Author: admin

Kingsley Wood – 1943 Speech on the War Damage Bill

Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Kingsley Wood, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 10 February 1943.

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

The main object of this Bill is to expedite certain of the work of the War Damage Commission and so to accelerate the classification of properties that have been damaged and the necessary plans for rebuilding and for redevelopment after the war. We are now able to take the course set out in the Bill mainly owing to the satisfactory progress that the Commission has been able to make with its work. When the Commission was first appointed it took over from the Inland Revenue Valuation Department over 1,000,000 claims which had already been lodged in respect of war damage that had occurred before the War Damage Act, 1941, was passed. The great bulk of these claims were in respect of partial damage which in many cases had already been repaired. The Commission was thus faced with ft heavy load of arrears of claims due for immediate payment. Further claims continued to come in, and are still coming in, but towards the end of last year the Commission found that they had, broadly speaking, wiped off their arrears. The War Damage Act, however, requires the Commission to apply to every damaged property a statutory test to determine whether the property is a total loss and, therefore, normally the subject of a value payment or whether it is not a total loss and, therefore, normally the subject of a cost of works payment. In other words, the test is designed to determine whether the property is economically worth restoring or hot, and this is the second stage of the Commission’s work.

The third stage will, of course, be the making of payments in respect of repairs and rebuilding after the war when civilian building is again possible. It is clearly desirable that if possible the Commission should complete the classification, at least of all properties damaged to date, before the end of the war. The sooner this is done the easier it will be for owners and others to know how they stand and to make their plans for rebuilding or redevelopment. If that is not done, it may hold up post-war reconstruction. If the Commission can now set themselves to work on the classification, they will be ready when the third stage arrives to deal with current classification and current claims, and the provisions in the Bill for which I am now asking the Second Reading will make it possible for the Commission to do this classification now.

Section 4 (1) of the original Act requires the Commission to decide whether the case is a total loss by reference to levels of cost and value at some future indefinite time. The Commission thus has to consider not only when the work of restoration would be likely to take place but also what is likely to be the level of prices and the values at that indefinite time. It is obvious how difficult it is to draw conclusions as to post-war levels of value from present estimates, and this makes it practically impossible for the Commission to get on satisfactorily with this second stage of their work. The Bill, in Clause 1 and the Schedule, amends Section 4 (1) so as to make the test one upon pre-war levels of costs and values.

It is not suggested that the solution is entirely scientific or that an entirely scientific solution can be found, but I would suggest to the House that it is a solution which should serve well as a working basis. There is probably no particular ground for thinking that the houses or other buildings which were economically worth restoring before the war would not be thought worth restoring after the war or vice versa, and the general effect of the proposed solution will be to expand the field within which costs of works payments can be made, which, as many hon. Members will remember, was strongly urged on all hands when we last debated this matter. Broadly, it should result in the rebuilding of any good building which was damaged, and the change will enable the Commission’s work to be done now and will introduce a large measure of certainty in place of hypothesis. Thus I hope it will lessen the scope of disputes and differences.

It is, course, necessary in applying the test of the 1939 levels and values and prices to ensure that this does not result in a cost of works payment owing to a change of circumstances between pre-war and post-war in cases in which rebuilding ought not to take place. This can be secured, for the Treasury has power to issue directions under Section 7 in regard to the public interest which could be utilised so as to enable the Commission to make a value payment in cases where post-war conditions make restoration improper, notwithstanding that the test gave a cost of works payment. I may say, for the information of the House, that there has already been evidence that owners of property are likely to ask for a value payment, which they can do under the provisions of the Act, in lieu of a cost of works payment, where a restored building is likely to be what is called a white elephant.

I need not say much about Clause 2. The House will remember that at a late stage in consideration of the amending Bill last year certain lengthy and complicated provisions relating to rent charges were introduced. Further consideration has disclosed one error and one or two omissions, and it is necessary to put these right before the Acts, are consolidated, so we are taking this opportunity to-day to do that. The purport of the small technical Amendments involved is explained in the Memorandum to the Bill, which no doubt has been noted and observed by hon. Members. I commend the Bill to the House; I think it will help us with our reconstruction plans, and I hope it will meet with general approval.

January 25, 2020
Brandon Lewis – 2020 Statement on Prevent Programme

Below is the text of the statement made by Brandon Lewis, the Minister for Security, in the House of Commons on 22 January 2020.

Counter-terrorism policing in this country is operationally independent, and that is an important principle. The operational independence of our police from Government is integral to our democracy. The Home Office does, however, carry out oversight of the police on behalf of the Home Secretary.

We are clear that the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our just society and an indispensable channel of political and social expression. Counter Terrorism Policing South East has, for example, stated categorically that it does not classify Extinction Rebellion as an extremist organisation, and that the inclusion of Extinction Rebellion in its guidance to frontline officers was an error of judgment. The police have recalled the guidance and are reviewing it.

I want to reiterate that Extinction Rebellion is in no way considered an extremist group under the 2015 definition of extremism; the Home Secretary has been clear on that point. The police have also made it clear that they regret any offence caused by the inclusion of the Ukrainian tryzub symbol in their internal educational document. That document was produced to help frontline officers and staff recognise and understand a wide range of signs and symbols that they may come across while on duty. As the police have said, the document explicitly states that many of the symbols are not of counter-terrorism interest. Unfortunately, far-right groups do have a history of misappropriating national symbols as part of their identity, and that was the reasoning behind the inclusion of several symbols. We recognise that the tryzub—Ukraine’s state coat of arms—carries constitutional importance as well as both historical and cultural significance for the people of Ukraine, and we sincerely regret any offence caused to the Ukrainian nation or its people.

Ms Abbott

The Minister will be aware that guidance issued by the counter-terrorism police on extremist ideologies as part of the Prevent programme did include Extinction Rebellion. He is telling the House now that it was an error of judgment; the Opposition argue that it was a very serious error of judgment. Can he tell the House whether he agrees with Sir Peter Fahy, the head of Prevent from 2010 to 2015, who said that Extinction Rebellion

“is about lawful protest and disruption to get publicity…very different from terrorist acts”?

We also understand that in the guidance document, there is mention of organisations such as Greenpeace, the “Stop the badger cull” campaign, the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and of vegan activists. Can the House be provided with a list of the organisations mentioned in the counter-terrorism police guidance? What is the basis for the inclusion of groups such as vegan activists? Will the Secretary of State accept that in a democracy there is a fundamental right to disagreement and non-violent campaigning, and that interfering with or denying that right—even through an error of judgment—is a fundamental breach of the democratic contract between the Government and the governed?

Finally, there is supposed to be a review of Prevent, which we understand will report back in August. Can the Minister tell me who the leader of the Prevent review is, now that Lord Carlile has stepped down? Can the Minister also assure the House that the review will indeed report back in August?

Brandon Lewis

The right hon. Lady outlined the importance of protest groups and their ability to raise the profile of the issue they are protesting about. We absolutely agree with that. As I said, we are very clear that the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our just society, and an indispensable channel of political and social expression. The police have recalled the guidance and are reviewing it, and both we and the police have said that protest groups are not extremist groups, and that membership of a protest organisation is not—nor should it ever be—an indicator that an individual is vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. It is important that protest groups have that space. We believe in, defend and fight for freedom of speech, and will continue to do so.

The statutory deadline for the review to be completed and its findings shared remains 12 August 2020. The next steps are being considered right now and will be announced in due course.

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)

There is no doubt that this is a difficult area, but the Home Office always used to see its job as the protection both of life and of our way of life. Unfortunately, in the almost impossible task of preventing every act of violence and of terrorism, the Home Office has sometimes slipped somewhat into thought police mode. Will the Minister remind all the agencies that we all subscribe to the French saying, “I may detest what you believe, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Brandon Lewis

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a very important point, and he has confirmed my point. I hope that everyone across the House believes in freedom of speech, and in people’s right to that freedom; we need to defend that right. I assure him that the Home Secretary and I meet counter-terrorism police and our agencies weekly, and we will raise this issue with them in our very next meeting.

Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)

I congratulate the shadow Home Secretary on securing this urgent question.

The suggestion that campaigning for peace, and for environmental and human rights, should be regarded as an extremist activity is ludicrous, but it is also a threat to civil liberties. Freedom of speech is essential in a democracy, and it is under attack like never before in our society. I want to be assured that the Government will condemn all attacks on freedom of speech, and will also support freedom of assembly.

Last year we saw a striking contrast between the way in which protests outside this House by Extinction Rebellion were policed, and the way other protests were. Extinction Rebellion was kept very far back from Parliament; others—including some leave protesters—were allowed right up close to Parliament, and to shout in the face of female MPs without any interference. Will the Minister look into that?

Scotland takes a very different approach to the Prevent strategy, placing it in the context of Safer Communities, and relying on the traditionally stronger relationships between the community and police in Scotland. Will the Minister consider adopting that approach in England? Does he see that doing so might prevent the sort of problems we saw with this mistake last week, and make the Prevent strategy more effective in England?

Brandon Lewis

To give some context, Counter Terrorism Policing creates a range of guidance documents for use across the whole of policing, not just by counter-terrorism officers or Prevent practitioners. It produces these documents to help frontline officers and other colleagues make informed decisions, including about protecting crowded places at times of protest—something that Figen Murray has done amazing work on.

The signs and symbols document that became the subject of the Guardian article was produced to help the police and close partners identify and understand signs and symbols that they may come across in their day-to-day working lives, so that they know the difference between the symbols for the many groups they may come across. But these things have to be done correctly and in the right context. The police themselves have recognised that this was an error of judgment, and they have withdrawn the document and are reviewing it.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the enormous distress and offence that this has caused across Ukraine? Does he share my view that this symbol needs to be removed from the police guidance? Will he also take this opportunity to reiterate that this country remains a very strong friend and supporter of Ukraine?

Brandon Lewis

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas has spoken to his opposite number in Ukraine today. I am likely to see one of my opposite numbers in Zagreb over the next couple of days, and I will express the huge regret felt by the Government about the fact that this happened. We have a very valuable and positive relationship with our friends and partners in Ukraine. We look to see that continue and strengthen as we look outward as a global country while we leave the European Union.

Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)

The only factor that is radicalising people with these concerns is their legitimate and understandable worry that we are not addressing climate change quickly enough. Will the Minister respond to the question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary about who is now leading this programme, as he did not manage to address that? Does he share my concern that the Prevent programme and anti-terrorist strategy has had its credibility damaged by this action, and that he will need to work to restore its credibility?

Brandon Lewis

The Prevent programme is fundamentally about safeguarding and supporting vulnerable individuals to stop them becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. The hon. Gentleman should be acutely aware of the context. Extinction Rebellion should not have been in the document in the first place. The police have outlined that that was an error of judgment; they have withdrawn the document, and they are reviewing it. The Prevent review will go ahead, and we will make further announcements about its chairmanship and progress before the review reports fully in August.

Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)

I start by expressing my steadfast support for the Government of Ukraine, with whom I have worked to counter violent extremism and threats from those who cause discontent and division in our country. Violent extremism is a scourge, and Prevent helps to keep us safe. What information can my right hon. Friend share with me regarding the plan for when someone has been convicted of a serious terrorist offence, gone to prison and come out? What support will there be to ensure that they do not become re-radicalised and go on to commit more crimes, and to ensure that we keep our people safe?

Brandon Lewis

My hon. Friend, who has huge experience in this field, makes a very important point. Yesterday the Government announced moves and measures to ensure that people who commit the most heinous crimes, including terrorism, will see longer, more severe sentences, and victims can have confidence in that. It is also right that we continue to do everything we can to ensure that people who commit an offence are able to reform and move forward. There are lessons to learn. The Prevent review is looking at the lessons to be learned from what happened at Fishmongers’ Hall. My hon. Friend is right: we need to continue to work in this area to ensure that we keep our society safe.

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

The police might say that this was an error of judgment, but it is also part of a pattern. Footage of my arrest for peaceful protest against fracking was used in Prevent training sessions back in 2015. In 2016, the Home Office said that support for anti-fracking was not an indicator of vulnerability to extremism, but years later, evidence shows that four police forces were still identifying anti-fracking as a perceived extremist risk, so can the Minister tell me why we should now trust his Department on this subject? What is it doing differently? In particular, what reassurance can he give us that he will advise the police to ensure that any policing in the run-up to, and at, COP 26 is within the law and appropriate?

Brandon Lewis

First, as I said earlier, the police in this country have independence, and it is important that we protect and respect that. They have said that this was an error of judgment. They have withdrawn the document and are reviewing it. The guidance documents that Counter Terrorism Policing produces are used across policing and by partners to deal with groups, including at public events in public venues. The hon. Lady refers to COP 26, which is coming up soon and is a tremendous opportunity for this country to outline what we do. I have absolute confidence that our police will do as they always do at these events, which is to do our country very proud.

Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)

I was glad to hear the Minister make a clear distinction between the rights to free speech and to peaceful protest, which are absolutely part of this country’s values, and terrorist activities. The two should be kept firmly apart, and the latter prevented. Can he be more specific about the use of probation, which will clearly be an important part of counter-terrorist activity in the wake of London Bridge?

Brandon Lewis

As my right hon. Friend rightly outlines, probation is an important part of this, and can play an important role in rehabilitation work. We have lessons to learn from the tragedy of Fishmongers’ Hall, and the system is looking at those. Yesterday, the Government announced changes that we will make to prison sentences, to ensure that we do everything we can to keep people safe and keep those who commit these crimes in prison for longer. We are always looking to learn, and to improve, so that when people come out of prison, they are properly reformed and safe to be in society.

Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)

Counter-terror police across the country do great and incredibly important work to keep us safe, but that is why this guidance was such a problem: we cannot afford confidence in their work being undermined. When did the Home Office see this guidance, and has the Minister asked to see all similar guidance from all police forces across the country, to ensure that no other counter-terror groups are making the same mistake?

Brandon Lewis

As I say, the police have withdrawn the document and are reviewing it. I fully respect, and the Government respect, the independence of the police, and those guidance documents are part of their independence. The police produce those documents for their officers in the work that they do, and it is right that we respect that. The Home Secretary and I meet representatives and the leadership of counter-terrorism police and other partners on a weekly basis. We will raise this issue with them, to ensure that they are focused on the importance of getting this right. Those documents are about alerting their officers to all the types of groups and symbols that they may deal with in their day-to-day work. We need to acknowledge the regret that the police have shown over this error of judgment, and the fact that they are reviewing the document.

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

When the Prevent review takes place, will the Minister ensure that particular attention is given to the intractable problem of proselytising within jails by people who have been jailed for long periods for terrorism offences? They cannot be kept in isolation throughout their long sentences, and if they are not in isolation, there is a danger of them radicalising others. Special attention needs to be given to that problem during the review.

Brandon Lewis

My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the challenges within prisons. I will certainly ensure that his comments are taken on board as we go further with the Prevent review, which we will ensure reports back by August.

Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)

If the Government are serious about conducting a proper, independent review of Prevent, can the Minister give an assurance that they will engage with key Muslim organisations, such as the Muslim Council of Britain, and will heed the advice of the Muslim community?

Brandon Lewis

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The reviewer will want to ensure that they engage with a wide range of people across all communities. Of course, Prevent works with not just the Muslim community but the far right and across our entire community. The reviewer will be independent, but we will encourage him to consult very widely.

Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)

I wish to echo the previous question. We enjoy policing by consent in this country, and I am rather uncomfortable about the fact that some religious communities feel that the Prevent programme does not subscribe to their view of the world, and in some ways discriminates against them. Will the Minister use the review to engage with the Muslim Council of Britain and others?

Brandon Lewis

As I say, the reviewer is independent and will consult widely with the groups that they see fit to. The Prevent programme, I have to say, is working and is successful. Prevent has made a significant impact. It is stopping people being drawn into terrorism. Just in 2018-19, some 101 projects were delivered in London alone to address vulnerabilities to do with education, socialisation and substance abuse. This project is working; we just want to make sure that what is good gets even better.

Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

I welcome what has been said about the error of judgment being acknowledged by the police. However, further to what other hon. Members have said, I stress that if such an error of judgment can take place the effect is unfortunately to undermine confidence in Prevent and to raise questions about the culture within which it is operating. On the review, what steps will be taken to ensure there is not a culture that allows such an error of judgment to take place and to undermine an important operation?

Brandon Lewis

We need to be clear that the document was produced by the police for the police’s use and purpose. That is separate from the wider Prevent programme, which works across a huge range of communities and organisations around country. It is very successful in safeguarding and protecting vulnerable people and, as a result, our society, which we should be lauding and very pleased with. From the police’s point of view, as I have said, they have withdrawn this document and are reviewing it.

Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)

Does the Minister agree that we must never lose sight of the possibility of reform, even for the worst criminals and terrorists who have committed heinous crimes? Will he update the House on when we will start the programme of recruitment for specialist counter-terrorism probation officers, which I think will be welcomed to keep our society and our constituents safe?

Brandon Lewis

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is important that we remember that people are able to reform, and we want people to reform. Obviously, we want to get the balance right, while making sure that the British public are clear that the Government are on their side and that people who commit heinous crimes will serve severe, proper and long sentences, because our first priority is to keep people safe. We made the announcement about the increase in counter-terrorism funding just yesterday, and we will be updating the House on when and how it is spent, but we are keen to move quickly to ensure that we keep our country safe.

Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)

May I thank the Minister for putting the record straight on Extinction Rebellion and all that? May I also give a plug for the quality of the work of my local police in delivering the Prevent programme and in supporting Members of Parliament? I have recently had some really awful death threats against me and my staff, and I have received such a level of support—not just in being effective, carrying through an investigation and arresting two people, but in phoning up and giving support day to day. I know lots of Members have received that support, and I hope it can continue, but may I thank the people who supply it to Members?

Brandon Lewis

The hon. Gentleman makes a very generous but very correct statement, and I absolutely echo that. I am very fortunate and often humbled in this job on a daily basis in seeing the work that our counter-terrorism police do, in partnership with local police and indeed our agencies. I would argue that we have got the best in the world, and day after day they keep us safe.

Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)

I hope Ministers have had a look at Policy Exchange’s paper titled, for better or worse, “Extremism Rebellion”. Although we may defend people’s right to hold views about green anarchism, eco-socialism and radical anti-capitalist environmentalism, I want to make sure that there is no tacit approval from either Dispatch Box for what the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) called “disruption”—I would say it is a deliberate policy of disruption. Will the Minister reassure me that the Government know what they are dealing with?

Brandon Lewis

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I suspect he is also referring back to some of the difficult situations the police had to deal with not that long ago, but he is right that it is separate. As I have said, Extinction Rebellion is not considered an extremist group under the 2015 definition of extremism, and we are clear on that.

Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)

Will the Minister show some common sense and assist the police in understanding the difference between young people being involved in Extinction Rebellion or CND and—within the Prevent programme assessment that will take place this year—looking at the real risks with the insufficient numbers of skilled probation officers looking after extremely troubled and dangerous criminals?

Brandon Lewis

I suspect the hon. Lady has not had a chance to see the document she is referring to, because it does specifically say:

“The document in question…explicitly states that many of the groups are not of counter-terrorism interest”.
As I have said, however, the police have acknowledged that it was an error of judgment to have that reference in there, and they have withdrawn it. They are reviewing it, and it is something that the Home Secretary and I will be continuing to talk to them about.

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)

Prevent is supposed to stop Islamist extremism. This morning I was alerted to the fact that a pro-Iranian regime charity known as the IHRC—the Islamic Human Rights Commission—is apparently circulating to schoolteachers via digital education services a programme for its genocide memorial day. This includes a video that compares the Nazi holocaust to Israeli actions in Gaza, and a series of book and video lists directing children to further material critical of Israel and diminishing the deaths of 6 million Jews in the holocaust. Will my right hon. Friend launch an urgent inquiry into what this organisation is doing and why these things are on digital education platforms? Will he work with the Charity Commission and the Department for Education to stop this happening again?

Brandon Lewis

My right hon. Friend has given a very stark and concerning example of the kind of issues and details that Prevent and indeed our police deal with. He is right to highlight the education sector, which in 2017-18 accounted for some 33% of referrals to Prevent, which works across extremism and not just in one particular area. I will certainly follow up with him directly on the issue he has raised to make sure that this gets proper attention.

Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

I have been a member of Scottish CND for many years. Does the Minister agree with me that it is ludicrous, perverse and offensive that an organisation of people peacefully protesting indiscriminate murder with nuclear weapons has ended up in this document?

Brandon Lewis

The police are reviewing the document. As I said earlier, it is a guide that is there to help the police identify and understand a range of organisations they may come across. It does not in any way suggest that membership of or affiliation with non-proscribed groups would be sufficient to trigger some kind of Prevent referral, or that we would consider non-violent protest as a potential indicator for extremism. I can give her the assurance that, as I say, we protect people’s right to freedom of speech and the right to protest, which I think is an important part of our society, and this document is being reviewed.

Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

How many officers are occupied in monitoring terrorists who have been released?

Brandon Lewis

Obviously, terrorists who have been released from prison are monitored by probation or the police themselves, depending on the structure of their release. I hope my right hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to comment—which I think would be a security issue—on the specific numbers and how we deal with the matter. However, it is an issue we are alert to and it is an issue on which, as I have said, there are lessons to learn from what happened at Fishmongers’ Hall, and that piece of work is ongoing.

Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)

The Minister will know that the word “Islam” is the Arabic word for peace. Does he agree that the focus of Prevent activity should be to ensure that people in the Muslim community do not misrepresent, misconstrue and corrupt the words of the Koran, as opposed to what people fear is the focus of Prevent, which is that there is too much Islam and too much Muslim ideology? Surely the focus should be that people do not corrupt the teachings in a way that brings about terror, and we should be encouraging mainstream Muslim organisations to work with us for the good of all.

Brandon Lewis

I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, and I think he is right to differentiate between two different issues. The heart of what the Prevent programme is about backs up his point, because the Prevent programme is fundamentally about safeguarding and supporting vulnerable individuals to stop them becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It is not about what religion they have and how they practise their religious beliefs; as I say, it is about stopping people becoming terrorists. It is working and it is successful, as I have said, and it does make a significant impact in stopping people being drawn into terrorism in the first place.

Through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 —bear with me for a second if you will, Mr Speaker, because the context is important here—we introduced the Prevent statutory duty. That duty requires local authorities, schools, colleges, universities, health bodies, prisons, probation and the police, as part of their day-to-day work, to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. It does have a very clear and specific purpose, which is about keeping our country, and vulnerable people, safe.

Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Waqar Ahmed and his team in Birmingham on all their excellent work with Prevent and on becoming national leaders in the field, which is mostly because a lot of their work is community-led and bottom-up? It is disappointing, therefore, that a number of Birmingham Labour councillors have attempted to undermine the process. Will he do everything he can in the Home Office to ensure that the police are given the powers they need to keep our streets safe?

Brandon Lewis

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue, and the good work that we see in such communities is a huge credit to the organisation and the people he has mentioned. We are determined to make sure that the police know they have our full support in doing all the work they do to ensure they protect vulnerable people and keep our country safe. I think their independence is a key part of the structure of that. We thank them for what they do, and we thank such organisations, as my hon. Friend has so rightly represented.

Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)

Is the Minister able to state unequivocally that the Ukrainian coat of arms will now be removed from this document?

Brandon Lewis

As I said earlier, that document has been withdrawn. The police are reviewing it, but I am not going to interfere with the independence of our police. This is a document drafted by the police for the police and we respect their independence, but they have outlined that they regret this happening and have explained why it happened so I do not expect to see this kind of mistake again in future.

Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)

County Durham police do excellent work in protecting people right across Bishop Auckland, Spennymoor, Shildon and Barnard Castle. Given the threatening tones I heard yesterday, unfortunately, I will be contacting them to talk about the safety of my team at the Durham miners’ gala in July. Does my right hon. Friend agree that preserving the operational independence of the police, including the counter-terror policing unit, is of the utmost importance in keeping our streets safe?

Brandon Lewis

My hon. Friend makes an important point. All of us in society sometimes see things, as she has rightly outlined, and I did see the comments yesterday, which are very concerning. She is absolutely right to raise that issue with the relevant authorities, and I am happy to discuss that with her as well to make sure that it is properly taken forward. It is right that we continue to defend the independence of our police and make sure that they know that we are there to support them in the brilliant work they do in keeping us safe.

January 25, 2020
Oliver Dowden – 2020 Statement on Veterans Strategy

Below is the text of the statement made by Oliver Dowden, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 22 January 2020.

In November 2018, the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments jointly published the “Strategy for our Veterans” (CM 9726) setting out a shared commitment to support veterans across the whole of the UK. As the Secretary of State set out at the time, this was the first time the Governments had agreed shared aims and outcomes, and the collaboration has since been praised by our external partners. In order to complement this, each Government separately consulted on how to implement the strategy within their areas of responsibility.

The UK Government consultation (CM 9727) sought public views on how to achieve the outcomes in the strategy. Over 2,000 responses were received from individuals and organisations from across the public, private and charity sectors, as well as from veterans themselves, including through a number of face-to-face meetings.

I am today publishing the UK Government’s response to that consultation. This sets out further steps we will be taking to improve support to veterans, address the challenges that some veterans face and promote the outstanding contribution they make to the UK. The Office for Veterans’ Affairs will be responsible for co-ordinating the delivery of this action plan, working closely with Government Departments. This includes ensuring that veterans and their families know what existing support is already available and how they can access it, a step for which many consultation responses called.

In the Queen’s Speech, we set out the Government’s commitment to legislate on the armed forces covenant and to bring forward proposals to tackle vexatious claims and provide certainty for veterans. Our manifesto also committed to introducing a veterans’ railcard, reducing national insurance contributions for employers of ex-service personnel and guaranteeing job interviews for veterans applying for public sector roles. The Department for Transport is already able to report progress in delivering the veterans’ railcard today. I have also asked the civil service to be an early adopter of guaranteed interviews for veterans.

All of these actions and commitments reflect the step change the UK Government intend to deliver in how we support veterans across the United Kingdom. We will forge a path to making this country the best place to be a veteran anywhere in the world. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments, who are publishing their own separate consultation responses today. We will work together to achieve this shared objective and ensure veterans receive the support they deserve in all parts of the Union.

The consultation response is available on gov.uk. A copy of the consultation response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

January 24, 2020
Priti Patel – 2020 Statement on Countering Terrorism

Below is the text of the statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 21 January 2020.

The Government’s first priority is to keep families, communities and our country safe. Following the terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019 we have reviewed our overall approach to counter-terrorism and the package of measures we have announced today represents a major shift in the UK’s approach to the sentencing and management of terrorist offenders.

The counter-terrorism strategy—CONTEST—was strengthened in 2018 and remains one of the most comprehensive approaches to countering terrorism in the world. But we know the threat we face will to continue to diversify and evolve as it has done in recent years and we must continually assess the effectiveness of our action and remain flexible in adapting our approach.

The package announced today includes a major overhaul of prisons and probation, including tougher monitoring conditions for terrorist offenders and doubling the number of counter-terrorism probation officers. This will also include a full independent review of the multi-agency public protection arrangements. Jonathan Hall QC will lead this review.

A new Counter-Terrorism (Sentencing and Release) Bill, will be introduced in the first 100 days of this Government. The Bill will include measures that will force dangerous terrorist offenders who receive extended determinate sentences to serve the whole time behind bars and will introduce a new statutory minimum sentence of 14 years in prison, which can be applied to those convicted of the most serious terrorist offences.

Funding for CT policing will also grow to £906 million in 2020-21, a £90 million year-on-year increase. The money will support and maintain the record high numbers of ongoing counter-terrorism policing investigations and ensure a swift and effective response to the threat.

The Government will also review the support available to victims of terrorism, including families and loved ones, and immediately invest £500,000 to increase the support provided by the victims of terrorism unit, to ensure more victims get the support and advice they need, faster.

This package of measures sets out how we will continue to build on the UK’s formidable capabilities, experience and expertise to tackle the growing and changing threat from terrorism in all its forms.

January 24, 2020
Sajid Javid – 2020 Statement on ECOFIN

Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 21 January 2020.

A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) Council will be held in Brussels on 21 January 2020. The Council will discuss the following:

Early morning session

The Eurogroup president will brief the Council on the outcomes of the 20 January meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission will provide an update on the current economic situation in the EU. Following this, Ministers will take stock of the process of nominating a European candidate for the European Bank for Reconstruction and

Development (EBRD) presidency.

Current financial services legislative proposals

The Croatian presidency will provide an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.

Presidency work programme

The Croatian presidency will present its work programme for January to June 2020.

European Green Deal

The European Commission will present the economic and financial aspects of the European Green Deal.

European semester 2020

To launch the new European semester exercise, the European Commission will present the annual sustainable growth strategy, the alert mechanism report, and the Euro area recommendation.

Tax challenges arising from digitalisation

The Council will hold an exchange of views on the state of play of negotiations in the OECD on tax challenges arising from digitalisation.

I would also like to inform the House about the ECOFIN meetings that took place on 5 December 2019 and 8 November 2019.

ECOFIN: 5 December 2019

A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) Council was held in Brussels on 5 December 2019. The UK was represented by Matthew Taylor, Director Europe, HM Treasury.

The Council discussed the following:

Early morning session

The Eurogroup president briefed the Council on the outcomes of the 4 December meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission provided an update on the current economic situation in the EU.

Banking Union

The Council noted a report on progress on the banking union.

AOB: Directive as regards disclosure of income tax information

Ministers held an exchange of views on the legal basis for country-by-country reporting of incometax information, as requested by Sweden.

Current financial services legislative proposals

The Commission provided an update on current legislative files in the field of financial services.

Energy taxation

The Council adopted conclusions in regards to energy taxation.

European financial architecture for development

The Council adopted conclusions on the European financial architecture for development.

Climate action work plan

In response to discussions at September informal ECOFIN meeting, the Council approved the proposed work plan on climate action.

“Stable-coins”

The Council and Commission adopted a joint statement on “stable-coins”.

Capital Markets Union

The Commission gave an update on the capital markets union, welcoming work on sustainable finance and FinTech.

Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing

The Council adopted the conclusions on proposed changes to the future EU framework for anti-money laundering and the financing of counter-terrorism.

Sustainable finance

The Council held an exchange of views the sustainable finance.

Non-performing loans

The Commission updated on the action plan for non-performing loans in Europe.

Stability and growth pact

The Council issued decisions confirming no effective action has been taken by Hungary and Romania in response to Council recommendations of June 2019.

AOB: EU list of non-co-operative tax jurisdictions

As an AOB, the Danish delegation requested Ministers to strengthen ambitions on the EU list of non-co-operative tax jurisdictions.

ECOFIN: 8 November 2019

A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Brussels on 8 November 2019. The UK was represented by Mark Bowman (Director General, International Finance, HM Treasury). The Council discussed the following:

Excise duties

The Council discussed the directive on general arrangements for excise duty (recast); the regulation on administrative co-operation of the content of electronic registers; and amendments to the directive on the structures of excise duty on alcohol.

VAT data from payment service providers

The Council agreed a general approach on amendments to: the directive on the common system of VAT with regards to requirements for payment service providers; and the regulation on administrative co-operation in the field of VAT concerning measures to combat VAT fraud.

VAT treatment for small enterprises

The Council agreed amendments to the directive on the common system of VAT in regards to the special scheme for small enterprises.

Current financial services legislative proposals

The Finnish presidency provided an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.

European Central Bank – Executive Board member

The Council adopted a recommendation to the European Council on the appointment of a new member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank.

Digital taxation

The Council was updated on the current state of play of digital taxation and discussed the way forward.

European Fiscal Board report

The Council were presented with the 2019 annual report of the European Fiscal Board.
EU statistical package

The Council adopted Council conclusions on the EU statistical package and to review progress achieved.

Climate finance

The Council adopted Council conclusions on climate finance for the COP25 climate summit.

Follow-up to international meetings

The presidency and Commission informed the Council of the main outcomes of the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and central bank governors and the IMF and World Bank annual meetings held in October 2019.

Stable coins

As an AOB, the presidency informed the Council about a joint statement on stable-coins ahead of December ECOFIN.

January 24, 2020
William Wragg – 2020 Speech on Stepping Hill Hospital

Below is the text of the speech made by William Wragg, the Conservative MP for Hazel Grove, in the House of Commons on 21 January 2020.

May I say what a joy it is to see you back in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker?

I am very pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on Stepping Hill Hospital, which comes at an important time in its development. I wish to discuss with the Minister the current pressures the hospital is facing, its recent performance figures and especially the strain on its accident and emergency and urgent care services. I hope to explain some of the reasons behind those pressures and what needs to be done, in both the short and the long term, to ensure that the hospital improves. In particular, I want to hear what the Minister is able to do to help the hospital and its staff to deliver better care for patients.

Stepping Hill provides a vital service to local residents in both my constituency and, as evidenced by their attendance at this evening’s debate, the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members across the region. I am a long-term supporter of the hospital, although I am bound to say that, given that it was the place of my birth. I was, of course, pleased that Stepping Hill Hospital was awarded specialist status as part of Greater Manchester’s Healthier Together programme. I backed that bid from the beginning, as a local councillor, parliamentary candidate and Member of Parliament. The hospital is also generally well regarded by local people for the services it provides, and it deserves special praise for the fantastic and difficult job it performed in treating victims of the terrible Manchester Arena bombing in 2017.

The hospital faces difficulties in its performance in a number of areas. Although the latest Care Quality Commission inspection report rates the hospital as good for the care it provides and for leadership, its overall rating is “requires improvement”. The pressures are most acutely felt in emergency care services and in meeting its four-hour target in accident and emergency. In recent years the trust has struggled to consistently achieve the national standard of 95% of patients in the emergency department being seen and treated within four hours. Sadly, the most recent figures published demonstrate that Stepping Hill’s year-to-date position against that standard was 68%.

Those headline figures in no way reflect the work of doctors, nurses and all the other hospital staff, who are working incredibly hard to see, treat and care for the unprecedented number of people currently accessing the emergency department. I place on record my personal thanks to all staff right across the hospital, who provide excellent care for patients, day in, day out.

The reasons for Stepping Hill’s current performance against the standard are multiple and complex. They include the large catchment area it serves, rising demand, local population demographics, the limitation of the current building, a lack of alternative options to the emergency department, and integration with the local health and care system.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what he is doing? I have read some of the background, as I have already told him, and I commend him for his energetic efforts on behalf of his constituents and the hospital. My hospital, like his, has a specialist stroke unit and we want to keep it open, too. Time is of the essence. Does he agree that the retainment and enhancement of specialist services must be a priority in the NHS, no matter what direction it takes?

Mr Wragg

Naturally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and commend him for his work, particularly in maintaining the stroke services at his local hospital. Indeed, I commend the work of all those who perform such vital roles at Stepping Hill.

In other parts of the country, especially in large cities, people have a number of options for where they can receive care for a range conditions, including as a result of accidents and minor injuries. That means that emergency departments just care for the sickest patients who need resuscitation or emergency care.

Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr Wragg

I give way to my constituency neighbour.

Mary Robinson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Stepping Hill Hospital serves not only Hazel Grove but High Peak and other parts of Stockport, and I know that there is a lot of interest in this debate. From my point of view, as the MP for Cheadle and as a Stepping Hill Hospital MP, I want to see the hospital really thrive. One of the issues facing the hospital is that it was built to accommodate about 50,000 out-patients—people coming into A&E—a year, and now that figure is going up towards 100,000. That is clearly a pressure on it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £30.6 million that is going into the new emergency care centre will really make a difference?

Mr Wragg

Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on the work that she has undertaken with me and others from across the region in securing additional funding. I will touch on that later. She is absolutely right, because Stepping Hills’ emergency department is overstretched and facing those rising demands. It was built to treat about 50,000 patients a year but is currently on track, as she says, to exceed 100,000 patients this year.

Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. Is it not also important to impress on the Minister the demographic nature of the borough of Stockport, which we all represent? Stockport is a microcosm of the whole country in that it has its own north-south divide. There are real health inequalities between those living in the north of Stockport and those living in the south. In the south of Stockport, people tend to live longer and stay healthier longer, but when they do reach old age, they often have very complex needs.

Mr Wragg

The hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour to the north of my constituency, is entirely spot on. His remarks are incisive and to the point, because the demand for emergency care in our area has risen by about 5% in the past year, and in the three months to December alone it increased by 6%. It was previously rare for Stepping Hills’ emergency department to see more than 200 patients a day, but now it is not uncommon for over 300 people to seek treatment per day. Indeed, in Christmas week, over 1,700 patients were seen by the department.

Bed capacity is also a problem at Stepping Hill. A hospital bed system should ideally run at about 85% occupancy to make way for new patients, but at Stepping Hill beds have been frequently running at over 99% occupancy. Having support in place to enable people to return home as quickly as possible once they no longer need acute hospital care is also key to achieving the national standard by improving the flow of patients through the hospital and its emergency departments. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) says, Stockport has the highest proportion of elderly people in Greater Manchester, with 19.5% of the population being 65 or older. While increasing longevity is of course to be celebrated, our local population is living longer, often with complex and multiple health conditions, and they place a particular demand on the emergency department that is not seen to the same degree elsewhere in the region.

The hospital has implemented a number of short-term initiatives to try to fix and improve the situation in A&E, particularly to address the extra winter pressures due to influenza and the cold weather. The trust recently spent £1.2 million provided by NHS England to expand the number of consulting and treatment rooms in the existing emergency departments. This winter, Stepping Hill implemented its winter plans two months early, opening an extra 30 beds in the hospital. Even so, concerns this year were so great that they were recognised by the Greater Manchester health and social care partnership. In December, the hospital received an extra £2 million of funding to enable it to open an additional 51 beds until after the end of March this year, increasing staffing and supporting seven-day working.

However, I want to ask a number of questions of my hon. Friend the Minister, for whose consideration this evening I am very grateful. First, despite all those steps and extra beds, in December, alarmingly, 200 people waited for 12 hours or more in the department before a bed could be found for them. I wish therefore to ask him what more can be done by the Government to help Stepping Hill to improve its A&E performance in the short term.

Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)

I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on securing this debate. I know he is a great advocate for the local NHS and for Stepping Hill Hospital, which many of my constituents use as their local hospital. He touched on the worrying performance figures. Does he agree that we need to get on with building the urgent care centre as soon as possible?

Mr Wragg

First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election in High Peak, which is next door to me, and for working as closely as possible with me on this issue as soon as he was elected? Like him, I welcome the investment that is coming, as I am about to outline.

Opening more temporary beds is not the answer to the pressures on our health and care system. A radical long-term solution is needed if Stepping Hill is to improve its A&E performance. That is why I, the hospital and all Members across the House with an interest in it have called for greater investment. The new £30.6 million of funding will enable the organisation to construct a three-storey, purpose-built emergency care campus. It will include an urgent care treatment centre, a GP assessment unit and a planned investigation unit, as well as a new ambulance access road and improved waiting areas.

The emergency care campus will not be simply a new accident and emergency; it is intended instead to care for patients who require a slightly lower grade of emergency care, thus relieving the pressure on A&E by improving the flow of patients through the hospital from the emergency department. Patients who need resuscitation or emergency care will still be seen in A&E. This much-needed investment will relieve the pressures on accident and emergency by implementing a better triaging system for patients, meaning that they get the right care in the right place. Patients who do not require full A&E emergency care will be seen in one of the three new services at the urgent care campus.

The urgent care treatment centre will provide an alternative for those who do not need resuscitation or emergency care. It is expected to triage about 45 patients a day away from accident and emergency. The GP assessment unit will support patients who are referred by their GP for hospital care, ensuring that they have quick access to the acute and medical specialists they need to see without going through the emergency department, thereby reducing A&E admissions by a further 25 patients a day. The planned investigation unit will improve the time in which patients are returned home with a care plan when they no longer need to access acute care services.

Andrew Gwynne

The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous; I am very grateful. I associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) with the proposals the hon. Gentleman has outlined.

May I offer the hon. Gentleman some reassurance from across the boundary in the neighbouring borough of Tameside, which my constituency also covers? Fifteen years ago, when I was first elected to this House, the reputations of Stepping Hill Hospital and Tameside Hospital were almost in mirror image. Tameside was not the best place it could be. With great focus and new management, that hospital has been transformed. Does he share my confidence that better days are ahead of Stepping Hill, and my trust in the staff and the management to take the hospital back to where it needs to be?

Mr Wragg

I absolutely concur with the hon. Gentleman. The leadership of the hospital is excellent. I think that, as he says, better days are very near. May I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), who has come to take part in this debate?

Robert Largan

To follow up on the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), it is great to see the progress that has been made at Tameside Hospital, which many of my constituents, particularly those in Glossop, Hadfield and Tintwistle, use as their local hospital. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is fantastic that the Government have committed to a new urgent care centre at Tameside Hospital as well?

Mr Wragg

There is mutual praise and admiration all around in this debate, so I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is wonderful that we find such consensus on this issue. Stepping Hill unites us all, and that is something of which we can be proud.

I intend to work closely with the Government, Stockport Council and the hospital trust to support the planning process, so that the new emergency care campus can be built and be up and running, treating patients as soon as possible. That leads to my second question for my hon. Friend the Minister. What timescale does he envisage for the completion of the new urgent care campus, and how confident is he that it can be met? How many more winters will the hospital go through before that new facility is up and running?

No debate on hospitals would be complete without at least a brief discussion of parking, which is often the bane of patients, visitors and staff alike. It is an issue that affects not only those using the hospital but local neighbours. A lack of car-parking capacity, or the desire to avoid charges, often means that cars spill out to use kerbside parking on nearby residential streets, which can prove to be a significant inconvenience. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to provide free hospital parking for those who need it most, including disabled patients, parents and carers of sick children staying overnight, and hospital staff working night shifts, who are less able to rely on public transport. That change is long overdue and will make the NHS as accessible as possible for those who need it most.

In addition, I am extremely encouraged that the Government plan to provide more than £200 million of capital funding for new car parks, to support several hospitals across England that need extra car-parking capacity. Does the Minister know which hospitals have been earmarked for that funding and whether Stepping Hill is among them? If he cannot give me a firm answer today, will he meet me following the debate, so that I can make the case again for increasing parking capacity at Stepping Hill?

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, and I hope that he can provide me with the answers to these important questions. I especially hope that he has some ideas on short-term solutions that can be found to help the hospital and its patients while construction work on the emergency campus is carried out. I would also like to take this opportunity to extend an open invitation to him to visit the hospital—I am sure that he would be very welcome—to see at first hand the pressures it faces and what can be done to improve the situation for the hospital and its patients.

Finally, I wish to reiterate my thanks to the dedicated doctors, nurses and staff across the hospital for their tireless work, day and night, in these very challenging circumstances.

January 24, 2020
Robert Jenrick – 2020 Statement on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Report

Below is the text of the statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 21 January 2020.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Phase 1 Report.

It is now over two and a half years since the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, and I believe I speak for all Members of this House when I say that we once again offer the 72 victims, the bereaved, the survivors and everyone affected our profound condolences. They remain in our thoughts and prayers. They seek answers, accountability, justice and action to ensure that this terrible tragedy is never repeated. That is why yesterday I set out our immediate plans to improve building safety in this country. Getting this right is a priority for this new Government and the Prime Minister, and it is something that I will personally be taking forward at pace.

Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. He refers to the statement he made yesterday. I welcome the decision in that statement to consult on ensuring that building regulations are relevant to buildings of a lower height, but he talked about that being relevant to new buildings and not to existing buildings. He will know from the fire at Samuel Garside House in my constituency that that was an existing building, and that it went up in just six minutes. If the fire had happened in the middle of night, it could have led to huge loss of life. Fortunately it did not, but I ask him to consider whether the regulations should not also be relevant to existing buildings, as well as to new buildings of a lower height.

Robert Jenrick

I will come to that issue in a moment. The right hon. Lady and I have worked together on this and she has been a strong advocate for her constituents after the fire in Barking.

The announcement we made yesterday goes further. It says that we will be working with experts to develop a far more sophisticated measure of safety in buildings than simply the crude one of height alone that has existed for decades in this country. Once we have arrived at that, it will inform all the actions that building owners will have to take. It is the responsibility of building owners to take a view of building safety through an independent assessment of risk in that building that bears in mind all the characteristics of the building, whether it be the height, the residents in the building, the fire safety system or—as with the fire in Barking—balconies and other materials that are used on the building.

Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) rose—

Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) rose—

Robert Jenrick

If I could perhaps make some progress, I will come to the points around building safety in a moment and return to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell).

As I have said, getting this right will be a priority for the Government, for the Prime Minister and for myself. We will be introducing two Bills: one to deal with the immediate fire safety issues that we have identified, and another that will bring in the biggest change to building regulations in almost 40 years. Having met families of the bereaved and survivors, some of whom join us in the Gallery today, I remain acutely aware of our responsibility to ensure that they continue to receive the support they need and to see the change that they rightly demand. They have shown incredible resilience and acted not just with great dignity but with great courage. Their voices are being heard, and they must continue to be. On 30 October last year I stood in the House with the Prime Minister following the publication of the Grenfell inquiry’s phase 1 report, which covered the events of the night. Our immediate response was to accept in principle all the findings of the report that relate to the Government. Since then, we have worked at pace to deliver the Government’s response, which I am setting out today.

Sir Martin’s report provides a detailed, minute-by-minute account of what happened on the evening of 14 June 2017. It is built around the testimony of survivors and of the fire and rescue team involved in the response. The report made very important recommendations, including new duties for building owners; operational changes for the London Fire Brigade and, indeed, for fire and rescue services more widely, as well as for emergency services across the country; and addressing the continued presence of unsafe cladding on buildings.

Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Robert Jenrick

If I may, I will come to my hon. Friend in a moment.

I will now turn to the actions the Government have taken since receiving the report. First, in response to Sir Martin’s findings that there was compelling evidence that the external walls on Grenfell Tower were not compliant with building regulations—this was an important finding—we are wasting no time in addressing this. The Home Office will introduce the fire safety Bill in the coming weeks so that the necessary changes are made as soon as possible. This Bill will leave building owners in no doubt that external wall systems, including cladding, and front doors to individual flats in multi-occupied residential buildings fall within the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This means that they must assess the risk and they must take precautionary measures to keep people safe. The fire safety Bill will also make clear the enforcement powers that can be taken locally against building owners who have not remediated unsafe ACM—aluminium composite material— cladding. This Bill will be the first step towards the new regulatory framework that will implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 and the regulatory requirements to do so.

Lucy Powell

I thank the Secretary of State for the tone in which he is conducting this debate, and indeed in which he has been leading on these issues since he took over. Could he clarify whether this new body will mean that residents such as mine in Skyline Central 1, who are facing £25,000 bills each being passed on by the building owner, can have recourse back to the building owner, who would have to meet the cost of their now unsafe building?

Robert Jenrick

That will depend on the exact legal relationship in the building in question, and I am very happy to work with the hon. Lady to help investigate that. It is the responsibility of building owners to take action and, as she rightly mentions, many have for various reasons passed that on to leaseholders. I am acutely aware, as I said in the House yesterday, that some leaseholders feel trapped and unable to fund the mediation works that now need to happen, and that costs should not be a bar to that. As I said yesterday, we are now working with the Treasury to see if there are ways of providing financing to support those individuals.

Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)

I thank the Secretary of State for being generous with his time. On that very point, he mentions having conversations with the Treasury to look at different options—he said this in his statement yesterday—but is there any set timeline for the conversations that he will have with the Treasury on this point? I ask, because leaseholders have been in this position for two years and seven months, so the sooner we can resolve how to support them so that they do not to have to front the costs of any remediation works, the better. What is the timeline that he has with the Treasury to ensure that this can be sped up, because it has been over two years?

Robert Jenrick

I cannot give the hon. Lady an exact timetable, but it is worth saying that we have already—I will come on to this in my remarks—made available £600 million for building owners in both the social sector and the private sector. On expert advice, I have targeted that public grant funding towards ACM-clad buildings of over 18 metres. I will say again that all of the expert opinion I have seen has confirmed the decision that those are the most unsafe buildings and that they should be the priority for public funding. A number of building owners are already helping to remove cladding in their own buildings, and coming up with funding arrangements to help leaseholders to meet those costs, such as low-cost or zero-interest loan schemes. If the Government can assist in that, I think we should do so, because we want to see this cladding removed as soon as possible.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)

May I slightly extend that point, as these issues reach across the Floor? Since the terrible Grenfell disaster, people in a privately owned block of flats in my constituency have faced massively increased insurance costs. They have been unable to get anyone to give them a confirmed view about the cladding, or to receive information from the fire brigade about the real nature of the threat and danger. Everybody has run for cover, and as result those people have already spent a vast amount of money—they are not wealthy people. They have now been told that the cladding does not pose a threat, but they have a backwash of costs and are still affected by this issue. Will the Secretary of State consider whether insurance companies, and others, should have been charging leaseholders those extra costs until it had been confirmed that there was a real threat?

Robert Jenrick

I would be happy to take up the individual case raised by my right hon. Friend, and the wider point. We are working closely with the insurance industry. This issue involves a range of materials, the most dangerous of which is ACM cladding, which was on Grenfell Tower. That has been the focus of public money. It is the responsibility of all building owners to have an independent assessment and ensure that the building is safe—it sounds as if that is what happened, perhaps belatedly, to the building in my right hon. Friend’s constituency. That assessment should provide the answers, after which remediation work, if necessary, needs to happen at pace. If I can help to support that in any way, I will.

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

This inquiry is not about finding blame; it is about finding causes and rectifying the situation. In this case, the problems that have been created regarding the wider building stock and liability are no fault of property owners, tenants or leaseholders, and that leaves a liability that falls on the Government, at least to a degree. Otherwise, there will be widening injustice, bankruptcy and failures across a whole sector of housing, because we are trying to remediate the failure of regulation in the past.

Robert Jenrick

The question at the heart of my hon. Friend’s remarks is what the judge will determine in the second phase of the inquiry. What went wrong that led to that cladding being on Grenfell Tower? Was it a failure of Government or of regulation of the construction industry, or a combination of those things? I do not think we can prejudge what the judge will determine over the course of the detailed second phase of the inquiry that is about to commence.

Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

I have followed these matters over the past couple of years, and in my experience the Secretary of State has done more to try to resolve these problems than any of his predecessors, all of whom tried to tackle a thorny issue. He is right to say that ACM is probably the most dangerous cladding, and we should deal with that first. Advice Note 14 does not deal with ACM, but it does effectively say that other combustible materials should not be on the outside of high rise buildings. The official guidance was more equivocal than that, which leaves long leaseholders in a difficult situation with unsaleable properties—I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that regard. We must consider this issue. Yesterday the Secretary of State said that he would look at doing more, and we will need to.

Robert Jenrick

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who is a long-standing campaigner on this issue. Next month we will publish the final result of the testing process that my Department has been undertaking over many months with the Building Research Establishment. That will lay out for all to see evidence that I have already seen about the safety, or otherwise, of a range of different materials. I believe it will demonstrate that ACM is by far the most concerning material and should come off buildings as quickly as possible.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Robert Jenrick

I had better make some progress, but I will return to my hon. Friend in a moment.

The Bill we will bring forward later this year will be the first step towards the new regulatory framework that will implement the recommendations of the phase 1 report’s legislative requirements. Under the Bill, building owners and managers will be required to share information with fire and rescue services on external wall systems, and undertake regular inspections of flat entrance doors. The Home Office will consult on the detail of the proposals in spring this year.

That legislative action will address many of the inquiry’s recommendations and forms part of the wider Government response to ensure that action is taken against unsafe cladding. My Department has already introduced a ban on combustible materials on the external walls of new buildings over 18 metres, and, as I have said, made available £600 million in Government funding to support that work.

Sir Martin’s report concluded that it was not just the materials of the building that contributed to the tragedy: more people could have survived the fire had the London Fire Brigade conducted a full evacuation earlier in the night. He recognises existing Government guidance stating that fire and rescue services should have contingency plans for when a building needs full or partial evacuation, and noted that the London Fire Brigade policies were in this respect deficient.

Andy Slaughter

In the Minister’s statement yesterday there was not anything that I saw about evacuation and changes to the stay-put policy, which would be a huge change that would have implications for means of escape, alarms, sprinkler systems and so on. When can we expect the Government to pronounce on that?

Robert Jenrick

I will come on to that point in just a moment, if I may.

Sir Martin recommended that the Government produce national guidelines for carrying out the evacuation of high rise residential buildings. I am now working closely with colleagues in the Home Office on those guidelines. My Department and the Home Office have formed a steering group with the National Fire Chiefs Council and other experts, which met for the first time in December. The group agreed on the scope of an evidence review into stay put and evacuation. Let me reiterate, however, that the advice from the National Fire Chiefs Council is that stay put remains an appropriate policy providing compartmentation is maintained. In fact, Sir Martin highlighted that effective compartmentation is likely to remain at the heart of fire safety and the response to fires in high rise buildings. I think that that is an important point that we should all bear in mind in how we communicate on these issues to members of the public.

A number of recommendations made by Sir Martin were for the London Fire Brigade, and for fire and rescue services more widely across the country. The firefighters serving that night showed exceptional bravery and dedication. I would like to pay tribute to their courage, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did last year. However, the report made very clear that there were failures in the London Fire Brigade’s response. Significant changes are needed in its policies, guidance and training, including on evacuation procedures. We know that fire and rescue services across the country need to have the training and processes in place to be able to respond as effectively as possible to fires in residential buildings. The control rooms that co-ordinate emergency responses must have the processes in place to deal with all incidents effectively.

I am pleased that London Fire Brigade has already rolled out fire survival guidance training, and is reviewing its policies and guidance in the light of the inquiry’s recommendations. It is important that all our emergency services have proper protocols in place to ensure that they can work together and communicate effectively in an emergency. The Home Office is working with the interoperability board to ensure that those lessons are learned. While these recommendations are not aimed directly at the Government, clearly the Government have a role and we will not sit back.

Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. As Home Secretary I chaired the board of JESIP, the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme. What is clear from Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report, page 698, is that the protocol was not followed on the night of the Grenfell fire. He recommends changes to that protocol. Have the changes been put in place? Equally important, have frontline officers and staff of the three emergency services had the changes drawn to their attention, so that they know what they must do when they are working together in a major incident?

Robert Jenrick

My right hon. Friend makes a series of extremely important points. Those issues have been brought to the attention of all the emergency services; they are now working through them. The Home Office is helping to co-ordinate that work and, like her, I hope that those lessons are learned as quickly as possible so that if we are ever presented with a tragedy on this scale again all the emergency services can work together as one, in a co-ordinated way.

Fire and rescue services need urgently to address these issues and must set out their plans to do so. There have been some welcome developments, including, for example, that the London Fire Brigade now carries smoke hoods on its fire engines; that five pumps and a drone, rather than four pumps, are now deployed to fires in high-rise buildings; and that the London Fire Brigade has already taken steps to ensure that personnel understand the risk of fire taking hold in external wall systems. My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service will address the House at the end of the debate on the work he is doing with the sector.

The work I have outlined shows the urgency with which we are addressing Sir Martin’s recommendations. The Government did not wait for the phase 1 report to begin addressing the most pressing building safety issues. We took immediate action in the aftermath of the fire with a comprehensive and independent review of building safety, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt.

Bob Seely

It seems to me that ACM cladding, which my right hon. Friend addressed earlier, goes to the heart of the matter. How many high-rise buildings with unsafe ACM cladding have been identified and have had remedial treatment? How many others does he think still have to be identified, and what steps is he taking to do so?

Robert Jenrick

We are working very closely with the social sector and private owners. I am afraid that, frustratingly, progress has been extremely slow, as my hon. Friend and others across the House know. The fund that we opened for the taxpayer to pay for the remediation has so far seen only four successful applications. However, there is evidence that progress is moving at a pace that we have not seen before. There are now only 10 buildings in the private sector that have not begun the process of remediating, which means drawing up a plan and beginning with or contracting workers who can come on site and take away the cladding. There are exceptional circumstances with all those 10 buildings because, unfortunately, they have been identified only recently as having ACM cladding, so they have come to the process only over the course of the autumn. I want that work to proceed at a pace that we have not known before. As I said yesterday, we are now commissioning an independent building safety construction expert to advise my Department on how we can get that moving very quickly.

It was clear to me when I became Secretary of State—this was confirmed by Sir Martin’s report—that we need to go further to bring forward a series of very significant reforms and ensure that the work moves at pace. In response to Dame Judith Hackitt’s report, we are creating, immediately, the new building safety regulator. As I announced yesterday, we have chosen that that will be established within the Health and Safety Executive. The new regulator will raise building safety and performance standards. It will oversee a new and more stringent regime for high rise buildings and for higher risk buildings more generally.

Non-compliance is an issue in the industry, and the building safety legislation announced in the Queen’s Speech will ensure that the new regulator has the appropriate powers to sanction those responsible. This is a new and significantly tougher regime, underpinned by improved enforcement, dedicated to ensuring that our buildings are made with the necessary high safety standards and that the people within them always feel safe.

Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

My right hon. Friend refers to people who suffered from the fire. Can he confirm how many of those families are still waiting for permanent housing? If there are any, what is he doing to find them a permanent home speedily?

Robert Jenrick

Of the households who lived in Grenfell tower, 10 are yet to move into permanent accommodation. Of them, one is in hotel accommodation; the others are in high-quality temporary accommodation. Without going into the personal details of each household, which would not be appropriate, I can tell the House that I have personally reviewed the circumstances behind each of them, and my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister and I have worked closely with Kensington Council to review them again several times since coming to office. They are complex cases with a range of individual circumstances behind them, but we are hopeful that many of them will move into accommodation in which they feel comfortable as soon as possible.

Yesterday, I announced a series of new measures, including the appointment of a construction expert, to quicken the pace of the remediation of ACM cladding. I announced that I was minded to lower the height requirements for sprinklers in residential buildings from 18 metres to 11 metres, and I will set out a full proposal on how we intend to deliver that in February.

As I have stated, I have had the privilege of meeting survivors and their families and friends as well as people from across the community of north Kensington, and from the schools, such as Kensington Aldridge Academy and St Francis of Assisi Catholic Primary School, that provide a safe and caring space for children affected by the tragedy to reflect and remember their loved ones, to the worshippers at the Al-Manaar north Kensington mosque, who came together to support the community after the fire and continue to do so. One thing has been clear to me: this is a community of people who look after one another, who will continue to support one another and who will never forget what happened on the evening of the fire.

We owe it to them to ensure that their views are heard throughout our work, that justice is delivered and that the system is changed so that such a tragic fire can never happen again. That means reforming our building safety regime, but it also means reform of social housing to ensure tenants’ voices are heard and that their landlords provide good-quality, safe accommodation with strong and robust sanctions in place to hold them to account where that does not happen.

The Prime Minister and I have committed to bringing forward a social housing White Paper. This will set out further measures to empower tenants, hold social landlords to account and support the continued supply of social housing. This will include measures to provide for greater redress and better regulation and to improve the quality and safety of social housing.

Lucy Powell

Most people would welcome the White Paper the Secretary of State has just announced, but will he consider extending it to those living in private blocks? Many more people are now living in high rise blocks in city centres such as mine, but leaseholders have no rights against the building owners and very little recourse, and there is no teeth when the leasehold valuation tribunal or any other body finds in their favour. The need of private tenants and leaseholders for recourse is just as great.

Robert Jenrick

The hon. Lady makes several important points. Much of the work of the social housing White Paper will apply to private leaseholders, and of course we have a separate stream of work on reforming leasehold. We have already said we will shortly publish a draft Bill on leasehold reform, and we await the further reports from the Law Commission and then in time from the Competition and Markets Authority on leasehold, which will inform our work and I hope lead to significant legislation to reform the leasehold market later in this Parliament.

Dame Margaret Hodge

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. As he will remember, one of the issues that arose from the fire in Barking was the fact that none of the leaseholders had household insurance, so when they lost all the contents of their homes or the contents were damaged they had no recourse to insurance to replace them. Is he giving any consideration, in any of these reforms, to introducing a system whereby not only is building insurance imposed on leaseholders—presumably in social housing that would be covered by the local authorities—but victims of fires do not end up losing all their belongings and having no money with which to replace them? These are people on the edge who really are finding it hard to manage.

Robert Jenrick

I did look into that issue when the right hon. Lady raised it after the fire in Barking. I am acutely aware of the number of individuals who do not have household insurance—that was brought home to me after the floods in Doncaster last year, when we encountered many households that did not have it. I do not think that it is for the state to intervene—I am not sure how practical it would be for household insurance to be provided centrally, regardless of the value of the contents of individuals’ homes—but I am happy to think again, and to speak to the right hon. Lady if that would be helpful.

My Department continues to hold regular meetings with the crucial stakeholders, including Grenfell United, to discuss our emerging proposals, and to ensure that the reform we are introducing is what is needed to deliver meaningful change. I am grateful for their engagement and commitment. It was at their request that we did not rush to publish the social housing White Paper, but are continuing to work with them to ensure that they will—I hope—be able to support it in due course. I will report back to the House shortly with our conclusions.

We know that for the families, the relatives and the survivors, change cannot come quickly enough, and we know that there is still a huge amount to do. We have heard that already, in the opening of this debate. The recent fire in Barking and the fire in Bolton at the end of last year only serve to remind us of the urgency with which we must act, and will continue to guide our work.

Phase 1 of the inquiry was just the first part of a complex process to uncover the truth of what happened. Next week, phase 2 hearings will begin as the work of the inquiry continues. Those hearings will help us to understand how the building was so dangerously exposed to the risk of fire. I have no doubt that Sir Martin will leave no stone unturned in his work. There will be tough questions for those involved in the refurbishment of the tower, and for the manufacturers of the materials used; but there will also be questions for central and local government to respond to, and I will support the work of the inquiry in any way I can.

We also continue to work alongside others to bring about changes that will protect the public, and I will ensure that further updates on the steps taken to implement the chairman’s recommendations are shared with the House at the earliest opportunity.

Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)

As has already been noted, a number of survivors and families from Grenfell are present today. They will be looking for leadership from both their local council and this place. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that he will continue to speak to all the people and organisations involved in the north Kensington area?

Robert Jenrick

I will certainly make that commitment to the bereaved, to the survivors, and to the community of north Kensington. I have met a number of those groups on a number of occasions since becoming Secretary of State, and last week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met a group of survivors, bereaved people, local residents and members of the community.

I think that I speak for the whole House in once again offering the bereaved and the survivors our most profound condolences. Their pain and loss were unimaginable to us. We owe it to them, and to all whose lives have been affected by the fire at Grenfell Tower, to match these sentiments with action, on a scale and at a pace commensurate with the tragedy, and to do everything in our power to ensure that this never happens again.

January 24, 2020
Foreign and Commonwealth Office – 2020 Press Release on Governor Dakin’s Speech

Below is a press release issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 22/01/2020.

His Excellency the Governor, Nigel Dakin, addressed the audience during the official launch of the Turks & Caicos Islands National Security Strategy on 22 January 2020.

TCI now, for the first time, has a National Security Strategy. The need for TCI to have this was driven by the Premier and it became one of my first priorities, on arrival, to help her deliver it.

It sat very well with my own initial priorities, outlined in my inauguration speech, around crime, illegal immigration and hurricane preparedness.

The most important line in the strategy we launch today is the last sentence of the introduction “In terms of the leadership needed to tackle National Security challenges the Premier’s and the Governor’s Office stand together”. When it comes to the specifics of crime and policing, because national security is much more than crime, we also bring the Commissioner into this top team.

In these three roles we combine all the powers we need: funding through taxing and spending; democratic accountability; decisions around operational deployment; executive and emergency powers if needed; and the ability to reach beyond our own borders. If we were pulling against each other, or even working in parallel rather than together, none of us could deliver in the way the country rightly demands. But that’s explicitly not the case.

All that I’m about to say would not have been possible without the Strategy we launch today – and the thinking that went onto it. The institutions that flow from it, help consolidate this ‘top team relationship’ so it’s not personality dependent, but the way Government functions in the future to look after the safety and security of its people.

With one team at the top, we intend to create a ‘one government team’ around us to deal with these issues. The team you see with us today are among the top thirty officials in TCI Government and Policing that will execute the strategy. We are also grateful to be joined – as not disinterested observers – by the Commissioner of Montserrat, the Deputy Commissioner from Cayman and the Assistant Commissioner from Bermuda. We are strengthened by your presence Gentlemen.

All of us are presently involved in a one week training exercise run by the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst but we have taken an hour out of that course to be with you today. We are in a classroom learning – you are never too old to learn – and in learning, as much from each other – we are coming together as a team, sharing experiences, forming, storming and norming around one shared endeavour: to make this country safer.

All in this room agree that the fact this country is small should be our strength in terms of national security. Our communication and co-operation across Government should be straightforward. We should be agile. We should be efficient. But let’s be frank with each other, we are presently none of these things – so this week is important, indeed vital, in that process of change.

A public version of the strategy will be published but I suspect the public are interested today, not in what’s written on paper, but what’s happening as a result of the Strategy in the real world. That’s what I intend to focus on. First, once you have the right strategy, you then need the right structures and the people with the right skills to implement it. So that’s where I start:

an already established National Security Council has been reimagined that can develop national capability and work at the strategic level and tackle wicked problems. That change has now occurred we are feeling the benefits. Bringing experts into the room, as required, has helped

since September a UK funded security advisor has been in place to help drive strategic change. The Premier and myself, and I suspect all who have come into contact with her, want to pay public tribute to Victoria for her detailed planning work. Much of what I’m about to describe, she has been instrumental in

I can announce today that a TCIG National Security Advisor (modelled on the role of the NSA in the UK) has been appointed who will work to both the Governor and Premier. This is a significant step forward in both tying together Government but also vesting more responsibility in Turks Islanders to manage national security. This will be Tito Lightbourne who will become the first Permanent Secretary National Security. This role will allow him to work across Government Departments with the authority of the Governor and Premier and he will co-ordinate to ensure proper cross-government working on National Security issues while being the focus for building long term national security capability.

at the same time I can announce the promotion and appointment of two new Permanent Secretaries into the key Ministries involved in National Security. Mr Desmond Wilson will take over as PS Border Control and brings considerable experience with him as the former Director of Immigration. He also has a well-deserved reputation for action and delivery; qualities I admire

Ms Althea Been who moves from being a Deputy Secretary in Border Control, and will therefore be taking useful context about the challenges of that area of national security, will start as PS at Home Affairs on the 1st April. She also has a reputation for proactivity and delivery and that reassures us that she will be a first class member of the top team vital, for example, in redeveloping the Prison and all matters linked to that institution

funding of a National Security Secretariat, working to Tito Lightbourne has been agreed. The threats outlined in the Strategy will be managed by two senior ‘Threat Leads’ in the Secretariat; crucially that includes our resilience to, and recovery from, disasters. Placing that issue in the centre of Government, rather than on the side, is an important shift of emphasis

when we combine this NSA and Secretariat with the strong command and control function the Police have now developed at the operational level we will have a well-drilled national command structure for use in times of crisis at the strategic, operational and tactical levels. We will be rehearsing and refining this capability during the year

in terms of new and significant national capability we are in close touch with the UK Ministry of Defence, as you know we intend to generate a Turks and Caicos Regiment – our own Defence Force. We expect to be asking for expressions of interest for the Regiment’s first Commanding Officer within weeks, followed by advertising for its regular Officer cadre shortly thereafter, before starting to recruit the ‘Reserve Force’ in the summer

Looking further down into the strategy, I intend to use my remaining time today, to look at the two issues that are at the top of the public’s agenda: Illegal Immigration and separately, because it’s intellectually lazy to conflate the two, Serious Crime

But before I do that I want to emphasise that the most pressing threat to our National Security – over a period of decades – is going to be natural disaster. The seas around us are warming. They provide the fuel for hurricanes, and we are in their path. You’ll see in the strategy it’s in the top two we must tackle – we have to move from a position where we focus on ‘recovery’ to one where much more effort is placed on ‘resilience’. Countries in the Caribbean that don’t, will go into perpetual decline, unable to recover properly between each natural disaster.

Worth also putting on record that, other than Natural Disaster, Illegal Immigration and Serious Crime, the other six issues the Strategy calls out as threats are: critical national infrastructure failure; serious public disorder; maritime sovereignty; food security and scarcity; cyber and, finally; terrorism, money laundering and financing of terrorism. Before moving onto crime let me start with what we are doing to reverse the seriously destabilising impact illegal immigration has on our society.

without getting ahead of ourselves we now have the start of a good story to tell in terms of the interdiction of the traditional large sloops. I said shortly after my arrival in July that I intended to learn from failure and be accountable. We’ve studied trends, both success and failures. While ten landed in the first half of the year, from 30th August, only one large vessel has got through – and even then a number, although not all, of its illegal passengers were arrested once they made land fall

the team we have on the front line protecting our maritime borders – led by Ennis Grant, Everet Warrican, Tito Forbes and Rodman Johnson are, to my mind, heroic. As a team we’ve been testing, adjusting and learning. Staffing at the radar has been increased, more efficient deployment of Maritime assets has been established and better cross-government working introduced

there’s much more to do and a virtual team that pulls together the Maritime Branch, Radar and Immigration Task Force has started to take root. Linking them to the US Coastguard and Bahamian Defence Force in a wider international team, a game changer. And at this point I pay great tribute to our international partners. This is essential because we cannot be complacent: as we improve so do our opponents – Darwinian like – they evolve. We have to adapt our ways of working and capabilities rapidly; we are now starting to have the team work in place to make that happen.

but stopping the sloops is attacking the symptom not the cause. The big change the Strategy calls out is the need to go after the under-pinning business model: prosecuting those, in TCI, and overseas if we can reach them, profiting from this trade in human cargo. To that end a significant investigation into people trafficking – led by the Police and drawing on contracted UK Police Officers – has commenced. This large investigation is working in tandem with Canadian, US and UK law enforcement. The recent arrest of 29 Sri Lankans – and congratulations to all involved in that particular success – has allowed us to look through an investigative keyhole at a global people trafficking ring. With international partners we intend to exploit that opportunity

with this ambition in mind – going after those profiting from the trade rather than just those trafficked – our intention is to build a secure and vetted capability on the Islands that can better collect, assess and then take action on intelligence we generate – or which is generated by our partners. Like the Defence Force, the UK are looking to support us in this and this will have strategic impact on all aspects of national security and serious crime

significant funding from Government to upgrade the radar has also been secured. Our intention is to make detection so likely we disincentivise travel across dangerous waters. As it is, 15 Haitians lost their lives in the waters off West Caicos last year, we assume many more in open seas. We mourn their and their family’s loss while equally holding those who trafficked them, exploited them and profited from them, with contempt. They are now the targets of our criminal justice system

very significantly – because great efficiency and effectiveness can be delivered if we get this right – programmatic work has begun to establish a Border Force probably with different combined land and combined sea elements. The Premier has been keen on this type of reorganisation from the beginning and she was right to be so

funds have been secured to retrofit a seized fast vessel to strengthen the Maritime Branch that will be deployed on Grand Turk (seriously extending range)

work has also begun with the US Coast Guard and the Bahamian Defence Force to significantly strengthen tri-lateral and bi-lateral co-operation. Lawyers are now involved in drafting future agreements. There has anyway been an immediate uptick in co-operation – some of that has been already described in the media – and we have been clear with all international parties that they shouldn’t underestimate TCI’s ambition. Our aim is to be a serious partner and player in the region

in terms of energy we have initially focussed on stemming the maritime threat, so we are excited by the appointment of Desmond Wilson who, drawing on guidance from his Minister (who of course is part of the NSC) can use the convening power provided by the PS National Security and deliver a proportionate whole of Government approach, to tackling Illegal Immigration through arresting those who overstay, or who entered illegally. There’s a critical balance we must get right here in not alienating those who have every right to be here

And now to crime:

Crime is rightly the hot topic so I will dwell on what, as Governor, Premier and Commissioner, we are doing to make a change. It’s important though to recognise that while the Police take the burden of public scrutiny, Policing on its own isn’t the answer. If you will indulge me to be clear, to the point of bluntness – the answer to the problem we are trying to solve won’t be reached until future public co-operation is in line with present public outrage

Policing by consent, which is our Policing model, can’t succeed without public trust and public engagement. Policing can do far better on this – and recognising this fact is an important first step – so we now have a structured approach to delivering that change. But the public must meet us half way and if they don’t, the investments we are making will fail. It’s that important. In some ways it’s that fragile

An increase in overall Police numbers by 20% has begun, recruits have started training and the overall uplift will be complete by March 2021. The Commissioner tells us this increase will be a game changer; we can reinforce the very capable Tactical Unit, the Maritime Unit and crucially bring in proper Community Policing where the community gets to know their local officer through regular engagement

We already have 8 officers training in Barbados. The recruitment of a further 20 – also recruited from inside TCI – has been completed on schedule and they will train in the Bahamas. Recruiting the next tranche of 20 is due to begin which will include bringing in experienced overseas officers who can immediately reinforce our Tactical and Maritime Unit.

Further recruitment can be fine-tuned dependent on need.

As well as recruiting we must train existing staff – not least in terms of building a relationship with the public; our officers have been underinvested in for years. Funds for a significant uplift in Police Training have been agreed.

A gun crime unit has been established and this has started to yield results. More guns were recovered in the two months before Christmas than in the previous two years.

The use of a UK police officer, on island as part of the SIPT trial, but hugely experienced in murder investigations, has now been commissioned to review all murder cases. UK Police will review professional standards of conduct and performance in our Police force and separately review the structures and organisation of the Police’s approach to homicide and will then remain in country to mentor. The Commissioner has other initiatives he is working on drawing on UK policing experience that we are not yet in a position to announce, but which will make an impact to the long term strength and health of the Force.

Outside of the National Security Strategy, but crucial to its success, the last Chief Justice, independently, pulled together the Justice sector (Judges, Chief Magistrate, AG, DPP, Commissioner, Prison Superintendent, Social Welfare, UK Justice Advisor) into a committee that could drive positive change in the overall Justice system. Cabinet has now been presented with a plan as to how Government can support much needed change in all aspects of justice other than Policing. This includes the like of Prison reform, parole, rehabilitation, the efficiency of the system in delivering justice and the physical environment in which justice is delivered.

You will note from what I haven’t said – and this is explicit in the Strategy – that we stay top level and we deliberately do not seek to drop down into operational policing decisions around the deployment of officers and the like. It’s important that these decisions are the Commissioners, with his excellent Force Executive, so he can maintain operational independence. What the strategy seeks to do is give him the resources, connectivity to both other parts of Government and overseas, and the context in which the Force can succeed

Conclusion

I have spent previous press conferences expressing my heartfelt thoughts about the impact of crime. We rightly focus on murder but the truth is all crime corrodes our society and damages our people. Even new to these Islands I’d met the young man who had been simply introduced to me as ‘Spooky’, the DJ at the basketball games I attend.

And I’d met a previous victim of murder, Jeffrey, and thought what a convivial and engaging bar tender he was and what a great young father he must be. This is a small society where murder feels close because it is close. Not only do families grieve, but with each murder the country grieves.

The most important thing I can do to honour their short lives, the most important thing we can do in this room is recognise we all have personal agency in this endeavour.

If you judge we are serious, the greatest thing you can do to honour those who have become victims is become equally serious yourself in playing your part. Many I know already feel this way. We need people actively building an ever healthier society, in whatever way they can, using whatever talent is at their disposal.

I’m not going to appeal for information (others better placed than me can do that, although I’d note it’s the greatest contribution some could make) but I am – unapologetically – going to ask for national solidarity, for national unity, when it comes to national security.

I’ve been particularly grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his thoughtful, measured and constructive advice, to me personally and in a more formal consultation, as we have developed this. As a national leader, but also as an ex-Police Officer, his instincts have not only been important but genuinely valuable. To the rest of you I say, given we can find so many ways to divide ourselves, this isn’t one of the issues on which we need to seek division and we achieve great collective strength if we don’t.

So I end with one of my favourite quotes, not biblical in this instance, but from Sun Tzu – one of history’s great military philosophers: “Strategy without tactics” he wrote “is the slowest route to victory”. “Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

TCI now has a strategy. Within it, I’ve just described some of the tactics we are already employing and capability we are building. I, the Premier, the Commissioner and all those in this room, representing every branch of Government involved in this shared enterprise, are committed to delivering a safe environment. I hope you can, in your own way, feel part of this because in truth you – the public – are without doubt our greatest national security asset. Extrapolating slightly from the Sun Tzu quote: national unity, around national security, would be the fastest route to success.

And with that, may God Bless these Turks and Caicos Islands.

January 23, 2020
Foreign and Commonwealth Office – 2020 Press Release on Peace for Israelis and Palestinians

Below is a press release issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 22/01/2020.

Statement by Ambassador Karen Pierce, UK Permanent Representative to the UN at the United Nations Security Council Open Debate on the Middle East.

Thank you Mr President. Before I start, I just want to pick up on what both the American and the German Ambassador said about the Holocaust commemoration, which takes place this year – a very important commemoration – and the fact that some of us will be joining the Secretary-General at the weekend in New York to commemorate this important anniversary.

Mr President, turning to the Open Debate;

The year 2020 opened with a new crisis in the Middle East, following the killing of Qasem Soleimani, in response to strikes by Iraqi militias against coalition bases, and the downing of Ukrainian Airlines flight 752. The United Kingdom continues to urge all parties to de-escalate following the events and for Iran to take the opportunity to come in from the cold and pursue its legitimate interests in the region peacefully, with full respect for international rules.

I’d like to echo what German representative said about recognition of Israel in this context.

Mr President, as demonstrated by the briefings we’ve heard today, it’s right that this Council also remains engaged to resolve one of the longest standing conflicts on its agenda, the Israeli Palestinian conflict. We have made clear our concern that the situation on the ground, which, as the Secretary-General noted in his assessment last month, has deteriorated over the last three years. And the figures that the Under-Secretary-General quoted are troubling and compelling.

All sides have a responsibility to arrest this deterioration and to create an atmosphere more conducive to peace. For Israel, this means:

(i) An immediate halt to settlement expansion. We condemn the Israeli government’s advancement this month of yet more plans, for over 1,900 housing units across the West Bank. It is the UK’s longstanding position that settlements are illegal under international law and undermine the viability of the two-state solution.

(ii) The avoidance of any suggestion that parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories should be annexed. Such a move would be contrary to international law, damaging to peace efforts and could not pass unchallenged.

(iii) An immediate end to the demolition of Palestinian-owned homes and structures, as well as the eviction of Palestinians from their homes. The targeting of donor-funded structures in Area C is of particular concern. We call on the Israeli authorities to provide a clear, transparent route to construction for Palestinians in Area C.

Turning to Palestinians’ responsibilities:

(i) We unreservedly condemn the indiscriminate attacks against Israeli civilians by groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Such attacks are completely unacceptable, a violation of international law, and need to cease immediately.

(ii) There should be renewed efforts toward Palestinian reconciliation. We encourage those involved in the reconciliation process to allow the Palestinian Authority to fully resume its government functions in Gaza, and ensure compliance with the Quartet Principles.

(iii) We call on the Palestinian Authority to set a date for free and fair elections in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in Gaza as soon as possible. Genuine democratic national elections for all Palestinians are crucial to the establishment of a viable and sovereign Palestinian State.

Mr President, this Council has a role to play in identifying and containing future flashpoints in conflicts. The resumption of the Great March of Return protests in March is one such possible flashpoint. Hamas operatives have cynically exploited these protests in the past.

Mr President, the United Kingdom’s commitment to Israel’s security is unwavering. Any protests must adhere to the principle of non-violence. We reiterate our longstanding concerns about the manner in which the IDF police non-violent protests, including the use of live ammunition and excessive force, and call on Israel to adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Turning to the economic and humanitarian situation in Gaza, as we have heard this remains dire. The United Kingdom will provide around $21million in humanitarian assistance to Gaza in 2019/2020. And to help address the underlying causes we are more than tripling our spend on Economic Development programming providing $75m between 2018 and 2023. Ultimately, only peace, stability and the easing of movement and access restrictions will allow necessary investments to be made in a sustainable way.

Mr President, we understand and share the deep frustration on all sides at the lack of progress on the Middle East Peace Process. A just and lasting resolution that ends the occupation and delivers peace for both Israelis and Palestinians is long overdue. We remain committed to achieving a two-State solution, and our long standing position is clear. We support a negotiated settlement recognised by all sides, leading to a safe and secure Israel, living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as a shared capital of both states and a just fair agreed and realistic settlement for refugees. We look forward to working with colleagues to advance our shared objectives of peace and prosperity in the year ahead.

Thank you, Mr President.

January 23, 2020
Foreign and Commonwealth Office – 2020 Press Release on Supporting the UN Secretary General’s Priorities

Below is a press release issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 22/01/2020.

Statement by Ambassador Karen Pierce, UK Permanent Representative to the UN at the United Nations General Assembly.

Secretary General, this is a very significant year for the organisation, as many speakers have said. We were honored that the first meetings of the General Assembly and Security Council actually took place in London and are now Queen, then before she became sovereign, attended them. So we feel very close to this anniversary. And I think other speakers are quite right that we need to put the emphasis on what will keep the UN able to discharge its noble functions effectively for the decades to come.

At picking up on what you said, Secretary-General. I think there are three priorities. Firstly, grasping your call to action, using the Decade of Action to realise the SDGs and fulfil the ambitions of the 2030 Agenda. This is actually a last chance for the international community to do this by 2030.

Secondly, we agree with the need to galvanize urgent international action on climate change. And the Italian ambassador already referred to our joint work on COP 26. So we want to get a coherent roadmap, building towards Glasgow, where COP 26 will be held via the UN’s Oceans, Biodiversity and Nature Summits.

And lastly, we want to do more to help the UN uphold the rules-based international system. And I think that means making the UN a safer and more welcoming space for civil society, not allowing narrow interpretations of sovereignty to override genuine concerns about human rights violations and abuses. And I think that also means we need to use the other anniversaries this year, notably the 25th anniversary of Beijing and the 20th anniversary of Resolution 1325 to advance international norms, including on gender equality and sexual and reproductive health rights. As both the Italian and Irish ambassador have said.

My question, Secretary General, would be around girls education. If I may, how can we make progress on this as part of the commitment to gender equality? I think a 131 million girls don’t go to school around the world. We have pledged nearly $700 million to try and get 12 million children into school. But as you can see, that’s only 12 million of more than 100. So your thoughts on that would be welcome.

Thank you.

January 23, 2020