Tag: Westminster

Committees unite to scrutinise UK Government coranvirus response

Westminster’s Health and Social Care Committee and Science and Technology Committee  have today launched a joint inquiry into lessons to be learned from the response to the coronavirus pandemic so far.

Scope of the inquiry

The two Select Committees will jointly conduct evidence sessions examining the impact and effectiveness of action taken by government and the advice it has received. Each Committee will draw on specialist expertise and call witnesses to consider a range of issues including:

  • the deployment of non-pharmaceutical interventions like lockdown and social distancing rules to manage the pandemic;
  • the impact on the social care sector;
  • the impact on BAME communities;
  • testing and contact tracing;
  • modelling and the use of statistics;
  • Government communications and public health messaging;
  • the UK’s prior preparedness for a pandemic; and
  • the development of treatments and vaccines.

Joint Inquiry Chairs Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP and Rt Hon Greg Clark MP issued the following statement:

“Parliament has a crucial role in scrutinising the actions of government at a time when the country is in the grip of a crisis such as the current pandemic with its tragic impact on lives and livelihoods.

“Important lessons need to be learned that can help inform further decisions that will need to be taken in the months ahead. It is crucial to learn and apply them now since the Public Inquiry that the Prime Minister has promised is likely to be some time away.

“Our committees will jointly learn what went well, what didn’t, and what lessons must be learnt at this point in the pandemic.

“We will use the independence of our cross-party committees and weekly detailed questioning of witnesses to consider the decisions taken and the evidence they were based on and assess their effectiveness. We will develop clear recommendations so that the UK can benefit from the lessons learned for future stages of this pandemic and for future crises.”

Restrictions on disabled people’s rights must not become the new normal

Temporary Coronavirus Act provisions due to be debated in the House of Commons on Weds 30 September could substantially restrict or curtail important, hard-won rights that disabled people rely on for their quality of life, says a new report by Westminster’s Women and Equalities Committee.

The Committee insists that they must not become new norms, setting back disabled people’s rights by many years.

The Committee’s scrutiny has focused on three areas:

Care Act easement provisions

Under the Care Act 2014, local authorities have duties to assess and meet care and support needs that meet certain criteria. Where local authorities’ resources are severely affected by the pandemic, the Coronavirus Act can essentially replace these with a duty to do this only where failure to do so would be a breach of an individual’s human rights. In some cases this is a would be a greatly reduced level of support.

Temporary Mental Health Act provisions

The Coronavirus Act allows applications for temporary detention under the Mental Health Act (sectioning) to be made by a single doctor, and extends some time limits, for example the time someone can be detained awaiting medical assessment from 72 hrs to 120, and removing the 12 week time limit on remand to hospital.

Education, Health and Care Plan duties to young people with SEND

Parents of children, and young people aged 16-25, with special educational needs or disabilities, have a right to request their local authority carry out an assessment of their child’s (or their own, if aged 16-25) education, health and care needs (Children and Families Act 2014).

Where these met the threshold, local authorities have a duty to secure a package of integrated support known as the Education Health and Care Plan within 20 weeks. The Coronavirus Act gives the Government the power to modify this absolute duty to one of “reasonable endeavours”. Regulations also temporarily suspended the time limits.

The report also looks at the statutory arrangements for the six month reviews of the Coronavirus Act, arguing that the “take all or leave all” approach to continuing the provisions is unsatisfactory.

This is an interim report of the Committee’s inquiry into the impact of coronavirus on disabled people’s access to services [link]. The full report will be published [check] later in the autumn.

Chair’s comments

Committee Chair Caroline Nokes said: “Restricting disabled people’s hard-won rights must not become the new normal. This pandemic is an unprecedented challenge for Government but we must ensure that does not become a reason to turn the clock back on equality.

“The “take all or leave all” binary vote will present MPs with no real choice over provisions which have clear and obvious equality impacts for their disabled constituents, and which they may believe are no longer justified – either now or over the 2 year lifetime of the Act.

“The Government must demonstrate its commitment to equality by ensuring that any proposals which potentially restrict disabled people’s hard won rights are properly considered, and separately from the statutory vote.”

Care Act Easement Provisions

If the pandemic had been more clearly under control, the Committee would have recommended repeal of these. But given the precarious stage of the pandemic, and the fragility of the social care sector it accepts that they might need to remain over the winter. The report recommends that these should be kept under constant review, and if the pandemic stabilises or improves they should be repealed at the second six monthly review in spring 2021 – or sooner.

Detailed information about the number and groups of disabled people affected, and the impact on services, proved impossible to find. Together with a lack of published data, this left the Committee unable to scrutinise the impacts properly.

The report calls on the Government to demonstrate that it is keeping local authorities’ use of Care Act easements under thorough review and allow for proper scrutiny of data, and to publish Think Local Act Personal’s report and accompanying data on the effects of the pandemic on social care provision to inform the debate in the House of Commons on Weds 30 September.

Finally, it recommends that Government guidance to local authorities must make it clear that any pre-emptive triggering of easements would be a misuse of the provisions and could leave local authorities open to legal challenge.

The report also notes that the pandemic has brought a range of pre-existing systemic problems in the social care sector into sharper focus. There is an urgent need for a more sustainable funding solution; resolution of workforce issues including high staff turnover and low pay, and closer integration with health services, as well as a need to value this sector more highly. These issues will be covered in the main report.

Mental Health Act

The temporary provisions have not been needed in England so far, and evidence suggests that future need is unlikely. These also go against the grain of long awaited MHA reforms intended to address inequalities in the system.

The Committee recommends that the Government should either repeal these, or suspend them – leaving the option of reinstating them if they become needed; if the pandemic stabilises or improves they should be repealed at the second six monthly review in spring 2021 – or sooner.

Local authorities: Education Health and Care Plan duties to children and young people with SEND

Was it really necessary to leave many children and young people with SEND with little or no support for three months? The Committee accepts that local authorities needed some flexibility with these duties at the peak of the pandemic, but calls on the Department of Education to review its processes with a view to making faster decisions to return to full duties.

It also calls for: clearer Government guidance on fulfilling the ‘reasonable endeavours’ duty, including minimum standards and a range of examples of good practice; a clear national strategy for managing the backlog of assessments; and for any future relaxation of duties to be local, in direct response to local effects of the pandemic, rather than national.

The Committee heard evidence that the pandemic had exacerbated pre-existing and widely acknowledged systemic issues in the wider SEND system including: funding, inconsistencies in provision, poor integration of services and a lack of accountability in the system. These will be considered in detail in the main report later in the autumn.

There’s more to come

While the temporary measures discussed here are an important part of many disabled people’s concerns about the unequal impact of the pandemic, this interim report does not provided a full picture of their lived experience.

The Committee has heard a much wider range of evidence and will publish a main report later in the autumn. This will scrutinise the clarity and accessibility of the Government’s consultation and communications, and disabled people’s wider experience of accessing health and social care.

MPs to present concerns to Ministers on support for households during COVID-19

Image representing news article

Westminster’s Petitions Committee will hold a hybrid e-petitions session tomorrow (Thursday 17 September) to put concerns to Ministers on support for households during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The session, which will be open to Members across the House, follows the Committee receiving a series of popular petitions calling for support for households in light of the pandemic. 

Watch the session here from 2.30pm on Thursday 7 September 

Read the petitions to be discussed:  

The Westminster Hall-style debate will be held in one of Parliament’s committee rooms, with the option of participating via video-link, and will give Members across the House the opportunity to debate and question Government Ministers on the issues being raised by petitioners.  

Ministers attending to answer questions will include Luke Hall MP (Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government), Will Quince MP (Minister in Department for Work and Pensions) and John Glen MP (Treasury Minister).  

More than 347,000 petitioners have now signed parliamentary petitions relating to supporting households through the coronavirus crisis, as the Government continues to adapt the support system being offered across the country.  

The session comes as the Petitions Committee continues to press Government Ministers on their response to the Coronavirus pandemic. 

Hybrid e-petitions sessions have been devised as sittings in Westminster Hall – the traditional debating Chamber for e-petitions – are still suspended as part of Parliament’s arrangements for adapting to Coronavirus and ensuring the safety of people on the Estate.

Westminster Hall debates are anticipated to resume from 5 October.  

Get involved

Committee seeks answers to Universal Credit questions

The Work and Pensions Committee publishes the Government response to its report DWP’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.

The report, published in June, made a number of recommendations about supporting those claiming Universal Credit, as well as legacy benefits and those with no recourse to public funds due to their immigration status.

It also made recommendations on the HSE and called on the DWP to develop a strategy for dealing with the effects of the economic downturn.

Committee Chair Stephen Timms MP has now written to the Secretary of State Thérèse Coffey MP to press the Department on a number of points not addressed by the Government response.

Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, said: “We don’t necessarily expect the Government immediately to accept every recommendation we make. But we do expect that it will at least explain its position. This response to our report leaves many questions unanswered.

“In the course of our inquiry, we heard concerns that the Government’s very welcome increases to some benefit rates would be undermined by the benefit cap. Ministers assured us in April that only a small number of people would be affected. In fact, DWP’s own statistics show that 84,000 households were newly capped between February and May this year.

“The Secretary of State also assured the House in May that she was looking very carefully at what could be done for people who had mistakenly applied for Universal Credit and left themselves worse off as a result. We recommended that the Government act urgently to put this right. It now seems that nothing is going to be done for these people. If that’s the case, the Government should say so clearly, and explain why.

“Just as importantly, there seems to be little acknowledgement of the role of the Department in planning for future pressure on the social security system. There needs to be a firm commitment to analysing how coronavirus has affected levels of poverty and a clear strategy—available for public scrutiny— for coordinating the employment response to the economic downturn.”

Secretary of State for Scotland annual report published

The Secretary of State for Scotland and his team ‘play a vital role in promoting the best interests of Scotland within a strong United Kingdom, and represent effectively Scottish interests at the heart of the UK Government’, according to the UK Government.

The annual report and accounts of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland (OSSS) and Office of the Advocate General for Scotland (OAG) have been published today [21 July 2020].

The report provides an overview of a busy year from April 2019 to March 2020. Highlights include:

  • supporting the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, an unprecedented global crisis which has profound implications for Scotland and the whole United Kingdom. This includes helping to drive our economy recovery strategy, which will be vital in the months and years ahead
  • delivering a public information campaign to inform and support Scottish businesses, EU nationals resident in Scotland, and the wider public on preparing for a EU exit
  • working with local authorities and the devolved administration in Scotland to deliver the City Region and Growth Deal programme to boost investment, create new jobs and drive forward economic growth right across Scotland
  • overseeing the move to Queen Elizabeth House, the UK Government’s new flagship hub in Scotland which will open in September 2020

Commenting on the report, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack (above) said: “I am very pleased to present our annual report and accounts to Parliament, for the first time since I was appointed to the role last year.

“The past 12 months have seen a period of monumental change across Scotland and the rest of the UK. We have left the EU, are tackling a global pandemic, and are getting ready for the end of the EU transition period.

“As we look forward to ensuring our economy can bounce back after coronavirus, and making the most of new global opportunities outside of the EU, the case for the Union has never been stronger. I am proud to be playing a part in sustaining and strengthening our Union”.

The annual report and accounts can be found here

‘Torpid and toothless’: Gambling Commission slammed in new report

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) and the Gambling Commission it oversees have an “unacceptably weak understanding” of the impact of gambling harms and lack measurable targets for reducing them, according to a Westminster committee.

In a report published yesterday, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee says the Gambling Commission is not proactively influencing gambling operators to improve protections, and consistently lags behind moves in the gambling industry. Where gambling operators fail to act responsibly, consumers do not have the same rights to redress as in other sectors.

There are an estimated 395,000 problem gamblers in the UK, with a further 1.8 million people ‘at risk’. The effects can be devastating, life-changing for people and whole families, including financial and home loss, relationship breakdowns, criminality and suicide.

The Gambling Commission is a non-departmental public body funded by licence fees from gambling operators. In 2018-19 it took £19 million in these licence fees: less than 0.2% of the £11.3 billion gambling yield that year. In contrast to the Commission’s £19m fees a year, the gambling industry has agreed to spend £60m to treat problem gamblers.

‘Prevention is better than cure’

The government has approached other public health issues on the basis that prevention is better than cure. However, the Department was unwilling to accept the premise that increasing the Commission’s budget to prevent harm would be preferable to spending on treating problem gamblers. 

The Commission increased the value of the financial penalties it enforced from £1.4 million in 2014-15 to £19.6 million in 2018-19, but it doesn’t know whether this has strengthened the deterrent to breaking rules for operators.

The Gambling Commission also has little understanding of the impact of its other regulatory action, including its ban on the use of credit cards for online gambling.

The Committee finds the pace of change to ensure effective regulation has been slow and the penalties on companies which don’t effectively tackle problem gambling are weak. 

Failure to protect consumers

It says the Department and Commission together have “failed to adequately protect consumers” at a time of considerable change in the sector, as gambling increasingly moves online and new games become popular.

The collection of evidence has been patchy and behind the curve as the nature of gambling has changed, and the Commission has failed to develop responses even where it has identified potential problems, such as during the Covid-19 lockdown.

The temporary ban on gambling ads during lockdown has now been lifted – in its response to the report the Commission should provide an update on gambling patterns and industry behaviour during Covid-19, and any regulatory action it has taken to tackle the industry.

The Committee calls for a new, published league table of gambling operators’ behaviour towards their customers, naming and shaming poor performers. It says the Department must urgently begin its long-planned review of the Gambling Act, setting out a timetable within three months of this report.

The Committee concludes:

  •  The Commission should develop a plan for how it will be more proactive in influencing the industry to treat consumers better, including using reputational tools such as league tables indicating how well each operator treats its customers
  • The Commission should urgently investigate the impact of fixed odds betting that falls under “lottery” legislation and is accessible by 16 and 17-year-olds
  • The Commission and the Department should urgently look at online fixed odds betting and report back to the Committee with how they intend to increase effectiveness of online harm reduction within three months. 
  • The Commission needs to “radically improve” the data and insight it collects to know what is going wrong for consumers and develop better information on its own performance: Within three months the Department and Commission should set out to the Committee what actions they will take to ensure they have the research and evidence base needed to better understand gambling problems, and to design an effective regulatory response.
  • The Department and Commission should work together to strengthen consumer rights assess the impact on consumers of gaps in redress arrangements and examine options for increasing statutory protections with an individual right of redress for breaches of the Social Responsibility Code of Practice.

Chair’s comments

Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “What has emerged in evidence is a picture of a torpid, toothless regulator that doesn’t seem terribly interested in either the harms it exists to reduce or the means it might use to achieve that.

“The Commission needs a radical overhaul: it must be quicker at responding to problems, update company licence conditions to protect vulnerable consumers and beef up those consumers’ rights to redress when it fails.

“The issue of gambling harm is not high up enough the Government’s agenda. The review of the Gambling Act is long overdue and an opportunity to see a step change in how problem gambling is treated. The Department must not keep dragging its feet, we need to see urgent moves on the badly needed overhaul of the system.

“Regulatory failure this comprehensive needs a quick pincer movement to expose the miscreants and strengthen those they harm.”

Action needed to help renters

UK government urged to strengthen social security system.

Scotland’s Housing Minister Kevin Stewart has written to the UK Government calling for urgent action to support housing tenants affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

In a letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Mr Stewart identifies five key areas in which the benefits system and support for people who rent their home should be urgently strengthened.

The Housing Minister urges the UK government to:

• lift Local Housing Allowance rates further to make more homes affordable to renters
• suspend the removal of the spare room subsidy
• suspend the benefit cap
• suspend the shared accommodation rate for under-35s
• extend the backdating of benefits for those who might not have realised they were eligible and relax the criteria under which backdating is allowable

The Scottish Government took action in the first emergency COVID-19 legislation to protect tenants from eviction for at least six months. Recently it made an additional £5 million available in discretionary housing payments to support those renting, increasing this fund to £16 million – this is further to that made available to fully mitigate the bedroom tax.

FULL TEXT OF LETTER

The Rt Hon Dr Thérèse Coffey
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9AJ

Dear Ms Coffey

I am writing to urge further consideration of the need to strengthen the social security system for renters affected by COVID-19.

In this unprecedented crisis, the Scottish Government and local authorities swiftly took a range of steps to protect renters from eviction through extended notice periods and extension of mandatory grounds. We have also moved to provide additional financial support within our devolved powers and budgets.

In order to support tenants during the crisis, we have increased the amount available for other discretionary housing payments (DHPs) by £5 million to almost £16 million. This takes our overall investment in DHPs in 2020/21 to more than £76 million. We took these steps to support those for whom the UK welfare state is not providing the safety net it should.

We are also supporting private landlords by offering loans and encouraging them to take mortgage breaks where available, although we know this is limited for some. We continue to engage with landlords across the rented sector to ensure that they are coming to agreements with tenants on rent arrears and signposting tenants to the range of financial support available.

The Scottish Government remains committed to working collaboratively with the UK Government to ensure that the social and economic effects of COVID-19 are mitigated effectively and efficiently so that people do not face hardship or homelessness. We have set out the steps we would like you to take in various pieces of correspondence during the pandemic.

The benefits system is an essential lifeline for many people facing or experiencing homelessness throughout the UK. Housing elements of social security remain a crucial part of the support required by tenants facing financial difficulty or homelessness as a result of the pandemic and remain reserved to you.

The changes you have made to local housing allowance (LHA) rates are welcome, but fall short of what is needed to provide comprehensive support to people living in rented accommodation.

In addition to our previous calls to lift the benefit cap; to scrap or relax the restrictions around the removal of the spare room subsidy; to provide more information to local authorities to help signpost available support to tenants; and to support quicker payments for discretionary housing payments, I urge you to consider further action to support people who rent their homes.

This is an area where urgent intervention is required in light of emerging evidence of the inequity of support available between those who rent and those who hold a mortgage.

Recent research by the Resolution Foundation demonstrates this in stark terms, finding that mortgage holders entered the crisis with lower average housing costs relative to income and a bigger financial buffer than renters, a disparity reflected in the fact that renters were far more likely to be facing difficulty in meeting their housing costs than those with a mortgage.

This same research also found that the level of mortgage holders seeking and successfully securing a mortgage holiday is far higher (12%) than the number of private renters seeking and successfully securing rent reductions from their landlords (5%).

We know that many people will find themselves in financial difficulty for the first time from job loss or substantial income reductions. Given the scale at which this is occurring for households across the country, it is vital that the safety net of social security is accessible and sufficient to support people through this national crisis and a new approach to the housing element of social security is now needed.

• We know that low-income families will have no savings to cushion them from the financial impact of the pandemic. We urge you to suspend the removal of the spare room subsidy, particularly as a spare room becomes essential when larger families need space to isolate.

• To support those with high rents who are currently unable to source lower cost accommodation, we would ask you to suspend the benefit cap. This will help to reduce the risk of immediate and short term hardship for families who are unable to meet housing costs, and will help to ensure that the support you have made available through investment in LHA rates and the increase in the standard allowance rate of universal credit is not undermined.

• We have seen the benefit of restored LHA rates in Edinburgh, with several hundred properties now affordable to renters, but the majority of renters will still struggle to source affordable accommodation and people must be able to maintain tenancies beyond the immediate crisis. We urge you to lift LHA rates further, bearing in mind that the 30th percentile still represents a cut when compared to the 50th percentile that applied before UK Government welfare changes.

• The high number of individuals under the age of 35 who have moved in with their parents during this crisis highlights the need for better housing support for young people. Like many stakeholders in the Scottish housing sector, we believe there is a strong case for suspending the shared accommodation rate for under 35s, especially as many who have lost jobs during the crisis are likely to be younger people.

• Finally, we ask you to extend the backdating of benefits for those who might not have realised they were eligible and relax the criteria under which backdating is allowable.

The Resolution Foundation figures are concerning and the risk to households who rent their homes is immediate and pressing. We must work collectively to act now to support a group of people facing mounting rent arrears and financial difficulty they would not have if they were mortgage holders. You will be aware of similar calls from leading homelessness organisations who are hearing concerns from their clients.

I am happy to discuss any of the points raised in this letter and wish to further reaffirm the offers from Scottish ministers to work with you on any other actions you are considering in response to COVID-19. I hope that by working together our governments can provide the most effective form of support during this crisis and afterwards.

Kind regards

KEVIN STEWART
MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND PLANNING

‘A National Disgrace’: British Airways lambasted in Westminster report

British Airways’ treatment of staff ‘a national disgrace’, say MPs

UK-based airlines and other aviation employers should not proceed hastily with large scale redundancies and restructuring to employees’ terms and conditions until the Job Retention Scheme ends in October 2020 and they have had the opportunity to consider the Government’s plans to help the sector restart and recover, say MPs.

In a report exploring the gravity of the crisis facing the UK’s aviation sector, the Transport Committee says fundamental decisions about people’s livelihoods should not be made prematurely.

Several aviation companies have announced redundancies, despite accessing the Government’s Job Retention Scheme designed to help businesses severely affected by the pandemic to retain employees and protect the economy.

The actions of British Airways and parent company, International Airlines Group, draw particular criticism. The committee’s view is that BA’s current consultation on staffing changes is a calculated attempt to take advantage of the pandemic to cut 12,000 jobs and to downgrade the terms and conditions of approximately 35,000 employees. The consultation is due to end on June 15th.

Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman MP, said: “The impact of coronavirus may sadly mean that the loss of some jobs in the aviation sector is justified. The behaviour of British Airways and its parent company, IAG, is not.

“It falls well below the standards expected from any employer, especially in light of the scale of taxpayer subsidy, at this time of national crisis. It is unacceptable that a company would seek to drive this level of change under the cover of a pandemic.

“We looked closely at BA’s plans to consult on at least 12000 redundancies and change the terms and conditions of the bulk of its employees. Many submitted written evidence to our inquiry and we thank them.

“As a committee, we have sought to examine this further and drive change using the means open to us through the House, asking Urgent Questions, seeking debates, introducing legislation and putting questions directly to the Prime Minister.

“We will continue to bring pressure where we can, including the airport slot allocation process. This wanton destruction of a loyal work force cannot appear to go without sanction – by Government, parliamentarians or paying passengers who may choose differently in future. We view it is as a national disgrace.”

The introduction of a 14 day blanket quarantine for travellers to the UK from other countries will damage the recovery of the sector and the wider economy, says the report.

Should the conditions allow in late June, the Committee calls for the quarantine policy to be abandoned when it is next reviewed and urges Government to introduce a more flexible and risk-based approach to border control, using alternatives such as targeted quarantines, ‘air bridges’ and temperature screening. In defending its decision, the Government should clearly set out the evidence it used to reach its decision.

Thousands of passengers who booked holidays and flights are still waiting on refunds from airlines and travel operators in accordance with their legal obligations, causing them additional stress and hardship.

The Government should consider whether protections for passengers can be built into the planned Airline Insolvency Bill.

MPs also recommend that the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, responsible for enforcing current rules, conduct a speedy review of its powers to ensure it can enforce the rights of passengers in an effective and timely way.

Acknowledging the extraordinary pressures on providers, the Committee asks the Department for Transport to clarify why an extension to the legal deadlines for issuing refunds was not implemented in the UK.

Four months into the crisis, today’s report says the Government’s strategy should be more developed.

The Government’s Aviation Restart, Recovery and Engagement Unit is a welcome first step but the Government should bring forward a strategy for the aviation sector as soon as possible. To stimulate demand and protect businesses, the Committee recommended a temporary six month suspension of Air Passenger Duty payments and 12 month business rates relief for airlines and airports across the UK, as is currently the case in Scotland.

Chair of the Committee, Huw Merriman MP, added: “Few industries have been affected more by the coronavirus pandemic than aviation. Thousands of planes, and thousands of passengers, have been grounded, resulting in a 97% reduction in passenger flights compared to the previous year.

“This vital sector of the UK economy could lose more than £20 billion in revenue. Government must press on with a collaborative strategy for recovery.

“It is imperative that the UK Government finds a way to get aviation back on its feet. We don’t believe this fits with a blanket 14 day quarantine period for travellers to the UK.

“In today’s report, we recommend a more agile response. We also outline our support for a temporary suspension of Air Passenger Duty payments and support with business rates.

“Passenger confidence in airlines and travel operators, dented by unnecessarily difficult refund processes, must be rebuilt. We recommend the Government considers whether new protections for passengers should be introduced ahead of future pandemics or other extraordinary circumstances.”

The Committee’s inquiry is part of a wider look at the impact of coronavirus on UK transport. This first look at aviation did not examine the longer-term implications for air travel and MPs intend to return to this once the immediate crisis has subsided.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “The travel industry’s handling of cancellations and refunds has left consumers out of pocket and trust in the sector at a record low – so the committee is right to call for the government to introduce measures to improve protections for travellers.

“Which? has been calling for airlines and holiday firms to comply with the law on customer refunds and for clarity around Refund Credit Notes since the sector was thrown into chaos earlier this year, so action is long overdue.

“The government must urgently set out how it will take these recommendations forward, to restore trust in the industry before it is permanently damaged and ensure customers receive the billions of pounds they are collectively owed in refunds.”

Should our politicians return to Westminster? Speaker responds to MPs

Speaker of the House Sir Lindsay Hoyle has responded to the Centenary Action Group, a cross-party group of MPs who had written to express concerns about plans to return to the traditional ways of working at Westminster.

Dear colleague, 

Many thanks for your letter dated 20 May. I am well-aware of the strength of feeling from Members concerned about plans to return to physical proceedings in the House of Commons, but it is always useful to have the issues set out on paper.

Like many, I have been impressed with the way in which the House Authorities were able to facilitate hybrid proceedings in the Chamber, and then remote voting, within such a short space of time. While these proceedings have had their limitations, they have undoubtedly allowed more scrutiny and participation to take place than would have occurred without them.

Since the House has delivered these innovations to ensure that individuals could adhere to Government guidelines in order to keep safe, the Government has now taken the view that the House should return to the Chamber in a fully physical form.

It is a long-established constitutional principle – and one embodied in Standing Orders – that the Government controls the distribution of time available to the House, and that Government business has precedence. It is for the House itself to determine its procedures, as it did when it facilitated the move to allow virtual participation in select committees (which remains in force), and the move towards hybrid proceedings in the Chamber and remote voting (no longer in force).

As Speaker I cannot and should not stand in the way of the will of the House.

However, I would like to say that, in my view, all Members entitled to sit in the House of Commons should be able to have their voices heard in representing their constituents to as great an extent as is possible.

I am personally sympathetic to those who need to stay at home because they are vulnerable, shielding or have caring responsibilities. I have continued to express my view to the Leader of the House that the possibility to participate in the business of the House via hybrid proceedings should remain for these colleagues. I very much hope that the Government and Opposition, through the usual channels, can work together to ensure that this happens.

I believe, that just as I have a duty of care to staff of the House in my role as Chair of the House of Commons Commission, the individual political parties have a duty of care to their MPs to ensure that they are not put at risk and protection is available for those who need it.

As an extension of that, they also have a responsibility to ensure that their constituents are not disenfranchised, especially if there is an alternative method available enabling their MP to participate in business and vote on it.

For those who do come onto the parliamentary estate, I am confident that the appropriate social distancing measures will be in place. The House authorities are working together with Public Health England to ensure the parliamentary estate is a COVID-19 secure workplace by the time we return from the Whitsun recess on 2 June.

As you are probably aware, I have been insistent that we do not allow more than 50 MPs in the Chamber, while PHE guidelines on social distancing remain at two metres. Indeed, I will suspend the sitting if we exceed that number, or it is clear that social distancing is not being maintained.

I have also been very clear that Members’ staff, and House staff, who can work remotely should continue to do so – they should not be returning to the estate, or their constituency offices.

My priority, throughout this pandemic, is that all in the Parliamentary community can work safely if they are on the Estate, and I am grateful to all those working hard on our risk assessments and taking steps to make our workplace as safe as possible.

My pledge to you is that I will continue to be guided by PHE advice and will take whatever action is advised and I will continue to represent the range of views on this matter in my interactions with the Government.

Warm wishes

Sir Lindsay Hoyle 

Speaker of the House of Commons 

Coronavirus: Time for transparency, committee tells Prime Minister

Westminster’s Science and Technology Committee has today shared a series of findings in a letter written to Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The 19 page letter, which sets out a number of recommendations to the Government, is based on evidence heard as part of the Committee’s inquiry into UK science, research and technology capability and influence in global disease outbreaks.

Backed by a cross-party group of MPs, the publication details ten key lessons the UK Government should learn from its experience of handling the first months of the pandemic.

Drawing on the evidence of scientists and other relevant experts from the UK and around the world who have thus far provided the Committee with a wide range of insights, the recommendations include:

  • The call for publication of the evidence basis and rationale informing Public Health England’s decision to concentrate testing in a limited number of its own laboratories and expand testing capacity gradually, rather than surging capacity through a large number of available public sector, research institute, university and private sector laboratories. The letter states that the decision, which led to the discontinuation of community testing, is ‘one of the most consequential made during [the] crisis’ and urges the Government to learn from its experience in anticipation of possible vaccine manufacture.
  • That the Government ‘urgently’ build up capacity for contact tracing, underlining the importance of contact tracing in managing the easing of lockdown measures in the UK and minimising the risk of a second peak of infections.
  • That the Government set out a clear approach for managing the risks around asymptomatic transmission of the disease,
  • That further transparency is needed regarding the provision of scientific advice, providing clear distinction between scientific advice and policy decisions. This includes:
    o- a call for the now public list of members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) to be updated regularly, including with the number of meetings the named participants attended;
    o- a request for the disciplines of SAGE participants who are not publicly named to be disclosed; and
    o- recommendations that papers on which SAGE draws for its advice to be published promptly after each relevant meeting, as well as for a summary of the scientific advice which has informed Government decisions to be published.

The Committee also makes a recommendation relating to the systematic recording of the ethnicity of those dying of COVID-19, stating that such data may help progress understanding of the disproportionate number of deaths of those from BAME backgrounds.

The letter has reached these conclusions as a result of the inquiry’s first six public evidence sessions. The inquiry, which captures contemporary evidence on decisions and assessments made by Government during the pandemic, continues.

Chair of the Committee, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, said: “The Government has drawn extensively on scientific advice during the pandemic and should continue to do so.

“The Government should follow the best traditions of science in being transparent about the evidence and advice on which it makes decisions, and by being willing to continually learn from evidence and experience and not being afraid to adjust its approach in response.

“Greater transparency around scientific advice; putting capacity in place in advance of need, such as in testing and vaccines; collecting more data earlier and learning from other countries’ approaches are some of the early lessons of this pandemic that are relevant to further decisions that will need to be taken during the weeks and months ahead.

“We hope the Government will act on these recommendations which are offered in a constructive spirit based on the evidence we have taken so far.”

200518-Letter – Chair-to-Prime-Minister-re-COVID-19-pandemic-some-lessons-learned-so-far