Author: admin

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

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

    We are taking this action to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has brought peace and political stability to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol is undermining the function of the agreement and of power sharing. It has created fractures between east and west, diverted trade and meant that people in Northern Ireland are treated differently from people in Great Britain. It has weakened their economic rights. That has created a sense that parity of esteem between different parts of the community, an essential part of the agreement, has been damaged.

    The Bill will address those political challenges and fix the practical problems the protocol has created. It avoids a hard border and protects the integrity of the UK and the European Union single market. It is necessary because the growing issues in Northern Ireland, including on tax and customs, are baked into the protocol itself. Our preference remains a negotiated solution, and the Bill contains a provision that allows for negotiated agreement, but the EU has ruled out up-front making changes to the text of the protocol.

    John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

    I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her very patient and good diplomacy. Will she confirm that this very moderate measure is completely legal and essential to the peace and good will of Northern Ireland?

    Elizabeth Truss

    I can absolutely confirm that this Bill is both necessary and legal, and the Government have published a legal statement setting that out.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will make a bit more progress and then allow some further interventions.

    We continue to raise the issues of concern with our European partners, but we simply cannot allow this situation to drift. Northern Ireland has been without a devolved Government since February due specifically to the protocol, at a time of major global economic challenges. Therefore, it is the duty of this Government to act now to enable a plan for restored local government to begin. It is both legal and necessary.

    This Bill fixes the specific problems that have been caused in Northern Ireland while maintaining those parts of the protocol that are working. It fixes problems in four areas: customs and sanitary and phytosanitary; a dual regulatory model; subsidy control and VAT; and governance. On customs and SPS, the Bill creates a green and red lane system. All those trading into Northern Ireland will be part of a trusted trader scheme. Goods destined for Northern Ireland will not face customs bureaucracy. Goods for the Republic of Ireland and the EU will go through four EU-style border procedures. All data from both the green and red lanes will be shared with the EU in real time as the goods depart from Great Britain. This means that the EU will have this data before the goods arrive in Northern Ireland, ensuring that the EU single market is protected.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the Secretary of State for bringing this forward and for her comprehensive understanding of the position of many people in Northern Ireland. As someone who has had businesses contacting me for those who have openly stated that they are from a nationalist tradition and yet feel afraid to voice complaints to their own MP for fear of reprisals, I speak with confidence in assuring the Secretary of State that Northern Ireland as a whole needs this Bill not simply for cultural identity, which is imperative, but for financial viability for small businesses due to the effects of the EU’s vindictive approach to block VAT and state aid. This Bill really is long overdue.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. Interventions should be fairly brief because we have a lot of people wanting to speak in this debate.

    Elizabeth Truss

    I was talking about the data that we are sharing with the EU. I am pleased to say that we already have this system in place. We are giving demonstrations to businesses and the EU to show how it works, and I am happy to make those demonstrations available to Members of Parliament as well. Any trader violating the lanes will face penalties and would face ejection from the scheme.

    Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)

    I have an immense amount of sympathy with what the Foreign Secretary is saying, and it does seem to me as though the EU is not being particularly constructive in trying to get the solution that we all want to see. But many of us are extremely concerned that the Bill brazenly breaks a solemn international treaty, trashes our international reputation, threatens a trade war at a time when our economy is flat, and puts us at odds with our most important ally. Can she say anything to reassure me in my anxieties on these points?

    Elizabeth Truss

    As I said at the outset, our preference is for a negotiated solution, and we have sought that for 18 months, but as recently as last weekend the EU has refused to change the text of the protocol. That is why there is strong legal justification, as set out in our legal statement, for us taking this action. Our priority, as the United Kingdom Government, has to be political stability within our own country. While we put this Bill through Parliament, we will continue to seek a negotiated solution with the EU, and there are provisions in the Bill to deliver that. I would strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to raise this with the EU directly and to encourage a negotiated solution, because there is a solution to be achieved. We have laid it out very clearly with our red and green proposal, but we do need the EU to agree to change the text of the protocol. That is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.

    Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. The Government’s legal position prays in aid the international law doctrine of necessity, but the International Law Commission says that where a state has itself contributed to the situation of necessity, that doctrine cannot be prayed in aid. Given that the Prime Minister signed the withdrawal agreement, including the protocol, in the knowledge that it would give rise to precisely the difficulties of which the Government now complain—we debated it on the Floor of the House—does the Secretary of State not see that there is a pretty big hole in the legal advice she has been given?

    Elizabeth Truss

    We set out the case extremely clearly in the legal advice, and the doctrine of necessity has been used by other Governments in the past where there is a severe issue and the other party is unwilling to renegotiate that treaty. That is the position we are in with the Northern Ireland protocol. What I would ask the hon. and learned Lady and other Members on the Opposition Benches is this: given that the EU refuses to reopen the Northern Ireland protocol, and issues around customs and tax are specifically baked in, what is their solution for dealing with the real issues in Northern Ireland? We have looked at all the alternative solutions, and the only effective solution is this Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, in the absence of the EU being willing to negotiate a new protocol.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend could also point out that the protocol itself contains provisions for it to be changed, and the EU refuses to contemplate using those provisions. May I also point out that at the time we signed the protocol, we did not know the shape of the trade and co-operation agreement, and it was reasonable to expect the EU to give mutual recognition of products and standards, including SPS standards, as it has with New Zealand, for example? The EU refuses to give us those provisions. The problems in the protocol would be much less if the EU had given us a better trade deal.

    Elizabeth Truss

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the protocol is not set in stone. That is why for the past 18 months this Government have sought to achieve negotiated changes to the protocol. In the absence of the EU being willing to change the text, the only way to resolve this matter is for us to legislate.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I am going to make more progress, and then I will take more interventions.

    We fully understand and respect the legitimate concerns of the EU that the single market should be protected. Our solution does just that. The Bill will also establish a dual regulatory regime so that businesses can choose between meeting UK and EU standards. That removes the barriers to goods made to UK standards being sold in Northern Ireland and it cuts the processes that drive up cost for business. It prevents unnecessary divergence between two parts of the UK internal market. Anybody who trades into the EU single market will still have to do so according to EU standards.

    The Bill will also ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control and VAT, overcoming constraints that have meant Northern Ireland has not benefited from the same support as the rest of the UK. For example, at present people in Northern Ireland are not able to benefit from the VAT cuts on solar panels that the Chancellor announced in the spring statement.

    These are essential functions of any 21st-century state, but they are especially important in Northern Ireland, where the UK Government play an outsized role in the local economy. We will maintain the arrangements in the protocol on VAT, which support trade on the island of Ireland while ensuring that Northern Ireland can still benefit from the freedoms and flexibility available in Great Britain.

    Caroline Lucas

    Does the Secretary of State understand why so many people would accuse this Government of the most rank hypocrisy? First, this is a predictable outcome of the agreement that they negotiated when they did not give a fig for the situation in Northern Ireland, frankly. Secondly, if they were serious about negotiations, they could be using article 16. Thirdly, at the very same time that the Prime Minister is gladhanding G7 leaders in Bavaria and extolling the virtues of a rules-based international system, his own Government at home are riding a horse and coaches through a rules-based system. Does she understand the concerns we have? What kind of reputation will the UK have on the global stage as a result of this proposal?

    Elizabeth Truss

    As I have made clear, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should have primacy. The fact is that it has been undermined over the past two years, as we can see from the fact that the institutions of Northern Ireland are not up and running. That is why the Government need to act, and we are doing so in a reasonable and legal way.

    Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    I entirely accept my right hon. Friend’s desire to achieve a negotiated settlement if at all possible; I know how much work has gone into that. To return to the legal point, she will know that the application of the doctrine of necessity requires both the legal tests to be met and the evidential base to be there, because it is largely fact-specific to show whether those tests have been met. I know that the Government have been working hard to assemble that evidential base, but can she tell us when it will be available to the House so that we can form a judgment as to whether those legal tests are met and, therefore, proportionality and necessity are met? It would be helpful to have that before we come to a conclusion on the Bill.

    Elizabeth Truss

    I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There are clearly very severe issues in Northern Ireland, including the fact that its institutions are not up and running, which mean that the UK has to act and cannot allow the situation to drift. I do not think that we have heard what the Opposition’s alternative would be, apart from simply hoping that the EU might suddenly negotiate or come up with a new outcome.

    Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Elizabeth Truss

    Perhaps the hon. Lady can give us an idea about her alternative plan.

    Karin Smyth

    Over the past six years, I have given several alternatives, including as a shadow Minister. The Secretary of State talks about the institutions. Can she give the House the details of the agreement she has secured from the political parties in Northern Ireland that they will return to Stormont on the completion of the Bill—or on the completion of Second Reading, at any point during the Committee stage, or on Third Reading? What in the Bill has secured that? What role is there for anybody in Northern Ireland, given that the powers go to the Minister of the Crown?

    Elizabeth Truss

    I note that the hon. Lady has not come up with any alternatives to the Bill to move the situation forward. The approach we have taken, with the four areas that I am talking through, is to identify what the practical problems are for the people of Northern Ireland and to come up with solutions that address those problems while protecting the EU single market. It is our expectation that the passage of the Bill will result in the institutions being re-established.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will make progress on talking through the elements of the Bill, but I will be happy to accept further interventions later.

    The Bill will ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control and VAT, which will overcome the constraints that have meant that Northern Ireland has not benefited from the same support as the rest of the UK, as I mentioned. It will also maintain the arrangements in the protocol on VAT that support trade on the island of Ireland, while ensuring that Northern Ireland can still benefit from the freedoms and flexibilities available in Great Britain.

    The Bill will remove the role of the European Court where it is not appropriate, including its role as the final arbiter of disputes. That is in line with normal international dispute-resolution provisions, including in the trade and co-operation agreement. The Bill will also enable courts to seek an opinion from the European Court on legitimate questions of the interpretation of EU law, which will ensure that it can still be applied for the purposes of north-south trade.

    The Belfast/Good Friday agreement is based on consent from both communities. All Unionist parties have cited the European Court as a main cause of major democratic deficit. Together with VAT and state aid rules, it causes Unionists to feel less connected and less part of the UK. This is not a hypothetical issue; the European Court has already become one of the most controversial elements of the protocol and threatens to disrupt everyday lives. The EU has brought infraction proceedings against the UK in five areas that cover issues such as parcels and transporting pets. To be absolutely clear, the Bill changes only the parts of the protocol that are causing the problems and undermining the three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    I have a very short question, which is simply this. The Foreign Secretary says the Bill is legal, but lots of people disagree with her, including lots of very eminent lawyers both in this country and elsewhere. Which body will arbitrate on the decision as to whether this Bill is legal?

    Elizabeth Truss

    We have published our Government legal statement, which clearly states the reasons why this Bill is legal and the necessity of pursuing this Bill. I return to my point about the lack of alternatives being proposed by the Opposition. We have exhausted all the other avenues, and this remains the course of action that is actually going to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and re-establish the institutions.

    Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

    There is a lot of talk about international law, but can I take the Foreign Secretary to paragraph 3 of article 2 of the UN charter? It says:

    “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

    That is incumbent on us and the EU, and the EU needs to engage with us and negotiate so that peace is not threatened.

    Elizabeth Truss

    My hon. Friend is right. It is very clear from the legal advice that one of the issues is that the EU will not change the text of the protocol even though, when the protocol was negotiated, it was very clear that it was not set in stone and should be subject to change because of the very unique situation in Northern Ireland.

    We are very clear that there are elements of the protocol that are working and that we do want to maintain. We will maintain the conditions for north-south co-operation and trade, and uphold the common travel area. We will maintain the functioning of the single electricity market, which benefits both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

    The Bill provides specific powers to implement technical regulations as part of our solution, and today we launched a consultation with businesses to make sure that the way it is implemented works for the people of business in Northern Ireland. We will continue consulting with businesses and the EU over the coming weeks to make sure that the implementation works.

    Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)

    One of the fundamental purposes of this long-awaited Bill is to uphold the critical Good Friday agreement, which as the whole House knows completely underpins the maintenance of peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. That being the case, for those who follow this matter closely, including in the United States, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that one of the strongest advocates for action on this has been Lord Trimble, the Nobel laureate, who helped negotiate the Good Friday agreement in the first place?

    Elizabeth Truss

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all know how hard-won peace and political stability in Northern Ireland was, and we all know how important it is that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is upheld and is not undermined. That is the discussion I have been having with colleagues in the United States and around the world, and those who have experienced the situation in Northern Ireland fully understand how important it is that we act and that we cannot allow this situation to drift.

    I know there are those across the House who want to give negotiation more time. The problem we face is that we have already been negotiating for 18 months. We have a negotiating partner that is refusing to change the text of the protocol. Meanwhile, we have a worsening situation in Northern Ireland. So it is firmly the view of this Government that we need to act. We are pursuing this legislation as all other options have been exhausted.

    Our first choice was and remains renegotiating the protocol text with the EU. This is in line with the evolution of other treaties, which happens all the time. For example, both the EU and the UK are currently renegotiating changes to the energy charter treaty. Given the unique nature of Northern Ireland and the unprecedented nature of these arrangements, it was always likely that flexibility would be needed. In fact, that flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the protocol itself, but despite the fact that we have been pursuing these renegotiations we have not seen the flexibility needed from the EU.

    As recently as this weekend, the EU said it will not renegotiate the text of the protocol, and Members across the House will have seen that the EU put forward proposals last year and again a fortnight ago; it is worth pointing out that those proposals will leave the people and businesses of Northern Ireland worse off than the current standstill arrangements. Its proposals would make the situation on the ground worse, adding further to the tensions and stresses; goods going solely to Northern Ireland would still face customs paperwork and sanitary and phytosanitary certificates.

    Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is borne out of necessity: necessity to act in our national interest, to provide a permanent solution to a temporary measure, to preserve the Belfast agreement, and to preserve the constitutional settlement that keeps Northern Ireland as part of the UK? It is a necessity to prevent a democratic deficit and to use international law to safeguard and protect our essential interests while protecting those of the EU.

    Elizabeth Truss

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We still face a situation in which the EU has refused to change the text of the protocol, and its proposals do not even address many of the issues of concern—over governance, subsidies, manufactured goods and VAT. Without dealing with those very real issues for the people of Northern Ireland we are not going to see the balance of the Belfast Good Friday agreement restored, and we are not going to see the cross-community support we need to get the political institutions back up and running.

    Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)

    The Foreign Secretary knows that the three things that need to be resolved are the friction in trade; repairing the harm to our constitutional position within this country; and erasing the democratic deficit at the heart of the protocol. The Foreign Secretary has fairly outlined the myriad steps the Government have taken; if this Bill is required, they can have our support in resolving these issues, but she will also hear a lot of opposition from Members of other parties on this side of the House. In hearing that opposition from colleagues sitting to my right and left, can she identify even one of them who advocated using article 16 or the provisions of the protocol, or have they simply no interest in trying to resolve the issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland today?

    Elizabeth Truss

    The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Those who advocate further negotiation with the EU need to persuade the EU to change its negotiating mandate so the text of the protocol can change, because we know that those specific issues, including on the customs bureaucracy and VAT, can only be addressed by addressing the text of the protocol itself.

    I want to come on to the specific point the hon. Gentleman made about article 16. Of course we have looked at triggering article 16 to deal with this issue; however, we came to the conclusion that it would not resolve the fundamental issues in the protocol. It is only a temporary measure and it would only treat some of the symptoms without fixing the root cause of the problems, which are baked into the protocol text itself. It could also lead to attrition and litigation with the EU while not delivering sufficient change.

    I want to be clear: we do not rule out using article 16 further down the line if the circumstances demand it, but in order to fix the very real problems in Northern Ireland and get the political institutions back up and running, the only solution that is effective and provides a comprehensive and durable solution is this Bill.

    Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)

    I suspect that when the Foreign Secretary was campaigning for Britain to remain in the European Union, she never in a million years thought she would be standing here proposing a Bill of this sort. In light of the comment she just made about article 16, why are the Government not proposing to use the legal method to raise these questions with the European Union through the treaty they signed, rather than claiming necessity? The Foreign Secretary has yet to give me a single example where the British Government have claimed necessity for abrogating a treaty they have negotiated and signed.

    Elizabeth Truss

    The reason why I am putting the Bill forward is that I am a patriot, and I am a democrat. Our No. 1 priority is protecting peace and political stability in Northern Ireland and protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested will achieve that end.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will finish off my remarks.

    The only way for us to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and fix the problems in Northern Ireland is to pass this legislation. We have heard all kinds of complaining from the Opposition side about the solution that the Government are putting forward, but no alternative solution that will deliver.

    I want to be clear that this is not my preferred choice, but, in the absence of a negotiated solution, we have no other choice. There is no need for the EU to react negatively. It will be no worse off as a result of the Bill. These issues are very small in the context of the single market, but they are critical for Northern Ireland.

    Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)

    The Foreign Secretary knows that I have grave concerns about her Bill, but may I ask her coolly to reflect on praying in aid patriotism as a defence of it? Is she seriously impugning the patriotism of colleagues across the House who have concerns about her Bill? I find that a false conflation.

    Elizabeth Truss

    I was directly responding to the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about why I campaigned one way in the referendum and am now working to ensure that the Brexit negotiation that we achieved works for the people of Northern Ireland. That is because I believe in the Union of the United Kingdom and in the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I want to resolve those issues.

    All I am pointing out to colleagues across the House is that I have negotiated in good faith with the European Union, but it has refused to change the text of the protocol. I have looked at all the options—including triggering article 16—to see whether they would work to resolve the serious issues in Northern Ireland, and I have come to the genuine conclusion that they will not.

    Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

    Will the Secretary of State commit that never again will a Government stand at that Dispatch Box and change the Act of Union in a way that is detrimental to this United Kingdom that we all adhere to and all admire? Will she also confirm that more than 300 hours have been spent in negotiations with the EU and that it has resisted any change whatsoever, such is its animosity towards Northern Ireland?

    Elizabeth Truss

    The very clear reason why we are acting now is that there has been a refusal to change the text of the protocol, which is causing real problems in Northern Ireland. As I have said, these issues are very small in the context of the single market, but they are critical for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is in their interests that we are acting in putting through the Bill.

    Once the legislation is enacted, we can draw a line under the issue and unleash the full potential of our relationship with the EU. Fundamentally, we share a belief in democracy, in freedom and in the right of all countries to self-determination. We are natural allies in an increasingly uncertain and geopolitical world.

    Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)

    Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

    Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)

    Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will not give way any more—the House will be pleased to hear that I am almost at the end of my remarks. We want to work with the EU for the betterment of not just Europe but the world, and we want to focus all our efforts on tackling external threats, such as Putin’s Russia. Once this legislation is passed, we will have a solution that helps to restore the balance between the communities, and that upholds the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is the purpose of the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

  • Rosena Allin-Khan – 2022 Speech on the Draft Mental Health Bill

    Rosena Allin-Khan – 2022 Speech on the Draft Mental Health Bill

    The speech made by Rosena Allin-Khan, the Shadow Health Secretary, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the statement, and for sharing his family’s experiences over the weekend. I am so sorry to hear about the circumstances surrounding his brother’s tragic death.

    This overhaul of the Mental Health Act 1983 is long awaited. We welcome the draft Bill, and the fact that the Government have accepted the majority of the recommendations from Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review of the Act. It was interesting to hear, in the statement, of the Government’s focus on keeping people in crisis out of A&E, and of their plans to reduce the use of general ambulance call-outs for those experiencing a mental health crisis. In 2020, there were over 470,000 calls to 999 because someone was in a mental health crisis, which took up an estimated 66,000 hours of call time. In my email inbox, I have numerous examples from across the country of children being stuck in A&E for over 24 hours waiting for a mental health bed. One child waited over three days. When I work shifts in A&E, I see more and more people coming into hospital in crisis. The increased frequency is deeply concerning. Conditions are getting worse and illnesses are going untreated. We would not allow that in cancer treatment, so why is it allowed in mental health treatment?

    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 situations and whose voices are often not heard when decisions are made. We are pleased that patients will have greater autonomy over their treatment in a mental health crisis, and we are glad that the Government have been working with organisations to listen to the experiences of those with learning disabilities or autism, but will the Secretary of State explain what safeguards will be put in place for people with learning disabilities or autism should the worst happen and they find themselves in prison? This is not a straightforward issue. Many people with learning disabilities or autism also live with serious mental illnesses, and we have to make sure that they have their rights protected and have dignity in their treatment.

    In our communities, we witness the harsh reality of the health inequalities that so desperately need to be addressed. As the Secretary of State said, black people are over four times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act.

    Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)

    Will my good friend give way?

    Mr Speaker

    Order. The shadow Minister cannot give way; this is a statement.

    Dr Allin-Khan

    We need to advance the mental health equality framework and there must be culturally appropriate services and the freedom for local areas to look at their specific populations in order to have the most suitable approaches. Culturally appropriate community provision is vital for mental health services that are truly joined-up and effective and that, crucially, work well for patients. Will the Secretary of State also provide reassurances on the future of community care and on how they will work with local authorities across the country to deliver community provision that works?

    Mental health staffing levels are absolutely crucial to ensuring that mental health services are fit for purpose. More than a year and a half ago, I asked the Secretary of State’s predecessor about the future of mental health staffing. The proposals that have been set out today go well beyond what has been committed to in the long-term plan. Labour has a plan: to recruit an extra 8,500 mental health staff to treat 1 million additional patients a year by the end of our first term in office. Will the Secretary of State outline when we will get the workforce settlement? What reassurance can he give on filling training places?

    For too long, the Government have had their head in the sand when it comes to mental health. They have failed on eradicating dormitories from mental health facilities, failed on cracking down on the use of restraint, and failed on getting on top of waiting times. We cannot have this kicked into the long grass and, if it gets lost in the political quagmire of Conservative in-fighting, should the Government call an early general election, people will suffer. We cannot have the Government fail on mental health legislation any longer. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity; we simply must get this right for everyone who depends on these vital services.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Statement on the Draft Mental Health Bill

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Statement on the Draft Mental Health Bill

    The statement made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our plans to bring the Mental Health Act 1983 into the 21st century. Today, just as we pledged in the Queen’s Speech, we have published a draft Mental Health Bill to modernise legislation that was passed by the House almost 40 years ago and make sure that it is fit for the future.

    Last year, we invested £500 million to support those with mental health needs who were most affected by the pandemic and, as we set out in the NHS long-term plan, we are investing record amounts into expanding and transforming mental health services. That will reach an extra £2.3 billion each year by 2023-24. Later this year, we will also publish a new 10-year mental health plan followed by a 10-year suicide prevention plan, which, as I set out in a speech on Friday, will place a determined focus on this major source of grief and heartbreak so that fewer people will one day get the news that turns their lives upside down. But we cannot make the critical reforms that we need and that are so essential to the country’s mental health system without making sure that the law that underpins our country’s mental health system is up to date, too.

    Since the 1983 Act, our understanding of and attitude towards mental health has transformed beyond recognition, and it is right that we act now to bring the Act up to date. The Mental Health Act was created so that people who have severe mental illnesses and present a risk to themselves or others can be safely detained and treated for their own protection and that of those around them, but there are a number of alarming issues with how the Act is currently used. Too many people are being detained. They are also being detained for too long, and there are inequalities among those who are detained. The previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), asked Professor Sir Simon Wessely to lead a review into the Act. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her tireless commitment to this most important of issues and to Sir Simon for his illuminating report, which made a powerful case for reform and was rightly welcomed on both sides of the House. It made for uncomfortable but essential reading, vividly showing how currently the Act fails patients and their loved ones and deprives people of autonomy and control over their care.

    The draft legislation that we have published today builds on Sir Simon’s recommendations as well as those in our White Paper, which was published in partnership with the Ministry of Justice last year. Just like Sir Simon’s report, the White Paper was welcomed by both sides of the House. It was also welcomed by leading charities including Mind, the National Autistic Society and Rethink, countless mental health professionals and, critically, the people who use mental health services and their loved ones. Today, we are showing how we will put the vision into action. The Bill is a once-in-a-generation reform, and I would like to set out briefly to the House the important themes that sit behind it.

    First, the Bill rebalances the criteria for detention so that it will take place only as a last resort when all other options have been explored and considered. Under the new criteria, people will be detained only when they pose a significant risk of harm to themselves and others, and patients should be detained only if they will benefit from the treatment that is made possible by their detention.

    Secondly, the Bill shows how we will give patients more control over their care and treatment. It will ensure that, in most cases, clinicians can administer compulsory treatment only if there is a strong reason to do so. In future, all patients formally detained under the Act will have a statutory right to a care and treatment plan, drawn up between the patient and their clinician, and personalised based on the patient’s needs. It will give them a clear road map to their discharge from hospital.

    There are some cases when patients are not able to make decisions about their own care or feel that they could benefit from greater support. Currently, patients are not always able to choose who can represent them, as their nearest relative automatically qualifies to act on their behalf. The Bill will change that, allowing patients to choose a nominated person who they believe is best placed to look after their interests. The Bill will also increase the powers of that nominated person, so that they can be consulted about the patient’s future care.

    Thirdly, the Bill will tackle the disparities in how the 1983 Act is used. Black people are four times more likely to be detained under the Act than white people, and 10 times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. The Bill provides for greater scrutiny of decision making, including through greater use of second opinions on important decisions, and through expanded access to independent tribunals; that will help us to address the disparities in the use of the Act.

    Fourthly, the Bill will enhance support for patients with severe mental health needs who come into contact with the criminal justice system. Under the 1983 Act, too often, people in prison experience delays in getting treatment in hospital. Courts are sometimes forced to divert defendants who require care and treatment, some of whom have not been convicted, to prison as a so-called place of safety. The Bill will make crucial improvements so that vulnerable offenders and those awaiting trial can access the treatment that they need. It will tackle delays and speed up access to specialist care by introducing a new statutory 28-day time limit for transfers from prison to hospital, and it will end the use of prison as a so-called place of safety, so that patients can get the care that they need in the appropriate hospital setting.

    The Bill will also amend the Bail Act 1976 so that courts are no longer forced to deny a defendant bail if the judge’s sole concern about granting bail has to do with the defendant’s mental health. The Bill will allow the judge to send them to hospital instead, so that they can be in the best environment for their mental health and can receive any treatment that they need.

    Finally, the Bill will improve the way that people with a learning disability and autistic people are treated under the 1983 Act. One of my priorities in my role is personalised care. The current blanket approach cannot be allowed to continue; it means that too many autistic people and people with a learning disability are admitted into institutional settings when they would be better served by being in the community. The Bill will change this. It limits the scope for detaining people with learning disabilities and autistic people for treatment unless they have a mental illness that justifies a longer stay or they are admitted through the criminal justice system. It also gives commissioners of local authorities and integrated care boards new duties to make sure that the right community support is available instead.

    I look forward to working with hon. Members in all parts of the House as we take these plans forward. This momentous Bill deals with one of the most serious and sombre responsibilities of any Government: their responsibility for the power to deprive people of their liberty. Mental ill health can impact any of us at any time. It is essential that we all have confidence that the system will treat us and our loved ones with dignity and compassion. That is what the Bill will deliver. I commend the statement to the House.

  • Grant Shapps – 2022 Statement on TFL Funding Extension

    Grant Shapps – 2022 Statement on TFL Funding Extension

    The statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    Following my statement to the House on 25 February, I am updating the House on a short extension of the current Transport for London (TfL) funding settlement that was due to expire on 24 June 2022, by 19 days, to 13 July. This has been agreed by the Mayor of London.

    Since the start of the pandemic, we have supported the transport network in London with nearly £5 billion funding through extraordinary funding settlements for Transport for London. We have recognised the reliance of London’s transport network on fare revenue, and Government continue our commitment to mitigating loss of fare revenue because of the pandemic.

    This extension to the current funding settlement is necessary in part due to the unsatisfactory progress made by TfL on its conditions, including pensions. Resolving these issues is an integral part of setting TfL on the path to financial sustainability, and Government stand ready to engage constructively to reach a resolution. This extension ensures that they receive due attention, as well as allowing time for both sides to consider a longer-term capital settlement.

    Government are committed to supporting London’s transport network as we have since the start of the pandemic, and is in discussions with TfL on a longer-term settlement. By rolling over the provisions of the existing agreement, the extension provides continued support to Transport for London and certainty to Londoners while we work with Transport for London on their emergency funding needs.

    Support to Transport for London has always been on the condition that Transport for London reaches financial sustainability as soon as possible and with a target date of April 2023. Government continue to press the Mayor of London and Transport for London to take the decisions needed to put the organisation on a sustainable footing. I will update the House at my earliest opportunity on the details of any longer-term capital settlement.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Update on Covid-19 (June 2022)

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Update on Covid-19 (June 2022)

    The statement made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    As part of our continued commitment to open up travel, on 23 June, the Government extended the International NHS covid pass letter service to allow children aged five to 11 years to get an International NHS covid pass following a positive NHS PCR test or equivalent within the past 180 days—recovery status. Prior to 23 June, children aged five to 11 could only access an international NHS covid pass if they had received a full primary course of covid-19 vaccination.

    Extending access to the International NHS covid pass to children aged five to 11 with recovery status will save families the cost of testing in countries where this is required for foreign travel and ensures that young children are able to provide proof of their covid-19 status on a par with the rest of the population. The UK has no covid certification requirements and this is to support outbound travel to a variety of countries that still have requirements.

    A person with parental responsibility for the child—such as the parent or guardian—will be able to request the letter online via the NHS website or by calling 119. The letter will only be sent to the address on the child’s GP record.

    This service is now available for children aged five to 11 resident in England and Wales. A letter based on recovery status is not available in the Isle of Man. In Northern Ireland, parents or guardians of children aged five to 11 have been able to request a digital or printed covid certificate on behalf of a dependant since January 2022. The COVIDCert NI app was updated in March 2022, to allow all those under 16 to upload the certificate—requested on their behalf—to display on the app. Anyone under 16 who tested positive for covid through an NHS PCR test prior to 1 May is able to request a recovery certificate in Scotland by phoning the covid status helpline on: 0808 196 8565.

  • Michael Gove – 2022 Comments on Andy Haldane’s Appointment as Chair of Levelling Up Advisory Council

    Michael Gove – 2022 Comments on Andy Haldane’s Appointment as Chair of Levelling Up Advisory Council

    The comments made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, on 27 June 2022.

    For Levelling Up to succeed we need scrutiny, challenge and transparency to ensure we deliver on our missions to spread opportunity and prosperity to every corner of the country.

    I am delighted Andy Haldane has agreed to chair the Levelling Up Advisory Council. His vision and experience were crucial to putting missions at the heart of the Levelling Up White Paper and as Chair I know he will continue to drive forward this vital work.

  • Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech at the Commonwealth Business Forum in Rwanda

    Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech at the Commonwealth Business Forum in Rwanda

    The speech made by Alok Sharma in Kigali, Rwanda, on 23 June 2022.

    Thank you for the introduction.

    I am delighted to be here today.

    Over the past two and a half years, I have spoken at numerous conferences and summits around the world.

    Virtually and, of course, physically, I have delivered many, many hundreds of speeches.

    In doing so, I’ve shared stages with representatives from government, from business, and from civil society.

    You’ve just heard from FIFA. I think someone was lucky enough to get a ball too.

    You will soon hear from Google, the Norwegian-African Business Association.

    And each organisation is working to shape a future in which we can deliver prosperity, but without sacrificing the planet.

    For me, it is truly encouraging to see such broad agreement on the need for climate action.

    And I do believe that we have hit that inflection point where governments, business and civil society are broadly united in wanting to tackle climate change,

    And deliver both an environmental and economic dividend.

    And I am pleased therefore that Rwanda and its role as Commonwealth Chair in office is using this session to consider how we deliver economic prosperity without sacrificing the planet.

    And it is a key question that our family of Commonwealth nations needs to address, and address urgently,

    How we can achieve collective prosperity, economic sustainability and societal resilience, all at the same time.

    That, my friends, is the ball that I am kicking to you.

    And if we are to achieve these goals, working through the international system, it’s going to be absolutely critical

    I mean, just look at COP26. Some of you who are with us today were also with us in November

    Back then, under the UK’s stewardship, almost 200 countries forged the historic Glasgow Climate Pact.

    Despite challenging global geopolitics even then we were able to bring nations together.

    Because each of us recognised that it was in our collective self-interest to act on climate.

    The Glasgow Climate Pact forges a path to a clean global future.

    It keeps alive the possibility of limiting the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees.

    And it told a watching world that leaders – including many of the leaders who are here at this conference – it told the world that leaders could and would rise above their differences, and unite against that common challenge.

    The Pact calls on countries to phase-down unabated coal power and phase-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

    It contains big commitments on climate mitigation, on adaptation and on finance.

    And it also sets out a way forward on the crucial issue of loss and damage.

    It was for me an extraordinary privilege to play my part as Shepherd-in-Chief at that event.

    Of course, we have to acknowledge that the world has changed since then.

    We meet today against the backdrop of multiple global crises.

    Indeed, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, has described our situation as “the most universally complex policy environment of our lifetime”.

    Therefore, climate is understandably no longer on the front pages.

    But the current crises should increase, not diminish, our determination to deliver on what the world agreed in Glasgow.

    Even as we deal with the immediate challenges facing us, all the evidence, including the latest findings from various UN reports, makes clear that the chronic threat of climate change is getting worse.

    My friends I have to say this to you, climate change does not recognise borders – look in your own countries and see what’s happening – and the Commonwealth is no exception to facing the harsh impacts of global warming.

    Last year we saw wildfires rage in Australia.

    This year, India and Pakistan have experienced unbearable temperatures.

    A billion people exposed to extreme heat in some of the hottest months since records began.

    And in South Africa where I have just come from, floods have swept the province of KwaZulu-Natal, destroying buildings and claiming lives.

    At the same time, Vladimir Putin’s illegal, brutal and unprovoked war against Ukraine has amplified that climate and environmental security are interlinked with energy and national security.

    And that is why the UK is so focused on using the remaining months of our COP26 presidency to turn commitments into action.

    What it needs, friends, is for us to focus on implementation.

    Every country must respond to the Glasgow Climate Pact’s call to revisit and strengthen their 2030 emissions reduction targets this year.

    And we need countries to submit those emissions reduction targets by the UNFCCC’s deadline, on September 23rd including their long term strategies.

    We are continuing to push for practical progress on mitigation, on finance, on adaptation, and on loss and damage.

    We continue to press for further progress in critical sectors and on clean technologies.

    And I remain especially focused on the most climate vulnerable countries and communities, many of whom are represented here.

    Because, for these nations in particular, the situation is devastatingly clear.

    As Prime Minister Mia Motley of Barbados told us in Glasgow, for her country, “a two degrees rise is a death sentence”.

    For many, tackling climate change is literally that, it’s the difference between life, and death.

    So to deliver on effective climate action we are going to continue to push forward for more funding through Just Energy Transition Partnerships.

    We’re going to be working on increasing finance for adaptation, including ensuring the private sector is mobilising finance as well.

    And it means listening to the consistent calls from climate vulnerable countries to improve access to finance as well.

    If I just say to you that in Africa, Africa is responsible for less than 3% of global emissions and yet on this continent there are very many countries that are on the front line of climate change.

    And therefore we know that change is necessary.

    We know that change is in our collective self-interest.

    And we know that change will not happen unless we act, and unless we act now.

    And so it is time for world leaders, the leaders here at this conference to demonstrate that they are delivering on the commitments they have made.

    Together, we can, and we must, make this a year of delivery, to keep 1.5 degrees alive, and to deliver prosperity, without sacrificing the planet.

    Thank you.

  • Amanda Milling – 2022 Comments on Visit to Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Jordan

    Amanda Milling – 2022 Comments on Visit to Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Jordan

    The comments made by Amanda Milling, the Minister for Asia and the Middle East, on 27 June 2022.

    I was delighted to make my first official visit to Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Jordan as Minister for the Middle East.

    I covered a lot of ground in a short space of time in Israel where the relationship has never been stronger. From fascinating examples of Israeli tech and innovation, to the upcoming UK-Israel Bilateral Roadmap, to peacebuilding projects and efforts to promote the two-state solution.

    Visiting the Occupied Palestinian Territories was a fantastic opportunity to meet a whole range of Palestinians to discuss the UK-Palestinian bilateral relationship and understand the impact of the occupation. I was particularly pleased to meet with Palestinian civil society to reassure them of the UK’s unwavering support for media freedom and human rights defenders.

    Last year we celebrated 100 years of friendship between the UK and Jordan, a friendship that the UK is fully committed to sustaining and developing into its second century. I expressed my gratitude for the Kingdom’s extraordinary and generous role in supporting refugees from regional conflicts, and announced two major new UK-funded programmes totalling £95m designed to support both vulnerable Jordanians and refugees.

    I look forward to visiting the region again soon.

  • Jonathan Rockey – 2022 Comments on Male Pupils Wearing Skirts

    Jonathan Rockey – 2022 Comments on Male Pupils Wearing Skirts

    The comments made on 27 June 2022 by Jonathan Rockey, the Headteacher of Wymondham High School Academy in Norfolk, following the confirmation that boys would not be allowed to wear shorts, but could wear skirts.

    We had a huge response to the questions and that was much appreciated. Like any consultation, there will be differing views and the academy and governors always consider these. We take all feedback seriously.

    Many parents were supportive of us considering a ‘summer uniform’, which we will consider for 2023-24. In the short term, we have enabled pupils to remove their blazers during hot weather.

    Changing everything about our uniform in one go, especially with the current financial concerns, would not be sensible so we are able to stage changes over a period of time.

    We will, from September, have a gender neutral dress code across the Academy, which is something we are very proud of.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia Joining the European Union

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia Joining the European Union

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, at the European Parliamentary Plenary in Brussels on 22 June 2022.

    Thank you, Madam President, dear Roberta,

    Cher Charles,

    Honourable Members,

    From the early days of the Maidan on, Ukraine has bravely resisted against Russia’s aggression. It went through repression and uprising. It went through territorial annexation, and now outright war. It is the only country where people got shot because they wrapped themselves in a European flag. Ukraine has gone through hell and high water for one simple reason: Its desire to join the European Union.

    The European Commission answered to this desire explicitly. The opinion we presented last week recognises Ukraine’s aspirations. It acknowledges the immense progress that Ukraine’s democracy has achieved since the Maidan protests of 2014. Our opinion stems from a careful and thorough assessment of the reality on the ground. And this evidence tells us that Ukraine deserves a European perspective, and also the candidate status on the understanding that the country will carry out a number of further, important reforms.

    Ukraine has proven, already before the war, that it is on the right trajectory. In the last few years Ukraine has reformed more than in the last decades. Thanks to the Association Agreement of 2016, Ukraine has already implemented roughly 70% of EU rules, norms and standards. It is already involved in many important EU programmes like Horizon Europe and Erasmus. Ukraine is a robust parliamentary democracy, it has a well-functioning public administration, which every day is passing the ultimate stress test of war. It has free and fair elections and a vibrant civil society, that holds the government to account. Year after year, small businesses and, in particular, young entrepreneurs have conquered new space in the country´s economy – and fought back against the power of oligarchs. Ukraine punches well above its weight when it comes to innovative start-ups and the digital economy. And all of this progress has been achieved because the people of Ukraine have Europe in their hearts and their minds.

    But we also know that there is important work ahead. Take the fight against corruption. Ukraine has already taken important steps in the right direction. It has set up the necessary anti-corruption bodies. But now these institutions have to come to life. They need teeth, and the right people in senior posts.

    Or take the excessive influence of oligarchs on the economy. Ukraine has adopted a bold law to break the oligarchs’ grip on Ukraine’s economic, political and public life. In fact, it is the only country in the Eastern Partnership that has done so. Now it is about turning the law into positive and enduring change. I discussed this and other issues with President Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Shmyhal during my recent visit to Kyiv. And I know that the people of Ukraine want to continue on the path of modernisation, the path of democracy, the path that leads to Europe.

    Honourable Members,

    After the fall of the Berlin wall, Jacques Delors said: ‘History is once again on the march in Europe. But it is for us to give history a meaning.’

    Jacques Delors was referring to the need to open up our Union to all European countries. And his words are still true today. History is on the march. And I am not just talking about Putin’s war of aggression. I am talking about the wind of change that once again blows across our continent. With their applications, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia are telling us that they want change. They want more democracy, more freedoms and stronger reforms. They are telling us that they want Europe. We have a responsibility towards them, but we also have a responsibility towards ourselves to make the right choice. So let me speak briefly about our assessment for Moldova. Moldova has taken decisive steps towards Europe, too. With a clear mandate from its citizens. It is on a real pro-reform, anti-corruption and European path for the first time since independence. And this is why it deserves the European perspective and candidate status, again on the understanding that the country will carry out a number of further, important reforms. In particular, its economy and public administration require major efforts. But provided that the country’s leaders stay the course, we believe the country has the potential to live up to the requirements.

    Georgia shares the same aspirations and potential as Ukraine and Moldova. Its application has strengths, in particular the market orientation of its economy, with a strong private sector. To succeed however, the country must now come together politically. It must design a clear path towards structural reform and towards the European Union. A path that concretely sets out the necessary reforms, brings civil society on board and benefits from broad political support. This is why we recommend to Council to grant Georgia the European perspective, but to come back and assess how the country meets a number of conditions before granting it candidate status.

    Honourable Members,

    How far Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia will come and how quickly they proceed will depend first and foremost on their actions and their progress. It is a merits-based approach. But how we respond to their passion and their progress is our choice, and ours only. This Parliament has already spoken, loud and clear. I would like to thank you again for that. It is now up to the European Council to decide, and live up to the historic responsibility we are confronted with.

    The history of our Union is one of young democracies getting stronger together. It is the history of Germany’s rebirth after the war. It is Greece, Spain and Portugal moving fast from dictatorship to democracy in the mid-1970s. It is the democratic uprising that brought down the Iron Curtain. It is the long path of reconciliation in the Western Balkans. A path that must lead all the six Western Balkan countries to join our Union. And the next chapter is being written today by the brave people of Ukraine, and by all of us, who must accompany them on their European path. Again, this is Europe’s moment. And we must seize it.

    Long live Europe.