Author: admin

  • PRESS RELEASE : Repression in Belarus: joint statement to the OSCE [February 2024]

    PRESS RELEASE : Repression in Belarus: joint statement to the OSCE [February 2024]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 9 February 2024.

    The UK joins other participating States in expressing concern regarding the absence of conditions for free and fair elections in Belarus, and the ongoing shocking human rights violations in the run up to the February elections.

    Madam Chair,

    I am delivering this statement on behalf of the following participating States, who are members of the Informal Group of Friends of Democratic Belarus: Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,  France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States  and my own country, Canada.

    And the following participating States are also joining this statement today: Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.

    In 1991, OSCE participating States “categorically and irrevocably” declared that the commitments undertaken in the human dimension are “matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned” (Moscow Document, 1991).

    In this context, participating States have repeatedly found it necessary to raise Belarus’ failure to meet its OSCE human dimension commitments, particularly since the fraudulent elections of 2020 and the significant decline in the human rights situation that has followed. Belarus’ complicity in Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has aggravated the human rights violations and also contributed to regional and international instability.

    For over three years, Belarusian authorities have engaged in a brutal crackdown on opposition figures, civil society representatives, journalists and media actors, religious communities and indeed almost all independent voices, which may amount to crimes against humanity, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on Belarus and the OHCHR.  Individuals attempting to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms have been subject to intimidation, harassment, abuse and arbitrary detention.

    This regrettable situation has been clearly documented in both the 2020 and 2023 Moscow Mechanism Reports, by the UN Special Rapporteur on Belarus and the OHCHR examination of the human rights situation in Belarus, as well as by the International Accountability Platform for Belarus and by Belarus’ courageous human rights defenders. The OSCE Representative on the Freedom of the Media has spoken out repeatedly against repressive measures aimed at journalists and media actors in Belarus.

    In recent weeks, we have once again heard credible reports of Belarus’ failure to meet its OSCE human dimension commitments.  Last month saw yet another wave of harassment, arrests, and detention, this time targeting former political prisoners remaining in Belarus, the families of political prisoners, and those who have supported them. As Amnesty International has observed, “The severity is surprising even for a country and region that has witnessed more than its fair share of brutal reprisals.”

    Like the brutal post-election crackdowns in 2020, these actions appear to be aimed at intimidating the people of Belarus in the lead up to scheduled parliamentary elections this month.

    Viasna Human Rights Center continues to report over 1,400 current political prisoners, and that a staggering total of over 6,300 people have been the victims of political repression through criminal and administrative convictions in 2023.

    Many political prisoners face isolation, mistreatment, and a lack of medical care which has led to instances of death in detention, such as the recent appalling cases of Vadzim Khrasko, Vitold Ashurak, and Ales Pushkin. Individuals are sometimes held without any contact to the outside world nor do their families have any information about their whereabouts or condition.

    We call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Belarus.

    Madam Chair,

    Belarus’ failure to uphold its human dimension commitments further extends to its clear disregard for its OSCE commitments in regard to democracy, and the Belarusian authorities’ refusal to ensure that the people of Belarus can freely and fairly express their will in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

    In 1990, in Copenhagen and Paris, OSCE participating States declared their commitment to democracy and political pluralism underlining that “the will of the people, freely and fairly expressed through periodic and genuine elections, is the basis of the authority and legitimacy of all government.” Participating States reaffirmed these commitments in Istanbul in 1999 and further pledged to ensure fair competition among candidates and parties through media access and respect for the right of assembly.

    It is evident that the authorities in Belarus have no intention to hold the genuine elections that are required under OSCE commitments. It is impossible so long as all forms of dissent or opposition are met with intimidation, harassment, persecution and imprisonment. In Belarus: there is no freedom of expression; there is no freedom of association; and there is no free and independent media to share a plurality of ideas.

    It is impossible that a genuine democratic election could be held in these deplorable circumstances.

    The Lukashenko regime, of course, knows that this is the case.  It is for this reason that Belarus has refused to invite election observers through the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and Parliamentary Assembly.  In rejecting these observers, the regime seeks to avoid the transparency essential for holding genuinely democratic elections.

    Let us also be clear: Belarus’ refusal is inconsistent with the commitments made by participating States in Istanbul in 1999 to invite election observers from ODIHR, and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and to follow up on ODIHR’s election assessment and recommendations. We share the concerns that have been expressed by both ODIHR Director Mecacci and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly President Pia Kauma on this vital democratic issue.

    Madam Chair,

    So long as the regime in Belarus continues to fail to meet its OSCE human dimension commitments, and to violate the human rights and democratic freedoms of its people, we will continue to speak out and to raise our concerns.

    Things can be different in Belarus. The people of Belarus deserve better.

    We condemn the continued military support provided by Belarus for Russia’s illegal, unprovoked and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine. We call on Belarus not to provide further support for Russia’s war of aggression.

    We call on the Belarusian authorities to fully implement their international obligations and OSCE commitments, including by taking all necessary steps to create conditions for free, fair and genuinely democratic elections.

    Thank you.

  • Stephen Flynn – 2024 Speech on Ceasefire Vote Controversy in the House of Commons

    Stephen Flynn – 2024 Speech on Ceasefire Vote Controversy in the House of Commons

    The speech made by Stephen Flynn, the SNP MP for Aberdeen South and the party leader, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2024.

    Last evening, we saw the best of this House in its ability to debate, and we also saw the worst of this House as it descended into farce. I think I speak for everyone in the Chamber now, and yesterday, when I express my deep sorrow that that was able to happen, given the content of what we were debating.

    Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, it descended into farce because of a decision that you—and you alone—made to ignore the advice that was given to you by the Clerks. In doing so, on the Opposition day of the Scottish National party, my colleagues and I were denied the ability to vote on a matter which is of grave concern to us, and which, over recent months, we have sought to raise in this Chamber at every available opportunity. It ultimately turned into a Labour Opposition day. That, quite frankly, is not acceptable. As I have expressed to you privately, prior to today’s proceedings, we do not, on these Benches, believe that you can continue in your role as Speaker. We do not have confidence in your ability to do so. I would therefore welcome clarity, either from you or the Leader of the House, about how we can best facilitate the earliest possible vote in this Chamber to that effect.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2024 Statement on Ceasefire Vote Controversy in the House of Commons

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2024 Statement on Ceasefire Vote Controversy in the House of Commons

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 22 February 2024.

    I will also come in at this point. I reiterate that I made a judgment call that did not end up in the position where I expected it to. I regret it and I apologise to the SNP—[Interruption.] Just bear with me. I apologise to the House. I made a mistake: we do make mistakes and I own up to mine. We can have an SO24 to get an immediate debate because the debate is so important to the House.

    I will defend every Member in this House. Every Member matters to me in this House. As has been said, I never, ever want to go through a situation where I pick up a phone to find a friend, on whatever side, has been murdered by a terrorist. I also do not want another attack on this House—I was in the Chair on that day. I have seen, I have witnessed. I will not share the details, but the details of the things that have been brought to me are absolutely frightening for all Members of the House, on all sides. I have a duty of care and I say that. If my mistake is looking after Members, I am guilty. I am guilty because—[Interruption.]—I have a duty of care that I will carry out to protect people; it is the protection that led me to make a wrong decision. With the risk being put on all Members at the moment, I had serious meetings yesterday with the police on these issues and on threats to politicians as we head towards an election. I do not want anything to happen again.

    Yes, I will apologise, as I always will when I make a mistake as I did. I offer an SO24—that is within my gift and power—but I will also do whatever it is to protect anybody in this Chamber or anybody who works in this House. That is my duty of care.

  • Owen Thompson – 2024 Speech on the Gaza Vote in the House of Commons

    Owen Thompson – 2024 Speech on the Gaza Vote in the House of Commons

    The speech made by Owen Thompson, the SNP MP for Midlothian, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2024.

    Yesterday was incredibly disappointing, from our point of view. It was meant to be an Opposition day, and it was one of only three times in a calendar year when our party gets an opportunity to put forward its business to the House. I do not think that what we came forward with was a surprise to anyone. We were allocated an Opposition day four or five weeks ago, but totally understandably, it had to be moved when the Northern Ireland Assembly was reconvening. At that stage, there were conversations, and I was asked when people would have sight of the Gaza motion that we would bring forward, so it is quite extraordinary for anyone to suggest that they did not know we might come forward with a motion on that topic. When it got to our Opposition day—one of the very few times when we can put forward our policies—our voice was silenced: our motion could not be voted on. That is incredibly disappointing for me and a significant number of my constituents, and those of my hon. Friends and hon. Members from across the Chamber who wanted to support the motion.

    Given that, in effect, we did not get an Opposition day yesterday, can we be allocated an alternative date? As others have said, we lost a significant amount of time at the start of the debate, and because of the Speaker’s decision, unfortunately we lost 40 minutes at the end of the debate. That meant that colleagues were cut short, and some withdrew from the debate. What consideration will the Leader of the House give to that suggestion—and, beyond that, to protection for the smaller parties, so that they are not simply railroaded for the political purposes of either of the bigger parties?

    I echo the comments of the shadow Leader of the House, but it is critical that all Members of this place, whatever their position or status, be protected from bullying and intimidation. If reports from many media outlets are to be believed, it is entirely unacceptable that significant pressure was put on Mr Speaker to come to his decision yesterday. What steps will the Leader of the House take to investigate those very serious claims? If there is any substance to them, it is an affront to democracy that a party leader can direct decisions of the Chair of this place.

    As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am, as Chief Whip, involved in a number of conversations on how business comes forward. I had direct assurances that I would have a vote on the words of my motion yesterday. Everyone knew well in advance what the potential outcome would be at the end of yesterday’s debate, so to suggest that no one knew is utter nonsense. The reason we are in this position is that convention and the Standing Orders of this House were overruled, against the advice of the Clerks. That only happened because the Labour party wanted to be dug out of a hole. That is unacceptable.

  • Liz Twist – 2024 Speech on the Inter Faith Network Closure

    Liz Twist – 2024 Speech on the Inter Faith Network Closure

    The speech made by Liz Twist, the Shadow Levelling Up Minister, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2024.

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for securing the urgent question.

    Inter-faith and multi-faith dialogue are absolutely essential components of society, not only to resolve differences but to build strong and collaborative communities that are able to come together in times of need. Given recent events—the war and violence in Gaza—that is more important than ever. As I am sure the whole House recognises, the Government have a special responsibility to facilitate positive relationships between different faith communities, and although I appreciate that the Minister has now given some explanation of why they have chosen to withdraw funding for the IFN, outstanding questions remain.

    Let me ask the Minister some straightforward questions. When was the decision to withdraw funding from the network made? What impact assessment was made, and what discussions were had about the vital need to continue to promote understanding about and between different faith groups, and to encourage co-operation? When was the Inter Faith Network notified of the decision? Does the Minister have plans to increase support for other groups to make up for any loss of provision arising from this decision?

    Every Department will inevitably monitor and review the grants that they award, but the House should expect that to be done in the spirit of due process. As politicians, we have a responsibility to bring communities together. At a time when divisions are being exposed, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Government remain committed to inter-faith and multi-faith dialogue.

    Felicity Buchan

    I thank the hon. Member for her comments. Again, I stress the importance of inter-faith work. I see it in my own constituency; it is very important. The Government are already supporting other institutions that do such work.

    The hon. Member asked specifically for timelines. The Secretary of State wrote to the IFN on 19 January saying that he was “minded to withdraw” the offer of funding in light of what we have discussed. He invited the Inter Faith Network to make representations to him on this matter, and he received its response on 22 January. After careful consideration of those representations, he confirmed that he wishes to withdraw the offer of funding to the Inter Faith Network for the reasons that we have discussed. He wrote to the co-chairs on 21 February to inform them of his decision. I stress again that the Department has been very clear that the Inter Faith Network should have been developing other sustainable sources of funding.

  • Felicity Buchan – 2024 Statement on the Inter Faith Network Closure

    Felicity Buchan – 2024 Statement on the Inter Faith Network Closure

    The statement made by Felicity Buchan, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2024.

    May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the Inter Faith Network? I am grateful for all his work as chair of the all-party group on faith and society and as a long-standing advocate for dialogue across faiths.

    As the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said during an Adjournment debate in January, we know full well the role that faith communities play in our society. We are extremely supportive of efforts by faith groups and others to bring together people of different faiths and beliefs.

    The Secretary of State wrote to the co-chairs of the Inter Faith Network on 19 January this year to inform them that he was minded to withdraw the offer of funding for the 2023-24 financial year. This was because of the appointment of a member of the Muslim Council of Britain to the board of trustees of the IFN. As the House will be aware, successive Governments have had a long-standing policy of non-engagement with the MCB. The appointment of an MCB member to the core governance structure of a Government-funded organisation therefore poses a reputational risk to the Government.

    The Secretary of State invited the IFN to make representations on this matter, which it subsequently did. He carefully considered the points raised by the IFN before concluding that its points were outweighed by the need to maintain the Government’s policy of non-engagement with the MCB, and the risk of compromising the credibility and effectiveness of that policy. Inter-faith work is valuable, but that does not require us to use taxpayers’ money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB.

    The Department regularly reminds our partners, including the IFN, of the importance of developing sustainable funding arrangements rather than relying on taxpayers’ money, which can never be guaranteed. The potential closure of the organisation is therefore a matter for the IFN, as an independent charity, and not the Government. The Government continue to be fully supportive of developing and maintaining strong relationships across faiths and beliefs.

    Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)

    Since 1987, the Inter Faith Network has been the UK’s principal vehicle for inter-faith dialogue, supporting the annual Inter Faith Week, and activities and dialogue undertaken by inter-faith groups across the whole country. The network has been supported by Government funding for some 20 years. The IFN was told on 31 March last year, before the trustee appointment that the Minister referred to, that its funding would be ended from the following day. Why has the organisation been treated in that extraordinary way? Last July, the network received a letter from the Secretary of State to inform it that it would, after all, receive funding for the current financial year. That promise has never been honoured. Why not?

    Given the debate in this Chamber yesterday, is it not extraordinarily stupid to be shutting down at this precise point our principal vehicle in the UK for Muslim-Jewish dialogue? Surely we need more, not to be shutting it down? Why has the Secretary of State not honoured the commitment that he made to me to meet me, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and the noble Lord Singh to discuss this matter before making his decision, and will the Minister pay tribute and express thanks to the trustees and officers of the Inter Faith Network for the very important contribution that they have made to UK national life over the last 37 years?

    Felicity Buchan

    I truly believe that inter-faith work makes a good contribution to our society. My constituency is one of the most diverse in the entire country, and I have on a number of occasions brought together my mosque, my synagogue, Christian churches and my gurdwara. We recognise the benefits of inter-faith activity. I thank the Inter Faith Network for its work; however, we have always been clear with that organisation and any other organisation or charity that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities funds that they need to put in place alternative sources of funding. As I said, the Government cannot fund this organisation when a trustee is part of the MCB.

    Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

    I was contacted last year by my constituent Esmond Rosen of the Barnet Multi Faith Forum, who expressed concern about the imminent withdrawal of funding from the IFN. As we have heard, it looked in July as if the problem was resolved—at least for the financial year—so it is regrettable that we are in this position. I completely understand the importance of not engaging with organisations that have hard-line views, but surely we can find some compromise to keep the IFN in business, because it does incredibly valuable work to foster respect and mutual understanding between different faith groups.

    Felicity Buchan

    I thank my right hon. Friend for all her work on inter-faith matters. What has changed since July is the appointment in November of a trustee who is a member of the MCB. In terms of inter-faith work, there are so many examples of positive, thriving initiatives across the country that are bringing people together. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities funds a number of those partners, including Near Neighbours and Strengthening Faith Institutions, which organise local-level inter-faith events to foster community cohesion.

  • Kevin Hollinrake – 2024 Statement on the Post Office Horizon Scandal

    Kevin Hollinrake – 2024 Statement on the Post Office Horizon Scandal

    The statement made by Kevin Hollinrake, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, on 22 February 2024.

    As a Back Bencher, I first spoke on the matter of compensation for victims in March 2020, which is obviously long after the right hon. Gentleman first campaigned for it. I pay tribute to his campaigning on this subject, which remains undiminished. My appetite for compensation for postmasters is equally undiminished, although I accept the need to increase the pace of delivery.

    As of this month, £160 million has been paid in financial redress to more than 2,700 victims affected by the Horizon scandal. More than 78% of eligible full claims received have been settled as follows: 102 convictions have been overturned, and 42 full claims have been submitted, of which 32 have been settled; 2,793 applications to the Horizon shortfall scheme have been received, and 2,197 have been settled; 58 full claims have been submitted to the group litigation order scheme, and 41 have been settled.

    Our top priority remains ensuring that victims can access swift and fair compensation. We have introduced optional fixed-sum awards of £600,000 for victims with overturned convictions and of £75,000 for group litigation order members as a swift means of settlement, and 100% of original applicants to the Horizon shortfall scheme have received offers of compensation. Today we are discussing what other measures can be taken to speed up compensation with the Horizon compensation advisory board, on which the right hon. Gentleman sits.

    Since the Prime Minister’s announcement on 10 January, officials in the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have been working at pace to progress legislation for overturning convictions related to the Post Office’s prosecutorial behaviour and Horizon evidence. I will provide a further update to the House very soon.

    Mr Jones

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. I draw the attention of the House to my interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board.

    I like the Minister. He campaigned on this issue before he was a Minister, and he has been a very good Minister, but a lot of that good work was undone on Monday by the performance of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. I am disappointed that he has not taken the opportunity today to talk about the overturned convictions. I understand that later today, at 12 o’clock, there will be a written ministerial statement on the subject. I do not think that is the way to do it, as the House needs an opportunity to discuss the overturned convictions.

    I will ask the Minister a few questions. It is quite clear now that Nick Read, the Post Office chief executive, wrote to the Lord Chancellor basically opposing the overturning of all convictions, saying that up to 300 people were “guilty”. It is not yet clear who instructed him to do that. On Monday, the Secretary of State said it was done off his own bat. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

    If there are to be overturned convictions, they cannot just be about Horizon; they should also be about Capture. Evidence that I have put to the public inquiry and sent to the Minister yesterday clearly indicates that the scandal predates Horizon. Those affected need to be included in both the compensation scheme and among those with overturned convictions.

    The board is meeting this afternoon, and we have made recommendations to the Minister on how to simplify and speed up the compensation scheme. Will he give an assurance to the House that once the recommendations are agreed, we can announce them quite quickly, primarily to restore to the sub-postmasters some faith, which was wrecked by the performance of the Secretary of State on Monday?

    If the Minister’s written ministerial statement at 12 o’clock is about overturning convictions, will he give a commitment to come back to the House on Monday to give an oral statement, so that the House can interrogate him and discuss that issue?

    Kevin Hollinrake

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The overturned convictions are a key priority for me and my Department. I am always keen to update the House whenever I can. There always has to be a sequence to ensure that we follow proper process. What we are doing potentially affects the devolved Administrations, so it is really important that we engage with them properly. That is one of the reasons why we need to make the written statement later today. I have never been unwilling to come before the House and report on what we are doing. I will, of course, continue to do that.

    On the letter from the chief executive to the Justice Secretary, I am aware of the allegations by Mr Staunton. They are very serious allegations that should not be made lightly or be based on a vague recollection. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the letter from the former permanent secretary, it is clear that she believes the allegations are incorrect, and that there was never any conversation along the lines referred to by Mr Staunton. I think it is pretty clear that those allegations are false.

    The right hon. Gentleman has regularly brought up Capture. We are keen to continue to engage with him on that to ensure that those affected are included in any compensation where detriment has occurred. I note his point about an oral statement. As I say, I am always keen to give such statements whenever possible, and to be interrogated on our plans. I do not think he will be disappointed by what we announce later today.

    Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)

    Now that the then permanent secretary has outlined that she did not implicitly or explicitly tell the then chairman of the Post Office to slow down compensation, I hope we can spend time less time talking about someone who has lost his job and more time talking about postmasters who have lost everything. Will the Minister, who is doing great work in sorting this out, recommit to August as his target date for getting compensation—life-changing compensation—out of the door as soon as possible?

    Kevin Hollinrake

    I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this matter; as my predecessor, he did a tremendous job. The most concerning allegation we heard over the weekend was about the delay in the payment of compensation. In her letter, which is publicly available, the permanent secretary wrote:

    “It is not true that I made any instruction, either explicitly or implicitly. In fact, no mention of delaying compensation appears in either note.”

    So I agree with my hon. Friend that we should move on from that and focus on what really matters, which is getting what he rightly described as life-changing compensation to postmasters as quickly as possible. That is his, and will remain our, No. 1 priority.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Azerbaijan presidential election 2024 – UK statement [February 2024]

    PRESS RELEASE : Azerbaijan presidential election 2024 – UK statement [February 2024]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 9 February 2024.

    A Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office spokesperson has commented following ODIHR’s preliminary findings on the recent Presidential election in Azerbaijan.

    The UK notes the ODIHR preliminary findings on the Presidential election in Azerbaijan, held on 7 February 2024. The UK was proud to contribute 10 Short Term Observers to its monitoring mission.

    We welcome the establishment by Central Election Committee of Azerbaijan of an Expert Group to consider election complaints and that the election was calm and included provisions to allow the Internally Displaced Population to vote in their historic constituencies.

    However, we share a number of issues of concern with the election taking place in a restrictive environment, lacking genuine political alternatives. Serious violations were observed, some of which run counter to the 1990 Copenhagen Document which outlines a number of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

    The OSCE’s ODIHR plays a vital role in ensuring that election processes are assessed fairly and the UK strongly encourages Azerbaijan to work with the organisation on implementing its final recommendations once published.

    Azerbaijan is an important partner for the UK, and we stand ready to support their electoral reforms and improvements to the democratic process.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Pakistan elections 2024 – Foreign Secretary’s statement [February 2024]

    PRESS RELEASE : Pakistan elections 2024 – Foreign Secretary’s statement [February 2024]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 9 February 2024.

    Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron said:

    The UK and Pakistan enjoy a close and long-standing relationship, underpinned by strong links between our people. Following yesterday’s elections, we commend all those who voted.

    We recognise, however, serious concerns raised about the fairness and lack of inclusivity of the elections. We regret that not all parties were formally permitted to contest the elections and that legal processes were used to prevent some political leaders from participation, and to prevent the use of recognisable party symbols. We also note the restrictions imposed on internet access on polling day, significant delays to the reporting of results and claims of irregularities in the counting process.

    The UK urges authorities in Pakistan to uphold fundamental human rights including free access to information, and the rule of law. This includes the right to a fair trial, through adherence to due process and an independent and transparent judicial system, free from interference.

    The election of a civilian government with the mandate to deliver crucial reforms is essential for Pakistan to flourish. The new government must be accountable to the people it serves, and work to represent the interests of all Pakistan’s citizens and communities with equity and justice. We look forward to working with Pakistan’s next government to achieve this, and across the range of our shared interests.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Biotech driving medical breakthroughs and cuts to red tape lead major science and tech package to spark UK innovation and growth [February 2024]

    PRESS RELEASE : Biotech driving medical breakthroughs and cuts to red tape lead major science and tech package to spark UK innovation and growth [February 2024]

    The press release issued by the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology on 9 February 2024.

    Science and Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan set out the importance of the UK’s mission to be a science and technology superpower.

    • The Science and Tech Secretary unveils a raft of new announcements to drive innovation in science.
    • comes alongside rallying cry to entrepreneurs, businesses, researchers and government to put science and technology at the very top of the UK’s priorities – or risk failing to secure long term growth.
    • science and technology department marks its first anniversary, at the end of a week of significant announcements that will achieve a strategic advantage for the UK in all five of its critical technologies.

    £100 million has been awarded to biotech projects across the UK to help pioneer new technologies that will help prepare for pandemics, innovate farming, and protect against floods.

    The cash will be given to six new ‘Engineering Biology Mission Hubs’ and 22 ‘Mission Award’ projects across the country, that will look to build on Engineering Biology’s enormous potential to address global challenges, drive economic growth, and increase national resilience.

    It comes as the government doubles down on its commitment support growth and innovation in science by slashing research red tape – unshackling scientists so they can spend more time in the lab creating new vaccines rather than filling out unnecessary forms.

    On a visit to the UK Biobank in Stockport earlier this week (Wednesday 7 February), Science and Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan set out the importance of the UK’s mission to be a science and technology superpower, at the end of a week where the UK demonstrated a year of clear progress on the UK’s five critical technologies – AI, quantum, engineering biology, future telecoms and semiconductors.

    The Science and Technology Secretary also unveiled a package of announcements to drive further momentum behind the Department’s work including £21 million for the world-leading Biobank. The UK Biobank has been given the cash injection for a new robotic freezer, which will be used to store 20 million samples of biological data – further supporting research that is being used to treat diseases like dementia and Parkinson’s.

    This investment will deliver the long-term innovative change needed to deliver a brighter future for Britain and improve economic security and opportunity for everyone.

    Science and Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan said:

    Long term growth is the only way we will deliver the public services and improvements in living standards that every Briton wants for themselves and their families.

    But as history shows, it is technological and scientific advances that are the true engine room of growth, and despite our existing strengths in these sectors, we cannot afford to pat ourselves on our back and take our eye off the ball.

    Cementing the UK as a Science and Technology superpower by 2030 is more than a slogan. It is a goal we must reach if we want to grow our economy, continue creating well-paid jobs and build a better, healthier, more prosperous future for the UK.

    The comprehensive bundle of new announcements and pledges will be integral to making the UK a science and technology superpower by 2030 and delivering long-term change across the country.

    Other announcements produced today include:

    • Announcing the winners of the Research Ventures Catalyst seed funding– with up to £100,000 available for organisations finding new and innovative ways to fund world-class R&D in the UK.
    • Updating the Science and Technology Framework – outlining progress since the launch of the Framework last year – showing the government is providing record levels of funding to R&D in the UK with over £19.4 billion in the past year, supporting top researchers to spread the benefits of innovation – more jobs, opportunities, prosperity – across the country.
    • Publishing two UK-led G7 papers on R&D common values and best practices – showing again the UK’s global leadership in the science and tech world and ensuring research is being conducted in a way that protects, rather than undermines, national security.
    • Launching a £3 million metascience grant funding call – aimed at boosting the efficiency and effectiveness of the UK’s already world-leading research system.
    • Launching an interactive innovation clusters map – offering a comprehensive picture of innovation activity in the UK aimed at helping policymakers and investors to better understand, engage with and invest in the UK’s vibrant innovation ecosystem.

    The measures will build on the record £19.4 billion invested in research and this year alone, the highest level this country has ever seen, and the nearly three quarter of a million jobs the sector has created in the last decade (a 41% increase). Statistics show that every £1 Innovate UK alone invests in grants for business innovation returns over £3.60 in direct business benefit, with a total economic return valued at over £6.20.

    Notes to editors

    The announcements the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are announcing today in full are: