be detained and treated for their protection and the protection of those around them, but so much has changed since the Act was put into place, nearly 40 years ago. We now understand a lot more about mental health. Public attitudes around mental health have changed significantly for the better. We now have a better understanding and practice of how we can best support people with learning disabilities and/or autism. We are also concerned by the growing number of people being detained, inequalities among those who are detained, and the length of time that people are spending detained under the Act.

    So, after a generation, we must bring the Mental Health Act into the 21st century. The previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), asked Professor Sir Simon Wessely to lead a review into what a modern mental health Act should look like. I thank her for her work, and I am so grateful to Sir Simon and his vice-chairs for their dedication. As I said to the House last year on its publication, the Wessely review is one of the finest pieces of work on the treatment of mental health that has been done anywhere in the world. I know that the review was welcomed across the House. We committed in our manifesto to deliver the required changes, and I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his emphatic support.

    Sir Simon’s review compellingly shows that the Mental Health Act does not work as well as it should for patients or their loved ones—that the Act goes too far in removing people’s autonomy and does not give people enough control over their care. I am delighted to set out our full response to that review in our White Paper, which, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, we have laid before the House.

    The White Paper sets out plans for a landmark new mental health Act. The new Act will ensure that patients are put at the centre of decisions about their own care; that everyone is treated with respect; and that the law is only used to compel treatment where absolutely necessary. The White Paper has been developed in close consultation with those with the greatest expertise—the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Rethink Mental Illness, Mind, the Centre for Mental Health and countless practitioners on the frontline—and I thank them all.

    There are four pillars to this work; I should like to take a moment to update the House on all of them. First, we will give patients a voice in their own care, which we know leads to better engagement in treatment. We will put care and treatment plans and advance choice documents in statute for the first time, so that patients are more closely involved in the development of their care, and so that they can have confidence that if they lose capacity because of illness, their preferences will be properly considered. We are making it easier for patients to challenge decisions about their care, creating a new right to choose a nominated person who is best placed to look after their interests, and increasing patients’ access to the independent tribunal to provide vital independent scrutiny of detention. In his report, Sir Simon recommended that one of the best ways to ensure dignified care is to ensure that patients can expect the privacy of their own en-suite room. We have already committed £400 million of funding to deliver that, and we are building new mental health hospitals, with two schemes already approved and with more to come.

    Secondly, we will address the disparities that currently exist within the application of the Mental Health Act. Black people are currently four times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act than white people, and black people are 10 times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. We also know that people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds can often engage with services later, and our plans to enhance patient choice, increase scrutiny of decisions and improve a patient’s right to challenge will help us to improve service provision for all. On top of that, we have already announced our new patient and carer race equality framework, as recommended by the review, and we are developing the use of culturally appropriate advocates, so that patients from all backgrounds can be supported in making their voice heard.

    Thirdly, it is important that the Act supports patients within the criminal justice system. We will make sure that, where people in prison require treatment in a mental health hospital, they are transferred in a timely way, and we will support rapid diversion from custody to care where appropriate so that people in our criminal justice system can get the right care in the right place at the right time, while we fulfil our fundamental duty to keep the public safe.

    Finally, in our manifesto, we committed to improving how people with learning disabilities and autistic people are treated under the Act. Until now, the use of powers in the Act did not distinguish between people with mental illness on the one hand, and people with learning disabilities and/or autism on the other. That is wrong. Needs are different and the law should be different, too. That is all part of treating everyone with respect. We therefore propose reforms to limit the scope to detain people under the Act where their needs are due to their learning disability or autism alone. In future, there will be a limit of 28 days for these detentions, which would be used to assess clinical need, and, wherever possible, we will work to ensure that appropriate support is available in the community rather than in institutional settings. I thank Baroness Hollins, Ian Birrell, Mencap and the National Autistic Society for their advocacy and for their support for these reforms.

    This Act is there for us all and we want to hear as many views as possible on these plans, so we will consult widely on this White Paper and will respond later this year before we bring forward a new mental health Bill. I believe that everyone in our society has a contribution to make and that everyone should be respected for the value that they bring. It is the role of Government to support people to reach their potential, even at the most difficult of times, and to protect people when they are at their most vulnerable. That is what I believe, and I believe these reforms will help put those values into action and help give patients the dignified treatment that they deserve. I commend this statement and the White Paper to the House.

  • Chloe Smith – 2021 Statement on the May Elections

    Chloe Smith – 2021 Statement on the May Elections

    The statement made by Chloe Smith, the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, in the House of Commons on 13 January 2021.

    Safe and secure elections are the cornerstone of any democracy, and Parliament’s decision, as set out in primary legislation, is that these polls should go ahead in May. Due to the pandemic, many of these elections have already been delayed by a year, but voters have a right to be heard and to decide who governs them. During the pandemic, local authorities will have taken many serious decisions impacting directly on residents, on matters from council tax to road closures, and those are important issues on which elected representatives should be held to account.

    Given the situation, however, we are, as the Prime Minister set out last week, keeping this position under review. Any change would require very careful consideration, including by this House, and would need to be based on robust evidence. There should be a high bar for any delay.

    I remind the House that we have already seen polls go ahead despite coronavirus, in this country—for example, council elections in Edinburgh and Aberdeen—and internationally, with other countries holding general elections. Since the announcement of the postponement of the 2020 elections, we have been working towards holding them in a covid-secure manner, and we will put in place a strong set of measures to support this. Voters have a choice as to how they participate in elections—at the polling station, by proxy or by post. We want to maintain that choice, but we recognise that the pandemic may change people’s needs and preferences. We actively encourage anybody who is shielding or who would prefer not to attend a polling station to apply for an absent vote instead of going in person. We will bring forward additional measures to support absent voting, including extending the ability to appoint a proxy, so that anybody who might be affected by covid-19 in the days before the poll is still able to make their voice heard. The Government this week set out our plan to roll out vaccines at pace, which will ensure that the most vulnerable are protected and provide a route map towards relaxing the restrictions when safe to do so.

    We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission on the production of guidance to aid all involved. This guidance is based on the latest public health advice and will be updated as necessary ahead of the polls. We have been working across Government to ensure that any activity required for participation in and the delivery of the polls is technically allowed under covid regulations. I thank local government officials, who have stepped up to the mark enormously in dealing with new and challenging issues, in many cases since last March. That should be recognised. We are grateful to them for all the work they have done, and we will continue to work closely with them and all involved in elections to support them in delivering the elections successfully.

    Finally, hon. and right hon. Members will know very well the importance of campaigning and providing information to voters. As well as the technical aspects of elections, voters rightly expect that campaigning activity should only be carried out safely. I can confirm that the Government have also worked with the parliamentary parties panel to ensure that we are aware of the views from political parties, and we will continue to do that. We recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of this area. We will continue to keep the House updated on the preparations for the safe holding of these elections, which are an important upcoming moment in our shared civic life.

  • Michael Gove – 2021 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    Michael Gove – 2021 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    The speech made by Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 13 January 2021.

    I am grateful for the chance to update the House on the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol exists to recognise Northern Ireland’s unique position as the only part of our United Kingdom to have a land border with the EU. It was designed to ensure that no customs infrastructure is needed between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, while protecting unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the rest of the UK market and the gains of the peace process and, of course, respecting Northern Ireland’s position as an absolutely integral part of the United Kingdom.

    As with any new trading arrangement, the protocol undoubtedly generates challenges as well as providing solutions. The Government are committed to addressing those challenges by providing pragmatic solutions to any problems that arise and working with the Northern Ireland Executive in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.

    UK Government Ministers are in daily contact with Ministers in the Executive, and with businesses in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, to ensure the effective operation of the protocol. Inevitably, the impact of covid and the steps taken by the French Government at their border have affected retail businesses across the United Kingdom, but it is important to stress that freight volumes into Northern Ireland’s ports are at normal levels for this time of year. There have been no significant queues, and supermarkets are now generally reporting healthy deliveries of supplies into Northern Ireland.

    None the less, the new processes that the protocol asks of businesses that are moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland require the Government to do more. We are working with companies across Great Britain to help them understand the new requirements for moving goods, and the extensive Government support includes the trader support service, to which more than 25,000 businesses are now signed up, yet we know that still more needs to be done.

    That is why we are stepping up direct engagement with suppliers to ensure they have access to the realtime guidance they need, and we are also working closely with industry to address specific problems of moving mixed food loads from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through the process known as groupage. In the coming days, the Government will issue new guidance on the practical mitigations that have been developed with industry to enable this important practice to continue and to support hauliers and suppliers.

    We also recognise that a number of hauliers have been affected by significant issues at Dublin port. We welcome the easements that have been introduced by the Irish Government, but movements via Dublin are substantially lower than normal, so we have to intensify our engagement with the Irish authorities.

    More broadly, the grace periods for supermarkets and their suppliers are now working well, but we are already planning for the streamlined replacements that will follow. A dedicated team within DEFRA, working with the Cabinet Office, is also in touch with the industry to promote readiness, supported by new specific Government funding.

    Ultimately, the future of the protocol is in the hands of Northern Ireland’s people, and its renewal is a question of democratic consent. The responsibility of this Government is to ensure that it operates in an effective, legal and pragmatic way, and that is the spirit in which we approach its implementation.

  • Ben Wallace – 2021 Statement on No-Cost Supply of Vehicles to Lebanese Armed Forces

    Ben Wallace – 2021 Statement on No-Cost Supply of Vehicles to Lebanese Armed Forces

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, to the House of Commons on 12 January 2021.

    The UK intends to supply a fleet of vehicles at no cost to the Lebanese armed forces (LAF), in recognition of our strong relationship in tackling the shared terrorist threat.

    At present the LAF do not have the capability to fully patrol Lebanon’s border with Syria and have requested the UK’s assistance in providing suitable equipment to fulfil this requirement. The UK has agreed to supply 100 surplus army revised weapon mounted installation kit plus (RWMIK+) vehicles in response to a request from the Lebanese commander-in-chief.

    The supply of these vehicles will greatly enhance the LAF’s capacity to mount long distance patrols across rugged mountainous terrain and allow their land border regiments (LBRs) to more effectively counter the threat of armed smugglers and extremists trying to enter Lebanon.

    The 100 revised weapon mounted installation kit plus (RWMIK+) vehicles, valuing £1,502,000, are surplus to the needs of the British Army. The logistical costs of collating and then transporting the vehicles to Lebanon will be borne by the Conflict Stability and Security Fund, and training in the operation of the vehicles will be borne by the defence acquisition fund (south).

    Delivery of the RWMIK+ to Beirut is expected to commence in January 2021.

  • Ben Wallace – 2021 Statement on Defence Equipment

    Ben Wallace – 2021 Statement on Defence Equipment

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 12 January 2021.

    I wish to inform Parliament that the permanent secretary for the Ministry of Defence has written to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee with our 2020 update on the affordability of the defence equipment plan, covering the period 2020-21 to 2029-30. His letter and the supplementary tables have been placed in the Library of the House and published online. This more concise update takes the place of the usual equipment plan financial summary report and maintains continuity of financial reporting ahead of implementing the outcomes of the spending review and integrated review. I welcome the continued engagement of the National Audit Office (NAO) who have today published their independent assessment of our plans.

    Last month, the Prime Minister announced a once-in-a-generation modernisation of the armed forces including £16.5 billion additional spending on defence over the next four years. I am determined that we seize this opportunity to modernise the armed forces to meet today’s threat while taking hard decisions to put defence on a sustainable footing. To do so will require a transparent approach to taking these decisions, inviting robust scrutiny of our plans and recognising where we could be doing more to deliver better value for our spending.

    In this context, today’s update on the affordability of our plans as they were in April 2020, are a reminder of the challenge ahead and the need for decisive action now to ensure that we match our ambition and resources.

    Over the year to April 2020, our central estimate of the shortfall in funding for equipment spending increased from £3 billion to £7 billion over 10 years, with potential for this to be greater if risks materialise and we take no action to intervene. This increase was largely the result of three sources of increased costs:

    Deferral of spending on some projects to save money in the short-term while allowing decisions about their future to be taken in the context of the integrated review;

    There were more limited opportunities to reduce the cost of established projects than in previous years and projects were more confident in delivering milestones and achieving their spending forecasts; and

    Risks materialising including less favourable foreign exchange rate forecasts and additional non-discretionary spending in high-priority areas including the nuclear enterprise that we were not able to fully offset through savings.

    The settlement we have received in the recent spending review means we are now in a position to tackle the root causes of these issues. We are already using the findings of the NAO’s assessment of the equipment plan alongside our work on these issues to improve our approach to implementing the outcomes of the spending review and ensure that our plans are affordable and deliverable.

    I am pleased to see that the NAO has recognised the progress we are making in some areas, including management of efficiencies. Our ambitious transformation programme will build on this progress.

    I expect our 2021 edition of the equipment plan financial summary to present the implications of the spending review and integrated review for equipment spending and on progress in improving the management of our plans.

    Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questionsanswers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-01-12/HCWS700/.

  • Andrew Griffith – 2021 Speech on South Downs National Park

    Andrew Griffith – 2021 Speech on South Downs National Park

    The speech made by Andrew Griffith, the Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs, in the House of Commons on 12 January 2021.

    It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of us all in Parliament to commemorate the 10 years since the South Downs National Park, our nation’s newest, was recognised with that status. In fact, like Her Majesty, the park technically has two birthdays as the park authority came into being on 1 April 2010 and became fully operational on 1 April 2011.

    As its name suggests, my constituency of Arundel and South Downs picks up a large swathe of the South Downs National Park, picking up the park at Pyecombe and Keymer and following its line north-west all the way to Selham and Graffham. That is a distance of some 34 miles, which is just over a third of the park’s total 87-mile length, as it stretches across three counties, between Winchester and the south coast at the spectacular Seven Sisters, which I note were celebrated recently in one of the Royal Mail’s latest national park stamps.

    Like every 10-year-old, the authority does not get every single thing right, but we celebrate tonight its very many positive impacts, including a remarkable spirit of innovation and community. For that, I would like to personally commend chief executive Trevor Beattie, director of planning Tim Slaney, and director of countryside policy and management Andrew Lee for promoting and delivering such leading-edge work. Together with the park authority members, they have formed an effective and stable team, and it is very much their achievements that we recognise tonight.

    Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing an important debate. May I recommend to him and to the House the strong collaboration that exists between South Downs national park and Public Health England on using the space and peace of our beautiful national parks as part of the social prescribing that GPs do? He will know that there is a wealth of evidence on the benefits of open space for not only physical health, but mental health. The South Downs national park’s most important days may just lie ahead of it.

    Andrew Griffith

    I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, as a fellow representative of a constituency that contains part of the national park and as someone with personal experience in the space of healthcare. We have probably never needed those green spaces more than now to protect so many people’s mental health.

    Before I move on, I should also acknowledge my predecessor, now appropriately enough the noble Lord of South Downs, whose tenure covered the birth of the national park, and his continuing support to me. I hope that with such passionate representation, and with voluntary groups such as the Friends of the South Downs and many residents in both Houses, the park never lacks for support or a national voice.

    The South Downs is unique in many ways. Perhaps most graphically, it is the only national park that someone could be strolling through in less than an hour and half’s time from London, via the gateway stations of Pulborough or Amberley. Perhaps when the current restrictions are lifted, I will be able to invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members to join me in doing that—I promise you that you will not be disappointed.

    About 110,000 people live within the park, which is more than live in the Lake District and the Peak District combined. A further 2.2 million live right on its doorstep, with another 4 million within an hour’s drive. That position, right on the frontline of the over-developed south-east, makes it vital that the planning policy protections of the park are not eroded by this or any future Government. Indeed, if we are to avoid what I have referred to previously as the “Central Park effect” of intense development right up to the boundary, the planning system for national parks, which was set up 70 years ago in the context of some of the most remote parts of the UK, should now go further and establish buffer zones against development and green corridors for wildlife.

    When we think of the South Downs, we picture the idyllic hilltops and ridges of the Chanctonbury Ring, Bignor hill or Devil’s Dyke, but we must not overlook the high streets and small industrial units in the park that are its beating economic heart, providing employment and a vital sense of community. I refer to high streets such as those of Petworth and Arundel, in my constituency, as well as those of Midhurst and Lewes, which are full of unique small businesses, retailers and food producers. They need our support, whether through sensible planning policies, exhortations to shop local or initiatives such as the one-hour free parking offered by Chichester District Council in Petworth.

    But there is one more thing that we need to do. This came up today when I was glad to co-sponsor a Bill on the subject promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake): we must look again at business rates, which tax place rather than profit and discriminate unfairly between business models in spreading the burden of taxation. If the price of fairness is to replace business rates with a higher rate of sales tax, to me and many businesses across the South Downs that would be a price worth paying.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

    I was going to intervene on the ten-minute rule Bill, but I did not have the chance. One of the worries about scrapping business rates is that so many businesses do not pay VAT—for example, supermarkets, insurance brokers and travel agents. That would be a real problem: we would end up having a mix and match, would we not?

    Andrew Griffith

    I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I beg to differ. I do not want to turn this into a debate about taxation, but in my view it would be a simplification—business rates are highly complex, but the value added tax system is well understood and relatively simple in terms of compliance.

    Another area of economic activity is the exceptional South Downs national park tourism offering. According to the South Downs National Park Authority, an astonishing 19 million visitors come to the park each year. Perhaps that is not so surprising when we think of the lovely picturesque walks through chalk hills and rural heathlands, the thousands of unique and artisan businesses, and the world-beating places to stay. It generates more than £350 million for the local economy, employing about 5,000 people—although, from my inbox during the pandemic, I believe that is a significant underestimate of what the sector contributes, because it does not lend itself to easy measurement.

    If one thing keeps visitors coming back, it is our wonderful and diverse local country pubs. They are at the very heart of what community means to me. Some are literally centuries old, and never in their entire history of plagues and invasions have they had to face the unprecedented challenge of wave after wave of such Government restrictions. As well as making the case for continued support for hospitality businesses, one practical thing that I am doing is to produce a local guide to promote those vital establishments and, after this sad period of absence, to remind us all of their many and varied attractions. The park, too, is helping in the pandemic. Despite a limited budget, the park has established its own £375,000 covid recovery fund, with beneficiaries such as The Hungry Guest bakery, Sussex Lamb and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’ Pulborough Brooks reserve.

    For more than 6,000 years, humankind has embraced the abundant natural resources that the South Downs has to offer. Farming started here in the bronze age and, with more than three quarters of the South Downs farmed and much of the remainder forestry and woodland, the park works closely with farmers, foresters and estates. I am told that there are more sheep than people, so it was with shared relief on behalf of local farmers that we learned of the new trade agreement between the UK and the European Union recently, with its tariff-free access to markets for Sussex lamb producers. I am grateful to my local farmers and the National Farmers Union for the constructive dialogue that we had locally. Our departure from the European Union to me should be a huge opportunity to transform British agriculture, including more domestic market share, raising quality and sustainability, and improving the profitability of food production.

    The national park has six farmer-led farm clusters that cover two thirds of the park, with the excellent Arun to Adur cluster in my constituency. They have pioneered the approach of whole estate plans with larger rural businesses. That gives the park authority a solid platform on which to work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the creation and delivery of the new environmental land management or ELM scheme, whose success is so vital to us all. I know that the cluster would welcome the opportunity to work with the Minister and his colleagues to develop landscape-scale proposals and for our farmers to be involved in the national pilot to ensure that ELM recognises biodiversity and access, and enhances our cultural heritage.

    It is not just farming. In recent years, the fertile soils of the South Downs have witnessed the growth of vineyards, producing a variety of internationally recognised outstanding wines. With soil composition and south-facing slopes similar to those of the Champagne region of France, viticulture in the South Downs is rapidly becoming the heart of British wine country. The many distinguished sparkling wine producers across the South Downs include Nyetimber, Wiston, Hattingley and Bolney. I recently had the chance to see winemaker Dermot Sugrue at work on the Wiston estate and, in what must be one of the only silver linings of that terrible year, he assured me that 2020 will produce one of the finest English vintages yet. Members might also be interested to know that, if their constituents visit and shop here for souvenirs, they can now purchase an English sparkling vintage from Digby Fine English, a producer of world-class English sparkling wine based in Arundel and the House of Commons gift shop official supplier. Buy now, as they say, while stocks last!

    But if there is a single thing that excites me—and, I suspect, the Minister—most about the park, it is the contribution that it makes to nature and biodiversity. From the grazing marshes of the floodplains of the Rivers Arun and Adur to the lowland grassland on the slopes of the downs, the national park contains an amazing 660 protected sites of special interest and many internationally important habitats supporting rare and endangered species of plants and animals.

    It is possible to spot iconic plant species such as burnt orchid, chaffweed and bulbous foxtail. Our heaths are home to adders, sand lizards and both the field cricket and the wart-biter bush cricket. Almost 40 different types of butterfly can be found within the park’s boundary, including the exceptionally rare Duke of Burgundy, which was recently found to be thriving on the Wiston Estate. The South Downs farmland bird initiative has helped a wide range of threatened bird species found on farmland across the South Downs, including the grey partridge, lapwing, yellowhammer and skylark.

    James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is very generous with his time. I am a one-time resident of a lovely village on the Hampshire side of the South Downs national park. One problem faced by residents there is the appalling traffic and the pollution and noise, especially where traffic goes through ancient villages. Does he agree that Hampshire County Council and the Sussex county councils must do more to mitigate the effects of traffic pollution and noise?

    Andrew Griffith

    I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention and for touching on a topic that is of concern to many residents. I not only hold out the prospect of increased police numbers helping to police and make more safe our rural roads, but thank the Government—although I will hold their feet to the fire—for their recent commitment to upgrade the A27 with a new route that will allow significant traffic that currently uses the national park to bypass it and proceed elsewhere.

    Nature recovery through partnership working has been at the heart of the work of the South Downs over the last decade, from major projects such as being one of 12 DEFRA-funded nature improvement areas, to smaller nature initiatives in partnership with landowners and local communities. An example of the latter is Steyning Downland, which is run by over 100 volunteers. It carries out local ecology surveys and habitat conservation but also combats local loneliness, something that is close to my heart. It is one of many such schemes across the national park.

    As part of the Environment Bill, DEFRA proposes that every part of England should be covered by a local nature recovery strategy. Five pilots are under way, but they are all based on county or unitary authority boundaries. I would like to see the national park given the chance to be at the heart of its own local nature recovery strategy, rather than an exclusively county-based approach. Will the Minister kindly give that her consideration?

    On this 10th anniversary, let me conclude by looking ahead to what the park’s second decade might hold. First, I hope that it continues to be well supported by the Minister and her Department, in terms of both financial certainty and the strengthening of certain powers that will allow the park to carry out its tasks further. Secondly, I hope that the recent integration of the Seven Sisters country park, a major change in the national park’s operations, is successful and additive but does not detract from valuable work elsewhere. Thirdly, I hope, perhaps parochially, that we will see the long-awaited transformation of the derelict Shoreham cement works into low-carbon eco homes.

    In its first 10 years, the South Downs national park has established itself as an innovative, partnership-based organisation where people and place come together. Tonight, we wish all involved well and express the hope that something that is so important to our nation’s future as our national park survives, thrives and has a second decade that is even more successful in achieving all its many goals.

  • Kevin Hollinrake – 2021 Speech on the Abolition of Business Rates

    Kevin Hollinrake – 2021 Speech on the Abolition of Business Rates

    The speech made by Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, in the House of Commons on 12 January 2021.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish business rates; and for connected purposes.

    At one of my first hustings as a prospective parliamentary candidate back in 2015, a question came from the audience about a local electrical retailer that had just closed down. The question, which came to loud applause from the audience, was, “What are the Government going to do about it?” The irony, of course, was that the business had closed not due to the actions or inactions of the Government, but because the people in that very audience had stopped shopping on high streets and started shopping online, which is creating the change we are seeing on our high streets this very day.

    Having said that, there is no doubt that rent and rates are having a disproportionately large effect on high street businesses compared with online businesses. In time, of course, that differential will naturally diminish, as rents—and therefore rates—reduce. The problem is that by that time, hundreds of thousands of businesses and millions of jobs will have been lost forever. Last year alone, 180,000 jobs were lost in retail in the UK. We need immediate change.

    My Bill delivers immediate change. It abolishes business rates completely and replaces the revenue with a small increase in VAT, thereby fundamentally levelling the playing field between online and our precious local high street businesses. I have taken into account the Government’s manifesto commitment not to increase VAT in this Parliament, but the scale and pace of change to the business landscape necessitates a new approach today.

    Business rates as they are were designed for a bygone era a long time ago, when business went hand in hand with high street premises. Covid has quickly made that time seem even more distant, as the trends already in train have been accelerated due to our forced house arrest. Online sales now account for 33% of all retail sales, up from 20% only a year ago.

    The inevitability of this transition and transformation, and the urgent need for reform, is widely recognised across the House. I have sat on two Select Committee inquiries on the matter, one by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and one a joint endeavour between the HCLG Committee and the Treasury Committee. The Treasury itself, of course, is fully aware of the need for reform, and our Ministers have gone further than any of their predecessors.

    In July last year, the Treasury undertook a review and a call for evidence, which set out some potential options for reform. The main suggestions were an online sales tax, or increased rates of VAT or corporation tax. It seems that the Treasury is most keen on an online sales tax, as the document asked for opinions on that solution rather than the other two, and stated that the Treasury expects

    “that any such tax would exist alongside business rates.”

    That has to be seen as a further complication of the tax system.

    I very much welcome the call for evidence, and my Bill and this speech are little more than a contribution to this debate, but I would like to offer one key reflection that is not addressed by the review. It is not only the retail playing field that needs to be levelled. Retail is perhaps the most obvious sector where consumer behaviour is changing, but there are similar trends in other fields. New competition to high street pubs and restaurants is emerging from the dark kitchens of business parks, facilitated by Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber. Sales and lettings agents—I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—are being challenged by the likes of Purplebricks, Strike and Yopa, and travel agents and insurance brokers are also witnessing similar competitive trends.

    An online sales tax for retail would therefore only partially level the business playing field. It would also be a very blunt instrument, as different retail sectors have different profit margins, so it would hit some sectors harder than others. Many high street retailers also offer online and click and collect sales, leading to the potentially fiendishly complex prospect of a retailer having to decide how a product was sold and quantifying the tax on it accordingly, while still having to pay business rates, albeit at a reduced level.

    In my view, it would be better to completely scrap business rates and apply a small increase to the sales tax that we already have—VAT. That would immediately level the playing field and would not create any additional bureaucracy or burden on business. We would completely dispense with the convoluted business rate system, including revaluations, check, challenge, appeal, annual bills and debt collection. It would liberate thousands of talented, intelligent, hard-working people in the Valuation Office Agency and survey practices across the country to find new career opportunities that would help drive the UK economy forward.

    No longer would we need the myriad reliefs—small business, charitable, empty property, retail and rural—as, due to its input and output elements, VAT would continue to automatically adjust, depending on the business type and turnover. A further and perhaps more controversial levelling would be delivered through a reduction of the VAT threshold, currently £85,000, to the German level of £20,000. The current level creates winners and losers either side of the cliff edge. It disincentivises growth and incentivises tax evasion.

    There are no easy solutions. As Ronald Reagan once said:

    “There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers.”

    An increase in VAT from 20p to 23p would fill the £30 billion per annum gap created by the abolition of business rates. Some might say, “Won’t businesses simply pass on the increase to consumers?” Yes, of course. In a competitive free market, all taxes are paid by consumers, as profit margins are inexorably driven down towards the cost of capital. Exactly the same thing happens with corporation tax, business rates and, indeed, online sales tax.

    Others might raise concerns about how it might affect recent moves to allocate business rates receipts to fund local authorities, but the HCLG Committee heard compelling evidence that there was very little correlation between business rates and local service need, so it makes no sense to fund councils by means of a system that needs to be adjusted through convoluted top-ups and tariffs. We should look again at the future funding of our councils alongside this proposal.

    Governments of all shades have a chequered history when it comes to simplification of the tax system, picking winners, targeting incentives and allocating reliefs. We should avoid doing that wherever possible. Instead, we should focus on a levelling of the business playing field. The move from business rates to VAT does exactly that. I commend the Bill to the House.

  • John Healey – 2021 Speech on Defence Support for Covid-19

    John Healey – 2021 Speech on Defence Support for Covid-19

    The speech made by John Healey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 12 January 2021.

    I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement and I welcome this direct update to the House. This is a chance for us all to thank and pay tribute to the 5,000 forces personnel, both regulars and reservists, who are currently providing covid assistance, and to the leadership from Standing Joint Command under Lieutenant General Urch. The Labour leader and I saw at first hand in November the professionalism and commitment that the team at Aldershot bring to this task. The public also welcome the important contribution our armed forces are making to help the country through the continuing covid crisis, from troops on the frontline building Nightingale hospitals, community testing or driving ambulances and tankers, to the planners, analysts and scientists behind the scenes. The military is an essential element of our British national resilience, and people can see this more clearly now than perhaps at any time since the end of national service. I trust that this will reinforce public support for our armed forces and help to redefine a closer relationship between the military and civilian society.

    However, I detect a sense of frustration from the Secretary of State in his statement. The Government have been too slow to act at every stage of the pandemic, and too slow to make the fullest use of the armed forces, as I and others on both sides of the House have argued since the summer. During the first lockdown, the covid support force was 20,000 strong, yet fewer than 4,000 were deployed. The winter support force numbers 14,000, yet now, even with what the Secretary of State calls

    “the most significant domestic operation in peacetime”,

    just 5,000 are being used, with only 56 military aid requests currently in place. How many of the 14,000 troops does the Secretary of State expect to be deployed by the end of the month, as we confront the gravest period of this pandemic to date?

    On vaccinations, it is very welcome that from this week the armed forces are finally being used to help deliver the nation’s No. 1 priority, the national vaccination programme. The Secretary of State has said that 250 teams of medical personnel are on stand-by, and yet only one in 10 is set to be posted this week to the seven NHS regions in England. When will they all be deployed and working to get vaccines into people’s arms? We in Labour are proud that Britain was the first country in the world to get the vaccine, and we want Britain to be the first to complete the vaccinations. We want the Government to succeed. Does the Secretary of State accept that military medical teams can do much more to help?

    On testing, we also welcome the work being done across the UK to reinforce community testing, from Kirklees to Kent and in the devolved Administrations. Fifteen hundred personnel had also been provided to support schools with covid testing. Now that schools have moved to online teaching, what changes are being made to those plans? When infection rates come down, testing will again be vital to control the virus. Yet the £22 billion NHS track and trace service is still failing to do the necessary job. There is no military aid agreement in place for Test and Trace, so may I suggest that the Secretary of State offers military help to get the outfit sorted out?

    Finally, I turn to service personnel themselves. MOD figures confirm that the average number of tests for defence personnel since April has been just 1,900 a week. With 5,000 troops now deployed on covid tasks in the UK and more on essential operations or training overseas, what system is in place to ensure that those personnel are tested regularly, and what plans does the Secretary of State have to ensure that they are also properly vaccinated?

    The challenge of covid to this country is unprecedented. Yesterday, the chief medical officer said that we are

    “facing the most dangerous situation anyone can remember”,

    so, if the Secretary of State seeks to expand the role of the military in defeating this virus, he should know that he will have our full support.