UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Speech at the Public Safety Foundation [redacted version]

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Speech at the Public Safety Foundation [redacted version]

    The speech made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, on 26 April 2023. This is the redacted version issued by the Government press release which has removed political content. We asked the office of Suella Braverman for the complete text, but they didn’t respond.

    Thank you, Rory for that introduction. You know better than most, from your own experience on the beat, the realities that our brave police officers face when going up against violent thugs and other criminals, and the damage that crime can do to people and communities.

    And that’s why it’s wonderful to be here welcoming the launch of The Public Safety Foundation, an organisation committed to making the UK the safest place to live, work, and raise a family.

    This really is the perfect forum for setting out my ethos for common sense policing.

    Everything that our police officers do should be about fighting crime, catching criminals, and keeping the public safe.

    My mantra at the Home Office is simple: common sense policing.

    Common sense policing means more police on our streets.

    It means better police culture and higher standards.

    It means giving the public confidence that the police are unequivocally on their side, not pandering to politically correct preoccupations.

    It means measuring the police on outputs such as public response times, crimes solved, and criminals captured.

    It means police officers freed up to spend their time on proper police work.

    It means police prioritising the highest harm crimes and those that matter most to the public.

    It means the police making use of powers like stop and search that have proven effective in taking weapons off our streets.

    And above all else, common sense policing means officers maintaining a relentless focus on fighting crime, catching criminals, and keeping the public safe.

    I am going to speak to each of these themes in turn today.

    Firstly, the public wants to see more bobbies on the beat and so do I.

    It is central to common sense policing.

    Everyone who has been part of the government’s Police Uplift Programme should be immensely proud of what we’ve achieved in the last few years.

    […]

    We’ve delivered an additional 20,951 officers into policing over the past three years.

    There are now almost 150,000 police officers across England and Wales. The highest number ever.

    24 forces now have more police officers than they ever had before the programme.

    I am extremely grateful to police chiefs for leading this drive.

    And to those men and women who have signed up: you are now part of a policing family epitomised by bravery, and dedicated to public service and safety.

    As part of the new generation of policing, you will help to raise standards, refocus priorities, and maintain our world-leading place in policing.

    Policing must remain open to the best and the bravest – whether or not they have a degree. And common sense policing means encouraging the recruitment of officers that come from and live in the communities they serve, familiar with local challenges, and familiar to local people.

    That’s why I have widened the pool from which we can recruit, by enabling non-degree holders to be part of policing. It’s not about how many exams you sit or essays you can write – important skills though those are. It’s about common sense, problem-solving, strength- of character and strength of physique.

    20,000 officers is not just a statistic in a press release.

    The uplift is already delivering improved outcomes for policing and the communities they serve.

    All forces now have a named officer and contact information on their websites, meaning our commitment to greater local accountability as set out in the Beating Crime Plan.

    More police, means more flexibility for forces to do what makes sense locally, which goes to the very heart of common sense policing.

    A Police and Crime Commissioner recently explained how the uplift is making a difference in their patch: They said: “Additional officers have been deployed into our more rural communities, which allows response times to lessen and takes pressure off urban-based officers from covering a wider area allowing them to focus on localised crime.”

    In one force, much of uplift has been reinvested in to tackling rape, with the creation of an additional 119 roles.

    Another force has used the uplift to double the size of its knife crime team, boosting its capacity to seize dangerous weapons and keep people safe.

    Recruiting officers is crucial to getting more bobbies on the beat. But retention of existing officers is similarly important.

    Every force must focus on retaining the essential skills and experience of existing officers.

    We are driving forward work to support this, whether that’s through the College of Policing’s Leadership Centre, the NPCC’s Productivity Review, or introducing a statutory Police Covenant, which is already delivering tangible benefits for the police.

    For the first time, new officers are given pre-deployment mental health training to ensure they are able to manage the rigors of frontline policing.

    And welfare standards covering the entire workforce are now assessed as part of the regular force inspection programme.

    It is also vital that policing can offer a pathway back for those who do leave, to ensure that experience doesn’t only ever leave the building.

    Whilst many forces have deployed rejoiner schemes at entry level, I am not convinced that all forces are doing enough to encourage more senior people back into policing.

    There is scope to expand these schemes to focus on key skills gaps using the standards and guidance developed by the College of Policing.

    […]

    This is a great success story. But what will really count is what an expanded police force – this new generation of policing – does next.

    More policing is necessary but not sufficient. Common sense policing must also mean higher standards, better culture, and more effective policing.

    Baroness Casey’s review into the Metropolitan Police makes for harrowing reading.

    As I said in the House of Commons, there have been serious failures of culture and leadership.

    I have the utmost confidence in the Met’s new leadership team. Sir Mark Rowley is right to make the restoration of public confidence in policing his top priority and I will give him every support as he pursues his turnaround plan.

    But I also expect those with direct political accountability for forces – PCC’s in general, and with respect to the Met, the Mayor of London in particular – to properly exercise their oversight functions.

    Baroness Casey’s review will inform the work of Lady Elish Angiolini’s inquiry which will look at broader issues of policing standards and culture.

    Steps have already been taken to ensure that forces tackle weaknesses in their vetting systems. I am currently reviewing the police dismissals process to speed up the removal of those officers who fall short of the high standards expected of them.

    That review is also looking at simplifying the process for dealing with poor performance and ensuring that the system is effective at enabling an officer who fails vetting checks in service to be removed.

    The law-abiding public must be able to know that they can trust any officer they see. Those who are not fit to wear the badge must never do so, and where they are exposed, they must face justice and be driven out of the force.

    I have seen examples of strong leadership transforming police forces up and down the country. So, I’m confident that policing can and will step up.

    Changing the culture doesn’t just mean addressing the sorts of issues that Baroness Casey identified and raising professional standards to the level that the public rightly expect. That is a pre-requisite.

    A common sense culture in policing must also mean that policing understands and reflects public expectations about the police’s proper focus and function.

    For too long, too many in authority have indulged a narrative that crime, rather than being a destructive option chosen by a criminal minority, is an illness to be treated.

    This narrative seeks to diminish individual responsibility and culpability by holding that criminals are themselves victims.

    This modern emphasis on the needs of delinquents, thugs and criminals, however cruel their intentions or damaging their behaviour may be, displaces the old fashioned and just retributive consideration of the criminal events themselves, and of the effect they have on the genuine victims.

    People want their government and their police to be unequivocally on the side of the victims, rather than making excuses for, or distracted by efforts to redeem the perpetrators.

    It’s something I hear a lot. On my travels around the country. On the doorstep. People everywhere tell me they want common sense, good old fashioned criminal justice.

    They want the police to turn up quickly when they’re called.

    They want to know that when a crime is reported it will be properly investigated – and, so I’m glad that all domestic burglaries now receive a police response, as I called for last autumn.

    They want hope that the police might even catch the crooks.

    And they want confidence that when someone is arrested, if they are found guilty, they will be appropriately punished.

    Because without risk of capture or of punishment, without an appropriate cost to those breaking the law, criminals will take advantage.

    That sense of mission must be reflected in police priorities if the police are to retain public confidence.

    Sometimes the police simply need to make better arguments. Most people recognise that smartphone clips of a contested incident circulating on social media only ever tell a fraction of the story. Where appropriate, forces should do more to share body worn video footage. It is vital to public confidence that the police can quickly demonstrate the legitimacy of action to counter spurious claims and trial by social media that may otherwise follow and allow dangerous narratives to take hold.

    Maintaining public confidence, also requires that the police be seen as politically impartial, and unequivocally on the side of the law-abiding majority.

    When police officers stood by as a statue was torn down; when the police were pictured handing cups of tea to protestors engaged in blocking a road; or when police chiefs spend taxpayers’ money that could have been spent fighting crime, on diversity training that promotes contested ideology like critical race theory; the reputation of policing as an institution, is damaged in the eyes of the public.

    Some forces have ‘equality’ teams that have completely abandoned impartiality in favour of taking partisan positions – sometimes even engaging in political argument on Twitter.

    Now I believe in the police. But the policing in which I believe isn’t riven with political correctness, but enshrined in good old-fashioned common sense.

    The perception – however unjustified or unrepresentative – that some police are more interested in virtue signalling, or in protecting the interests of a radical minority engaged in criminality, than they are protecting the rights of the law-abiding majority – is utterly corrosive to public confidence in policing. The police must be more sensitive to this and work harder to counter it.

    If police chiefs approached instilling a culture of political impartiality, with the same dedication which they approach instilling a culture of diversity and inclusion, I have no doubt that public confidence in policing would be materially improved.

    More police, and better police culture, is essential. But positive effects are blunted if the police are not free to properly focus on policing.

    That is why, over the last 6 months, I have led a broad programme of common sense policing reforms to reduce unnecessary and inappropriate burdens on police time.

    Chief amongst those burdens is the amount of time police spend responding to mental health call outs. I am frequently told about officers waiting 10-20 hours with patients who need medical attention. This is an unacceptable use of police time.

    We want frontline officers to be able to focus on fighting crime, and the work they are trained to do. Police officers are not mental health specialists, and the best place for people suffering a mental health crisis is a healthcare setting.

    This includes developing a National Partnership Agreement to ensure health calls are responded to by the most appropriate agency.

    The ‘Right Care Right Person’ approach sets out a threshold to assist police decision-making on responding to incidents. It is founded on the understanding that police should only be responding to health and social care incidents where there is an immediate risk of serious harm or criminality.

    A toolkit to assist forces in their implementation of the Right Care Right Person will be rolled out in the coming months, and guidance for the health sector is also being prepared.

    Whether it’s saving an estimated 400,000 police hours a year by reforming the Home Office Counting Rules (reducing them from 350 pages to almost 50 pages); or reforming the redaction process so officers spend less time stuck behind a computer screen; we are doing all that we can to support forces to ensure their officers spend as much time as possible on the beat.

    But it’s not enough merely to free up more police resource. Common sense policing means acknowledging that police resource is necessarily finite, and that it must therefore be deployed on the things that matter most to the public.

    It’s with this sentiment in mind that I recently introduced a new code of practice on non-crime hate incidents.

    Taking action for hurt feelings is not the job of our police.

    Curbing freedom of expression is not the job of our police.

    Enforcing non-existent blasphemy laws is not the job of our police.

    The new code makes clear that personal data should only be recorded if there is a real risk of significant harm and stresses the importance of giving proper weight to freedom of expression.

    The public want to see the police focussed on the highest harm crimes and those that are priorities to address in their communities.

    They want to see the police tackling violence against women and girls – a key priority to which we’ve committed nearly a quarter of a billion pounds in Home Office and wider government funding through 2025.

    They want to see the police focused on tackling child sexual exploitation which is why we launched a new Grooming Gangs Task Force, introduced mandatory reporting, and will be announcing further measures when responding to the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, next month.

    They want to see police cracking down on drugs and associated criminality. I’m proud to say that together with the police, we have done considerable damage to county lines gangs, seizing record amounts of drugs, making 20,000 arrests for drug related offences and disabling 1,600 organised crime gangs since 2021.

    They want to see the police tackling knife crime which is why I’m doubling down on stop and search and launching a public consultation on banning machetes and other large knives that should have no place on our streets but are readily available online.

    They want to see the police treating antisocial behaviour as a priority crime which is why we’ve just published a bold and ambitious action plan to address this blight on communities.

    And they want to see that the police are on their side when it comes to addressing highly disruptive protests which is why we strengthened police powers in this area. This has already supported the arrest of over 750 individuals by the Metropolitan Police alone since October 2022.

    By contrast, the public do not want to see the police turning up to residential addresses to police bad jokes on Twitter.

    And when it comes to delivering on the public’s priorities, common sense policing calls for the use of the most effective tools available, without regard to political correctness.

    Stop and search is a perfect example. It is a critical tool which I, and this government, fully support the police using to keep our streets safe.

    I’m proud to say that under this government, it has never been easier for the police to make legitimate use of stop and search powers.

    Stop and search has helped remove over 40,000 weapons from our streets and led to over 220,000 arrests since 2019.

    Stop and search acts as a deterrent by preventing offenders from carrying weapons in the first place.

    And Serious Violence Reduction Orders, currently being piloted in four police force areas, will provide the police with enhanced powers to stop and search adults already convicted of knife or offensive weapons offences – reducing violence and crucially saving lives.

    Common sense policing requires the police to use all available powers, without fear or favour, to keep the public safe and stop the misery caused by violence and drugs.

    That is why I intend to write to police chiefs in the coming days, to reiterate the importance of stop and search and the government’s full support for the police’s appropriate use of it.

    […]

    Domestic burglary and robbery are around half the level they were in 2010.

    Violence and vehicle theft are around 40% lower than in 2010.

    And fewer people are dying from drug and alcohol related deaths compared to 2010.

    But I also see policing at a turning point. With devastating events like the murder of Sarah Everard, forces in special measures, and the problems highlighted in the Casey report, we must all work towards rebuilding public trust and refocusing on the public’s priorities.

    Common sense policing is the way we will do that.

    More police on our streets.

    Better police culture.

    Higher standards.

    More effective policing.

    Focused on the public’s priorities.

    Making use of all appropriate powers.

    Pursuing good old fashioned criminal justice rather than social justice.

    Relentlessly focussed on fighting crime, catching criminals, and keeping the public safe.

    That is the policing that the decent, hard working, law-abiding majority, up and down this country, can get behind and have confidence in.

    Common sense policing we can all be proud of.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Bridgen – 2022 Email to Kathryn Stone (and Response to His “Inappropriate” Email)

    Andrew Bridgen – 2022 Email to Kathryn Stone (and Response to His “Inappropriate” Email)

    The email sent by Andrew Bridgen, the then Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, on 20 September 2023.

    Dear Ms Stone

    Strictly Private and Confidential

    Further to the letter I have sent to you concerning your investigation into representation made on behalf of the Curious Guys and Mere Plantations, I am writing to you about a number of comments which have been made to me about your ongoing role as Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.

    I have learnt only too well during my time in Westminster that this place has always been one of gossip in corridors and tearooms. I was distressed to hear on a number of occasions an unsubstantiated rumour that your contract as Parliamentary Standards Commissioner is due to end in the coming months and that there are advanced plans to offer you a peerage, potentially as soon as the Prime Minister’s resignation honours list. There is also some suggestion amongst colleagues that those plans are dependent upon arriving at the ‘right’ outcomes when conducting parliamentary standards investigations.

    Clearly my own travails with Number 10 and the former PM have been well documented and obviously a small part of me is naturally concerned to hear such rumours.

    More importantly however you are rightfully renowned for your integrity and decency and no doubtsuch rumours are only designed to harm your reputation.

    I do apologise if you find the contents of this letter offensive, it is certainly not my intention, but I would be grateful if you would provide me reassurance that you are not about to be offered an honour or peerage and that the rumours are indeed malicious and baseless.

    Yours sincerely

    Andrew Bridgen

    Member of Parliament for North West Leicestershire

     

    REPLY:

    Dear Mr Bridgen

    I am writing in response to your email to me of 20 September 2022.

    The investigation into allegations that you had breached the Code of Conduct in relation to paid advocacy and declaration of interests was referred to the Committee on Standards on 8 September 2022.

    It is not appropriate for you to contact me in relation to your case when that case is in the possession of the Committee. The Committee would expect that all correspondence between myself, as Commissioner, and a Member relating to a case should be disclosed to it.

    I shall therefore be sending a copy of your email of 20 September, and this response, to the Committee on Standards.

    The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is an independent officer of the House, appointed for a fixed term of five years under Standing Order No. 150. The role is not susceptible to external influence or political pressure.

    Yours Sincerely

    Kathryn

    Kathryn Stone OBE

    Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

  • Andrew Bridgen – 2023 Statement Following Expulsion from the Conservative Party

    Andrew Bridgen – 2023 Statement Following Expulsion from the Conservative Party

    The statement made by Andrew Bridgen, the MP for North West Leicestershire, on Facebook on 26 April 2023.

    My expulsion from the Conservative Party under false pretences only confirms the toxic culture which plagues our political system.

    Above all else this is an issue of freedom of speech. No elected Member of Parliament should ever be penalised for speaking on behalf of those who have no voice.

    The Party has been sure to make an example of me.

  • Jim McMahon – 2023 Speech on Water Quality and Sewage Discharge

    Jim McMahon – 2023 Speech on Water Quality and Sewage Discharge

    The speech made by Jim McMahon, the Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton, in the House of Commons on 25 April 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House calls on the Government to set a target for the reduction of sewage discharges, to provide for financial penalties in relation to sewage discharges and breaches of monitoring requirements, and to carry out an impact assessment of sewage discharges; and makes provision as set out in this Order:

    (1) On Tuesday 2 May 2023:

    (a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that Order) shall not apply;

    (b) any proceedings governed by this Order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;

    (c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);

    (d) at 6.00pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this Order and call the Member for Oldham West and Royton or another Member on his behalf to move the motion that the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;

    (e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

    (f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this Order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.

    (2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (18) of this Order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.

    Timetable for the Bill on Tuesday 2 May 2023

    (3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Tuesday 2 May 2023 in accordance with this Order.

    (b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 8.00pm.

    (c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 10.00pm.

    Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Tuesday 2 May 2023

    (4) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

    (5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

    (b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

    (6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

    (c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by The Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;

    (d) the Question on any amendment moved or motion made by a designated Member;

    (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order.

    (7) On a Motion made for a new clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

    Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day

    (8) If on any future sitting day any message on the Bill (other than a message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords, this House shall not adjourn until that message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded.

    (9) On any day on which such a message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message—

    (a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;

    (b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;

    (c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.

    (10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:

    (a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;

    (b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted—

    “(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.

    (11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.

    Reasons Committee

    (12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme Orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.

    (13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.

    (14) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

    (b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

    (c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

    (d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

    (e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

    (15) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.

    (b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

    (16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

    (17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this Order apply.

    (18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

    (b) Standing Order 15 In line 4 (1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.

    (19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—

    (a) the Member for Oldham West and Royton; and

    (b) any other Member acting on behalf of the Member for Oldham West and Royton.

    (20) This Order shall be a Standing Order of the House.

    The motion would allow for parliamentary time on Tuesday 2 May to progress Labour’s Bill, the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill, which would finally see an end to the Tory sewage scandal. The reason we are here today is that the country we love, and the quality of life for millions of working people, is being treated with utter contempt: dumped on with raw human sewage; dumped on on an industrial scale; dumped on with at least 1.5 million sewage dumps last year alone; and dumped on for a total of 11 million running hours. That is a sewage dump every two and a half minutes. Just in the course of this debate, 70 sewage dumps will take place in the country, in the places where people have invested everything they have, where they have put down their roots and where they have invested the most precious of things—their families and shared futures. Those sewage dumps are going into the seas where people swim, the canals alongside which people take their dogs for a walk and the very beaches where our children build sandcastles.

    Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) rose—

    Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) rose—

    Jim McMahon

    I will make some progress and take some interventions later—[Interruption.] Hang on; your moment will come.

    It goes to our leisure and beauty spots. Businesses rely on tourists coming with confidence.

    It is clear that the Tories either do not know, or do not care about the human impact of the Tory sewage scandal. This affects every stretch of our coastline across the country, and it shows the contempt that the Tories have for our seaside towns, from Hartlepool to Hastings, from Bournemouth to Falmouth, from Camborne to Blackpool, and everywhere in between. Beyond the coast, our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are home to our stunning lakes, and our rivers, the arteries of our nation, are being sullied by the Tory sewage scandal.

    Alun Cairns rose—

    Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) rose—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. May I say to the hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman that, yes, the hon. Member has to give way, but you cannot permanently be stood there until somebody—[Interruption.] You do not need to give me any indications. I am telling you what the rules are and the rules will be applied. Secretary of State.

    Jim McMahon

    Thank you, Mr Speaker—we’ve 12 months yet. I will take interventions once I have made progress on this section. Hon. Members should not worry; their opportunity to defend the last 13 years in government will come—they should not worry too much about that.

    At its heart, this speaks to whether families should have the right to live a decent and fulfilled life. People look to our seas, lakes and rivers for quality of life. They are the very places where people live, work and holiday together, and where families create memories, forge bonds and strengthen relationships by enjoying the beauty that our country has to offer. More than just the daily grind of work, it is about who we are and it is those moments together that make life worth living. But the truth is that the Tories are turning our green land into an open sewer.

    Kelly Tolhurst

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I would like him to outline when he or the Labour party realised that sewage was being put into rivers and seas. When was the Labour party made aware of that originally?

    Jim McMahon

    I welcome that intervention. I would also welcome an explanation to the hon. Lady’s constituents as to why there have been 200 sewage incidents in her own backyard. That is why her constituents send her here—to ensure that their interests are put right—[Interruption.] I will come on to Labour’s record, but I warn Government Members that it may not paint the last 13 years in a good light.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Jim McMahon

    I will make some progress.

    This is an environmental hazard, a health hazard and an economic hazard. The full scale of the billions of pounds that the Tory sewage scandal is costing our businesses and local economies is still not fully known. Why? Because the Government will not undertake an economic assessment of the impact of sewage dumping. What do they have to hide? [Interruption.] Members will like this bit—hang on. While the Secretary of State has been on taxpayer-funded jollies to Brazil, Canada, Egypt, France, Japan, Panama and the US, as shadow Environment Secretary, I have travelled to every corner of the country to hear first-hand about the impact of the Tory sewage scandal. While she has been in duty free, I have been here on duty—that’s the difference—[Interruption.] There’s more, hold on. You’re in for a bumpy ride. The next three hours will not be like first class, I can tell you that much.

    I have met businesses that have been forced to pull down the shutters when sewage alerts drive people away from beaches. I have met people in Hastings who are suffering the effects of having contracted hepatitis and Weil’s disease just because they encountered sewage in the open waters. I have met community groups such as that self-organising, fundraising and monitoring the water quality in the River Kent. They are saying to the Government that enough is enough. I heard the same things in Oxford and when I met Surfers Against Sewage in Cornwall.

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

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member said that he came to visit Hastings and spoke to people—he never informed me of his visit to Hastings.

    Mr Speaker

    That is not a point of order, but I would say to the hon. Lady that, if somebody has been to her constituency, it is absolutely correct that Members should give notice to the MP whose constituency they are visiting. I do not care which side of the House Members sit on. You must do the right thing and let a Member know that you are entering their constituency.

    Jim McMahon

    I am very happy to look into that point. As a matter of course, we always ensure when visiting the constituents of Conservative MPs that as a matter of respect we inform the local MP. I would love nothing more than for a Conservative MP to attend those visits and explain their voting record to their constituents. I know that Helena Dollimore, the Labour and Co-operative candidate, was very much made aware, so I will follow that up and ensure, if it did happen, that it does not happen again.

    Earlier this week, I met environmental groups from across the country to hear about the impact that the Tory sewage scandal is having on their communities. They stand proud of their communities, but they are equally angry, and they are right to be angry. Only this weekend, we celebrated St George’s Day and spoke about what makes England so special, and what makes it a green and pleasant land. For example, the brilliant Lake Windermere, England largest lake, formed 13,000 years ago from the melting ice, is a world heritage site and attracts 16 million visitors every year. What William Wordsworth once described as:

    “A universe of Nature’s fairest forms”

    is now dying at the hands of this complicit Government. One member from the Save Windermere campaign told us that, due to the constant pollution, a whole five-mile stretch of the lake has been turned bright green because of excessive pollutants being dumped in it. Even the glorious Lake Windermere is not off bounds.

    The fantastic coastline of Cornwall draws in millions of visitors and is a magnet for surfers—surfers who face the prospect of becoming ill simply by going out in the water. There are campaigners for the River Ilkley, in self-styled God’s own country, Yorkshire.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Jim McMahon

    I will take an intervention shortly from the Opposition Benches.

    Mr Speaker, do you know that raw human sewage is even being discharged moments away from these very Houses of Parliament? Members should think about that when they go to vote. There is no place exempt from the Tory sewage scandal—and what a metaphor for the last 13 years of a Tory Government.

    Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. My constituency is named after the River Weaver, which is at the heart of our community. We have the River Mersey as well. Some 19,000 hours’ worth of raw sewage has been discharged into those rivers. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving the whole House the opportunity to stand up for our local rivers, waterways and beaches. I encourage Members from across the House to join us in voting for the motion today.

    Jim McMahon

    That is exactly what this debate is about: MPs who care about the places they represent standing up for what is right, instead of making excuses for 13 failed years in government. That is exactly why Members are sent to this House, and others could take note.

    What we have seen is that there is no respect for our country, there is no respect for our values, there is no respect for our history and there is no respect for our future. What is more, there is no respect for the working people who make this country what it is.

    What was the Secretary of State’s response when this issue was first raised? First, she told Parliament that meeting water companies was not her priority, passing the buck to her junior Minister; then she broke the Government’s own legal deadline for publishing water quality targets; and then she announced, repeatedly, that she would kick the can down the road on cleaning up our waterways. Since then, we have had three panic-stricken announcements of the Secretary of State’s so-called plan, each one nothing new but a copy and paste of what went before. We know the Tories do not have a plan. At best, they have a recycled press release. That is the difference. I give way to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

    Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)

    I do not think anyone would argue that we do not need to invest more in better water quality. More parts of the country need to see schemes such as the new water treatment works in Scarborough and the 4 million litre storm water tank, also in Scarborough. What we need to debate is timescale and affordability. Does the hon. Member think that it is slightly ironic that, when even the most modest prediction is that his proposals would put £1,000 on the average water bill, the second debate this afternoon is on the cost of living increases?

    Jim McMahon

    Honestly, I am staggered. I say that with respect to the Chair of the EFRA Committee. Our figures are based on the Government’s figures, and I am happy to put them in the House of Commons Library. DEFRA’s own figures put a cost on Labour’s plan and, let me tell him, the lowest estimate is 10% of what has been taken out in dividends. Those are not our figures; they are the Government’s own figures. If the Environment Secretary has not read her own assessment of ending the Tory sewage scandal, it will be in the Library at the end of the debate; Members can read it for themselves. This is her day job, right? She is meant to understand the data her Department produces and form a plan behind that. I am sorry that my expectations were obviously too high. [Interruption.] Members will enjoy the next bit.

    Let us not forget the Environment Secretary’s first spell in DEFRA. In her three years as water Minister, she slashed the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget. Its ability to tackle pollution at source was cut by a third, resources to hold water companies to account were snatched away and there was literally the opening of the floodgates that allowed sewage dumping to take place. What have been the consequences? There has been a doubling of sewage discharges: a total of 321 years’ worth of sewage dumping, all on her watch and straight to her door. She said that getting a grip of the sewage scandal was not a priority, but something for other people to sort out. What she really meant was that it was not politically advisable, because her own record spoke for itself. I have a simple question: how can she defend the interests of the country when so implicated in destroying it? The public are not stupid. They see this issue for exactly what it is: the Tory sewage scandal.

    Kelly Tolhurst

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Jim McMahon

    I have already given way once. Let me make some progress.

    Last week, Labour published analysis of Environment Agency and Top of the Poops data which showed that in 2022, Tory Ministers—this is the Cabinet, the highest seat in government—allowed 7,500 days’ worth of raw human sewage to be dumped in their constituencies. The data showed that there is a sewage dump taking place every 22 minutes in their own backyard. That Tory Cabinet Ministers are willing to allow that to happen to their own constituents really speaks volumes. In Suffolk Coastal, a constituency that may be familiar to the Environment Secretary, there were 426 sewage dumps last year. In the Chancellor’s constituency, there were 242. In the Prime Minister’s Richmond, Yorks constituency—proof that this goes all the way to the top—there were 3,500 sewage dumps.

    Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he acknowledge that the only reason he is able to reel off those statistics is because the Conservative Government have ensured that we now have 91% monitoring, soon to be 100%, across the country? Will he also acknowledge that that has only happened under a Conservative Government and that the last Labour Government did absolutely nothing?

    Jim McMahon

    I am not one to offer advice to those on the Government Benches, but I will just say this to eager Back Benchers bobbing for their Whips: they might want to check their constituency’s data before getting up to defend the Government’s record. [Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Mr Seely, you are trying to catch my eye, but you will not do it by chuntering from that position.

    Jim McMahon

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady will know that her own constituency has had nearly 2,000 sewage dumps. If she wants to defend that record to her constituents, then so be it—fine. But if she does not want to remind her constituents, I can guarantee this: the Labour candidate will. That is what this debate is about and why Members are so exercised, let us be honest. Are Members exercised because our rivers, lakes and seas are being dumped on, or are they exercised because they have now realised that they might have to face the consequences of that dumping? That is what the excitement is about.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Jim McMahon

    I am going to make some progress.

    The Government will blame everybody: the Victorians, devolved Administrations, home drainage, housebuilders, people flushing items down the loo. Now, it is true that this issue has to be faced on multiple fronts, but there is one common theme that has run throughout the Secretary of State’s period in office. What is it? They never take responsibility; it is always somebody else’s fault; it is never at the door of the Government. Let me be clear: the levers of power were always there to be pulled. The truth is that the Government did not even lift a finger to try and that is why we are in this situation today.

    Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)

    One hundred years ago in St Helens we had chemical factories, coalmines, glassworks and no environmental regulations, but with 835 sanctioned spills in 2022, pollution in our rivers and waterways is arguably worse now than it was then. Does my hon. Friend share the frustrations of the volunteers who look after the Sankey canal and valley, and engage in activities such as litter picks, that no matter how much rubbish they get from the towpath, there is 10 times more going into the canal itself?

    Jim McMahon

    That is a really good point. Many people think that this must be an issue that affects our seas and our national parks, but it goes to every community. For those who live in an urban community, the stream or canal network near their home is being dumped on. For many communities that is all they have. That is their bridge to nature, and it is being treated with such disrespect by the Government in a way that cannot carry on.

    I want to return to the issue of levers of power, because quite a lot of what I hear is that the scale of the challenge is overwhelming and that to face it is far too great a mountain to climb. Economic regulation of the water industry in both England and in Wales has always been controlled by the Tories here for the last 13 years, treating England and Wales as an open sewer. That lever could have been pulled to improve water performance, holding water companies to account and resourcing the work needed to combat sewage pollution in England. [Interruption.] I hear the Environment Secretary chuntering; hopefully, she will address that.

    To be absolutely clear about where power sits in our democracy and where Government responsibility sits when it comes to water: first, economic regulation—the levers of power, the purse strings—are not devolved at all.

    Alun Cairns

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. The shadow Secretary of State may have inadvertently misled the House. He said moments ago that water and environmental policy were reserved, but they are devolved. I suspect that he might be embarrassed that the Welsh Government have not acted—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. You will leave—

    Alun Cairns

    He is seeking to obfuscate responsibility—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I have told you before, Mr Cairns, that when I stand up, I expect you to sit down. When I start to speak, I do not expect you to carry on speaking. Mr Cairns, you have been pushing your luck for quite a few weeks, and I am serious. I hope that in future you will take notice, because we will make sure that you do. I do not want to get to that point, but you are pushing me towards it. I am not responsible for what the shadow Secretary of State says. He has heard your point—although it was not a point of order—and I will leave it to him.

    Jim McMahon

    I am not sure whether Parliament can do some sort of induction for Conservative Members on how Parliament works and where power sits, but the House of Commons Library is very good at providing briefings for MPs. To be clear, the economic regulator Ofwat reports solely to the Environment Secretary for the UK. That is a matter of fact. It is not devolved; it is for the UK. The economic levers of power have allowed £72 billion of shareholder dividends to go out the door on one side, while England and Wales have been turned into an open sewer on the other. That goes right to the door of the Secretary of State.

    I credit the Welsh Labour Government for their record of leading on nature and the environment. Like me, they say that whether in England or in Wales, every part of the land that we care about and love, where working people have a right to a decent life, should be kept in good check and with the respect that it deserves.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Jim McMahon

    I will make some progress.

    Conservative MPs should see this as a second chance, which everyone deserves. Let us take our mind back to the first chance, which was the passage of the Environment Act 2021, and an amendment that Labour backed that would have introduced a legal obligation to bring down sewage dumping progressively. It was blocked by Conservative MPs, who voted against it. It fell at the first test, but we believe in second chances. Today provides that second chance to right that wrong and to get behind Labour’s plan to clean up the Tory sewage scandal.

    Let me come to Labour’s record, because the Conservatives would have us believe that the scale of dumping was inevitable, that there is nothing we can do about it, and that there is no alternative or somehow it has always been terrible. That is not what the evidence says. The last Labour Government had a proud record of delivering improvements in water quality. Shortly after the Labour party left office, the Environment Agency—in the Secretary of State’s own Department—reported that our rivers were cleaner than at any time since before the industrial revolution. In fact, in 2002, the then Environment Minister—the former Member for Oldham West and Royton, as it happens—celebrated how clean the water was when he took to it in Blackpool, with cameras looking on, to celebrate the proud moment that it met bathing water quality status. I would not think that the Environment Secretary would have the confidence to go swimming on the shores of Blackpool today, since over the past year there have been 22 incidents—62 hours—of raw human sewage being dumped in those waters, straight into the Irish sea.

    We have shown that Labour will clean up the Tory sewage scandal—we have done it before, and we can do it again. In the absence of any leadership from the Government, Labour is stepping up. Today, there is finally something worth getting behind, after waiting 13 lost years—a whole generation of opportunity taken away.

    Let me address cost. We are in the middle of a Tory cost of living crisis. Households are being hammered, and at every angle it seems that things are getting worse, not better. People see that when they go to the supermarket for their shop—again, a risible failing by the Secretary of State responsible for food, who does not think it is her job to have a roundtable with the food industry—and straight through to energy bills and mortgages. People are feeling the pinch. In their water bills, people are already paying for a service. Sewage treatment is itemised in every one of our bills but is not being delivered. Instead, the Tories are allowing water companies to cut corners and to dump sewage untreated.

    Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)

    Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

    Jim McMahon

    Let me make this point, because it ties in with following the money and tracking back to the impact. The storm overflow data, which water companies themselves provide to the Government, tells us that not a single one of the dumping incidents from last year was a result of exceptional circumstances. They were not down to rainfall or storms—the water companies and the Government say so. It is about a lack of treatment and investment. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) can learn to be quiet without the attention. That is basic good sense.

    We need to address the issue of who pays. We believe that the polluter should pay. At the same time, water companies have walked away with £72 billion in dividends, and water bosses have enjoyed payments and bonuses of millions of pounds, even after sewage dumping had been identified. The Bill is about fixing those loopholes that allow poor practice and corner cutting, to ensure that the Government and the water companies together are acting in the public interest. It is not right that working people are paying for the privilege of having raw human sewage dumped in their communities.

    Paul Holmes rose—

    Jim McMahon

    I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has been persistent.

    Paul Holmes

    I note that the shadow Secretary of State’s paragraph on the Labour record was very short—perhaps because under the Labour Government 7% of sewage discharges were monitored, whereas now that is 91%, with an ambition of 100% through the legislation that the Secretary of State has laid out. Why can the shadow Secretary of State not stand at the Dispatch Box and welcome that, and accept that his party did nothing about this issue in its time in government?

    Jim McMahon

    I am not sure that was worth waiting for. The hon. Gentleman was so persistent that I thought a gem would come to advance the debate, but the House was left wanting, yet again. I am proud of Labour’s record. We went from industrial pollution affecting our rivers and canals to the cleanest water since before the industrial revolution. That progress and legacy should have been built on, but they have been trashed. We have gone backwards, not forwards.

    We need to change the culture in water companies and demand change, by setting down legally binding targets and enforcing straightforward penalties for failure. The Bill protects bill payers in law—no ifs, not buts. The cost must and will be borne by water companies and their shareholders, protected in the Bill in black and white. That is the basis of our motion, and it is what Members on all sides of the House will vote for later—not a fabricated version of reality that does not hold up to the evidence; no more jam tomorrow, asking people to wait until 2050 at the earliest to see an end to the sewage scandal; in black and white, a plan finally to end the scandal.

    Let me outline what the Bill does, before I close and allow other Members to speak. It will deliver mandatory monitoring on all sewage outlets and a standing charge on water companies that fail.

    Kelly Tolhurst

    Done.

    Jim McMahon

    One minute. That will mean that where a discharge station is not in place or is not working, the water companies will pay a standing charge, assuming that sewage is being discharged. Automatic fines for discharges will end the idea that people have to go through a costly and protracted investigation and prosecution to hold water companies to account. Water companies will pay on day one, the second that sewage is discharged. Legally binding targets will end the sewage discharge scandal by 2030. We will give power to the regulators and require them to properly enforce the rules. Critically, and in black and white, we will ensure that the plan is funded by eroding shareholders’ dividends, not putting further pressure on householders by adding to customers’ bills.

    Let me be clear: any Tory abstentions or any votes against the motion or the current Bill are yet another green light to continue the Tory sewage scandal.

    Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)

    The hon. Gentleman has made the fatal error of thinking that we are supporting the water companies, when we are holding them to account. That is exactly why we have threatened them with unlimited fines; exactly why Ofwat has passed new rules to restrict dividend payments; and exactly why we now have the most stringent measures on water companies in Europe. What did the Labour party do, because it did not hold water companies to account?

    Jim McMahon

    The hon. Gentleman is definitely currying favour with the Conservative Whips Office, and I give him credit for energetically reading out the Whips’ top lines—[Interruption.]

    The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) said earlier that her office was not informed about our visit to her constituency, when we met our fantastic candidate, Helena Dollimore. I have been handed a copy of an email that proves not only that her office was informed of the visit, but that that email was acknowledged by her office.

    Mr Speaker

    Does the hon. Member wish to respond to that point?

    Sally-Ann Hart indicated dissent.

    Mr Speaker

    Okay. Carry on.

    Jim McMahon

    I will come straight to the point: had the Conservative Government, in their 13 years in office, treated this issue with the importance that is needed and dealt with the water companies—

    Anthony Mangnall

    Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question now?

    Jim McMahon

    The hon. Gentleman can answer this question for his constituents: over the last 13 years, why has an average of £1.8 billion every year been taken in shareholder dividends and not invested in water infrastructure? That is a record. [Interruption.] I do not care what the Whips Office has briefed; I care about the evidence. That is what every debate in the House should be based on. I respectfully ask him to go away and test the evidence, rather than reading the top line.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Jim McMahon

    A lot of Members have put in to speak in the debate and they have a right to be heard, so I will bring my remarks to a close.

    This plan is the first step in Labour’s reform of the water industry and will work towards building a better Britain. After 13 years, the Tories have run out of road, run out of ideas and run out of time. Labour is ambitious for Britain and for working people. That starts with treating the country, working people and local businesses with the respect that they deserve.

  • Brendan O’Hara – 2023 Speech on the Extension of Universal Jurisdiction

    Brendan O’Hara – 2023 Speech on the Extension of Universal Jurisdiction

    The speech made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll and Bute, in the House of Commons on 25 April 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes may be tried in the United Kingdom regardless of the nationality or residence of the offender; and for connected purposes.

    The Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill would tighten existing legislation on how we bring to justice those responsible for the world’s most heinous crimes. The Bill would allow legal systems across the UK to do that, irrespective of where the crimes were committed, regardless of the nationality or location of the perpetrators or victims, and without having to consider whether the accused person or the victim had any specific connection to the UK. In short, the Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill is about saying to the world’s worst criminals that there is no hiding place and there will be no immunity.

    Under international law, states are required to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute certain crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction. It is the international community’s way of recognising that there are crimes so grave that we all have an inherent responsibility and collective interest to ensure that they are prosecuted. The Bill seeks to help the UK meet its international responsibilities by amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001. Although that Act gives courts jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, it is still woefully deficient in providing what we would want from legislation claiming to operate universal jurisdiction.

    The main problem with the 2001 Act is that even with the most heinous crimes, if they were committed outside the UK, they can be prosecuted here only if the accused person is a UK national, a UK resident or subject to UK service jurisdiction. While some may say that the UK does have universal jurisdiction when it comes to such crimes, the reality is that what we have in the UK could best be described as a system of extraterritorial jurisdiction. That is what the Bill seeks to remedy, so that we instead have a real and meaningful system of universal jurisdiction for those crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. That is important, because given what is happening in the world right now, this is a live and pressing issue, whether in Ukraine, Myanmar, Xinjiang, Tigray or many, many other places.

    Many people are working right now on how the UK should change its definition of universal jurisdiction. I put on record my thanks to Dr Ewelina Ochab of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute for her invaluable assistance in putting the Bill together. I also thank the Clooney Foundation for Justice, which has done an enormous amount of work on this topic in recent months, and which will in the next couple of months release its own report on universal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom.

    I understand that among that report’s key recommendations will be that the UK Government amend section 51(2)(b) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to remove the requirement that for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the crime needs to have been committed either in the UK or, if committed outside the UK, by a UK national or resident for our courts to have jurisdiction. The report will argue instead that the UK should provide jurisdiction over those international crimes committed anywhere in the world, even when that offence bears no relation to the UK.

    As the Clooney Foundation for Justice report will set out, our courts already have universal jurisdiction when it comes to torture and certain other war crimes, which can be prosecuted regardless of the defendant’s nationality. There is no convincing explanation for the distinction that is drawn between the law on torture and those other international crimes. One consequence of the loophole might well be that Russian generals with blood on their hands could still travel to the UK, go shopping in Knightsbridge, undergo medical treatment and dine out in London’s best restaurants without facing the risk of arrest for the most serious and heinous crimes in the world. The foundation argues that that must change, and I wholeheartedly agree.

    In this changing world, it is becoming increasingly clear that the UK’s position on universal jurisdiction is simply not fit for purpose. That is not just because we operate this extraterritorial jurisdiction, but because under current law, proceedings for international crimes cannot be brought without the consent of the Attorney General. Ultimately that means that decisions to prosecute these crimes will be a political decision. Consequently, the UK cannot possibly play as meaningful a part in ensuring justice and accountability as it should. That may go some way to explaining why, to this day, British courts have not prosecuted anyone for their involvement in genocide, despite the fact that we have suspected perpetrators residing in the UK from both the Rwandan and the Yazidi genocides.

    Even by the Government’s own assessment, almost 1,000 British nationals travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Daesh. They were all complicit in the horrific atrocities, the killings, the rapes, the sexual enslavement of Yazidi women and girls, and much more—so much more, indeed, that this House unanimously declared in April 2016 that Daesh atrocities did indeed constitute a genocide. The UK Government also estimate that 400 British Daesh fighters are now back in the UK, yet only 32 of those returnees have been convicted for terror-related offences, or less than 10% of the returnees. Not one—not a single—Daesh fighter has stood trial in the UK for the rape and sexual enslavement of Yazidi women and children. Not one of them has been charged with torture or the forced recruitment of young boys into the ranks of Daesh fighters. Not one of them has been held to account for the mass graves that are still being uncovered in Sinjar, and not one of them has been asked to explain the fate of the 2,700 Yazidi women and girls who are still unaccounted for. They have all gotten away with genocide.

    But it does not have to be this way. Many of our friends and allies have changed their law to meet the changing situation. In Germany, the law is unambiguous, saying that universal jurisdiction will apply to all criminal offences against international law. That means, regardless of where an offence was committed and whether it involves a German citizen, an accused person can be tried before a German criminal court. It has been this determination to pursue universal jurisdiction—genuine universal jurisdiction—that has resulted in the first ever prosecutions and convictions for members of Daesh for genocide.

    In January 2023, President Biden signed into law the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act, which greatly expands the scope of individuals who can face prosecution for US war crimes. That Act will assist the Department of Justice in prosecuting alleged war criminals who are found in the United States, regardless of where they committed a crime or the nationality of either the perpetrator or the victim. The law was given extra impetus in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where there is now a growing body of evidence of war crimes being perpetrated by Putin’s army.

    Despite many warm words, the harsh truth is that, if UK domestic law is not strengthened, we will be unable to play a full part in bringing some of the world’s worst criminals to justice. That is why we need proper, universal jurisdiction, and that is why we also need to remove that extra political hurdle of seeking the permission or consent of the Attorney General before we can prosecute for genocide. This Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill aims to address these issues, and help the UK play a full and appropriate role in ensuring justice, accountability and the upholding of international law.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Brendan O’Hara, Drew Hendry, Caroline Lucas, Liz Saville Roberts, Kirsty Blackman, Claire Hanna, Patrick Grady, Jim Shannon, Ben Lake, Patricia Gibson and Stewart Malcolm McDonald present the Bill.

    Brendan O’Hara accordingly presented the Bill.

    Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 296).

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Mansion House Speech on the UK and China

    James Cleverly – 2023 Mansion House Speech on the UK and China

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, at the Mansion House in London on 25 April 2023.

    Even when the emergencies of the day are seemingly all-consuming,

    It is vital never to lose sight of the biggest long-term questions.

    So tonight I propose to focus on a subject that will define our epoch

    and that is China and the UK’s policy towards it.

    I’m often asked to express that policy in a single phrase,

    or to sum up China itself in one word, whether “threat”, or “partner”, or “adversary”.

    And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and – most importantly – unwise.

    China is one of the few countries which can trace its existence back over two millennia,

    to 221BC,

    when it was united by the Qin Dynasty.

    Time and time again down the centuries, civil war or foreign invasions fractured China into rival kingdoms,

    but after every period of turmoil,

    China has always re-emerged.

    The opening line of the Chinese epic Romance of the Three Kingdoms describes this cycle:

    “Empires wax and wane; states cleave asunder and coalesce.”

    And long before they coalesced into one polity, the Chinese people created their language and their civilisation.

    Their written characters appeared in the Shang Dynasty in the 2nd millennium BC.

    Their inventions – paper, printing, gunpowder, the compass – these things transformed the fortunes of the whole of humanity.

    These innovations are the key to understanding why China’s economy was among the biggest in the world for 20 of the last 22 centuries,

    and why China, in 1820, comprised a third of global GDP – more than America, the UK and Europe combined.

    Then calamities struck, one after another;

    some caused by foreign aggression;

    others coming from within China itself.

    The deadliest of which was Mao’s famine, which claimed tens of millions of lives, more than any other famine in human history.

    Yet the last 45 years have seen another astonishing reversal.

    By releasing the enterprising genius of its people, China has achieved the biggest and fastest economic expansion the world has ever known.

    No less than 800 million people have lifted themselves out of poverty,

    in a nation that encompasses a fifth of all humanity

    and a vast area almost as large as continental Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.

    So forgive me when I say that no punchy catchphrase or plausible adjective can do justice to such a country or to any sensible approach towards it.

    If you are looking for British foreign policy by soundbite, I’m afraid you will be disappointed.

    My starting point is a recognition of the depth and complexity of Chinese history and civilisation,

    and therefore, by extension, of our own policy.

    And I rest that policy on a series of premises,

    the first of which is

    that whatever our differences with China’s leaders,

    I rejoice in the fact that so many Chinese people have escaped poverty.

    We do not live in a miserable zero-sum world: their gain is our gain.

    A stable, prosperous and peaceful China is good for Britain and good for the world.

    Looking ahead, I reject any notion of inevitability.

    No-one predicted China’s rapid rise from mass starvation to relative prosperity

    and today no-one can be sure that China’s economic juggernaut will roll on indefinitely.

    Last year, for the first time since Mao’s death in 1976, China’s economy grew no faster than the world economy,

    meaning that China’s share of global GDP stayed constant in 2022.

    And even if China does become the world’s largest economy in the coming decade,

    it may not hold that place for long,

    as a declining and ageing population weighs ever more heavily on future growth.

    Nor do I see anything inevitable about conflict between China and the United States and the wider West.

    We are not compelled to be prisoners of what Graham Allison called the “Thucydides trap”,

    whereby a rising power follows the trajectory of ancient Athens,

    and collides head-on with an established superpower.

    We have agency;

    we have choices;

    and so do our Chinese counterparts.

    Our task is to shape the course of future events, not succumb to fatalism.

    And we must face the inescapable reality that no significant global problem

    – from climate change to pandemic prevention,

    from economic instability to nuclear proliferation –

    can be solved without China.

    To give up on dialogue with China would be to give up on addressing humanity’s greatest problems.

    Even worse, we would be ignoring salient facts, vital to our safety and our prosperity.

    As I speak, the biggest repository of health data in the world is in China.

    The biggest source of active ingredients for the world’s pharmaceuticals is in China.

    And the biggest source of carbon emissions is also in China.

    Indeed, China has pumped more carbon into the atmosphere in the last 10 years than this country has since the dawn of the industrial revolution in the 18th century.

    How China regulates its data,

    how China develops its pharmaceuticals,

    how China conducts medical research,

    will be of seminal importance to the whole of humanity.

    And whether or not China cuts its carbon emissions will probably make the difference between our planet avoiding the worst ravages of climate change, or suffering catastrophe.

    We have already learned to our cost how China’s handling of a pandemic can affect the entire world.

    So have no doubt: decisions taken in Beijing are going to affect our lives.

    Do we not owe it to ourselves to strive to influence those decisions in our own interests?

    It would be clear and easy – and perhaps even satisfying –

    for me to declare some kind of new Cold War and say that our goal is to isolate China.

    It would be clear, it would be easy, it would be satisfying – and it would be wrong,

    because it would be a betrayal of our national interest and a willful misunderstanding of the modern world.

    Indeed, this Government will advance British interests directly with China, alongside our allies, while steadfastly defending our national security and our values.

    And we can expect profound disagreements;

    dealing with China I can assure you, is not for the fainthearted;

    they represent a ruthless authoritarian tradition utterly at odds with our own.

    But we have an obligation to future generations to engage because otherwise we would be failing in our duty to sustain – and shape – the international order.

    Shirking that challenge would be a sign

    not of strength but of weakness.

    Vladimir Putin never intended to demonstrate the power of a united West when he launched his onslaught against Ukraine.

    But our response shows that when Britain and America and Europe and our other partners across the world stand united, we are a match for anything.

    We should have every confidence in our collective ability to engage robustly and also constructively with China,

    not as an end in itself, but to manage risks and produce results.

    And we have achieved results.

    Let me give you some examples. In 2017 research, British research, convinced the Chinese agriculture ministry to act against the danger of antibiotic resistance by restricting colistin, an antibiotic used in animal feed.

    Sales fell by 90 percent, making everyone in the world safer.

    Last year, our diplomats in China helped to persuade the authorities to amend a draft procurement law,

    improving the chances of UK companies bidding for contracts from state-owned enterprises.

    This year, they secured licences worth £600 million for UK institutions to launch fund management companies in China.

    Britain’s position as a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has also allowed us to influence China’s approach towards this new institution,

    preventing it from becoming a politicised extension of the Belt and Road Initiative.

    China is the biggest shareholder of this Bank, the Bank is headquartered in Beijing,

    and yet within a week of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine,

    it froze every single project in Russia.

    But even though engagement can succeed,

    the truth is that a country like ours,

    devoted to liberty and democracy,

    will always be torn between our national interest in dealing with China

    and our abhorrence of Beijing’s abuses.

    When we see how authoritarian states treat their own people, we wonder what they would do to us if they had the chance.

    And history teaches us that repression at home often translates into aggression abroad.

    So our policy has to combine two currents:

    we must engage with China where necessary and be unflinchingly realistic about its authoritarianism.

    And that means never wavering from one clear principle.

    We do not expect our disagreements with China to be swiftly overcome,

    but we do expect China to observe the laws and obligations that it has freely entered in to.

    So, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council,

    China has shouldered a special responsibility to uphold the UN Charter.

    As a party to the Joint Declaration,

    China has agreed to preserve Hong Kong’s freedom.

    As a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the Convention Against Torture and many other instruments of international law,

    China has accepted an array of obligations.

    And if China breaks them, we are entitled to say so

    and we are entitled to act – and we will –

    as we did when China dismantled the freedoms of Hong Kong, violating its own pledge,

    which is why we gave nearly 3 million of Hong Kong’s people a path to British citizenship.

    Peaceful co-existence has to begin with respecting fundamental laws and institutions,

    including the UN Charter,

    which protects every country against invasion.

    And that means every country: a Chinese diplomat in Paris cannot, and must not, and will not, decide the legal status of sovereign countries.

    By attacking Ukraine, Russia has provided an object lesson in how a UN member state should not behave.

    And Putin has also trampled upon China’s own stated principles of non-interference and respect for sovereignty.

    A powerful and responsible nation cannot simply abstain when this happens,

    or draw closer to the aggressor,

    or aid and abet that aggression.

    A country that wants a respected place at the apex of the world order should stand up for its own principles,

    and keep its solemn obligations

    Obligations to defend the laws at the very foundation of that order.

    This responsibility goes hand-in-hand with China’s right to play a global role commensurate with its size and its history.

    And the rights of a sovereign nation like Ukraine cannot be eradicated just because the eradicator enjoys a “strategic partnership” with China.

    So, British policy towards China has three pillars.

    First, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity.

    We are not going to be silent about interference in our political system, or technology theft, or industrial sabotage.

    We will do more to safeguard academic freedom and research.

    And when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.

    Hence we are building our 5G network in the most secure way, not the fastest or the cheapest way.

    China’s leaders define their core interests – and it’s natural that they do.

    But we have core interests too,

    and one of them is to promote the kind of world that we want to live in,

    where people everywhere have a universal human right to be treated with dignity,

    free from torture, free from slavery, free from arbitrary detention.

    And there is nothing uniquely “Western” about these values:

    torture hurts just as much whoever it is inflicted upon.

    So when Britain condemns the mass incarceration of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, I hope our Chinese counterparts do not believe their own rhetoric

    that we are merely seeking to interfere in their domestic affairs.

    Just as we should try harder to understand China, I hope that Chinese officials will understand

    that when their government builds a 21st century version of the gulag archipelago,

    locking up over a million people at the height of this campaign,

    often for doing nothing more than observing their religion,

    this stirs something deep within us.

    When the United Nations finds that China’s repression in Xinjiang may – and I quote – “constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity”,

    our revulsion is heartfelt and shared unanimously across our country and beyond.

    We are not going to let what is happened in Xinjiang drop or be brushed aside.

    We cannot ignore this simply because this is happening on the other side of a frontier,

    or that to raise it might be considered unharmonious or impolite.

    Second, the UK will deepen our cooperation and strengthen our alignment with our friends and partners in the Indo-Pacific and across the world.

    Our aim will be to bolster collective security, deepen commercial links, uphold international law, and balance and compete where necessary.

    So I’m delighted that Britain will soon be the 12th member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, reinforcing our trading ties with rapidly growing economies.

    Already we are the only European country to be a Dialogue Partner of the Association of South-East Asian Nations.

    We are deepening our long term partnership with India.

    And we are developing the next generation of our aircraft alongside Japan.

    And we’ve joined the United States to help Australia to build nuclear-powered conventionally-armed submarines under the AUKUS partnership.

    Together with our friends, the UK will strive for openness and transparency in the Indo-Pacific.

    At this moment, China is carrying out the biggest military build-up in peacetime history.

    In a period of just four years – between 2014 and 2018 – China launched new warships exceeding the combined tonnage of the Royal Navy’s entire active fleet.

    And a we see this happening;

    as we watch new bases appearing in the South China Sea and beyond,

    we are bound to ask ourselves: what is it all for?

    Why is China making this colossal military investment?

    And if we are left to draw our own conclusions, prudence dictates that we must assume the worst.

    And yet of course we could be wrong: it is possible that we will be too cautious and too pessimistic.

    The UK and our allies are prepared to be open about our presence in the Indo-Pacific.

    And I urge China to be equally open about the doctrine and intent behind its military expansion,

    because transparency is surely in everyone’s interests

    and secrecy can only increase the risk of tragic miscalculation.

    Which brings me to Taiwan.

    Britain’s longstanding position is that we want to see a peaceful settlement of the differences across the Strait.

    Because about half of the world’s container ships pass through these vital waters every year,

    laden with goods bound for Europe and the far corners of the world.

    Taiwan is a thriving democracy and a crucial link in global supply chains, particularly for advanced semi-conductors.

    A war across the Strait would not only be a human tragedy,

    it would destroy world trade worth $2.6 Trillion, according to Nikkei Asia.

    No country could shield itself from the repercussions.

    Distance would offer no protection from this catastrophic blow to the global economy – and least China’s most of all.

    I shudder to contemplate the human and financial ruin that would follow.

    So it’s essential that no party takes unilateral action to change the status quo.

    And the third pillar of our policy is to engage directly with China, bilaterally and multilaterally, to preserve and create open, constructive and stable relations,

    reflecting China’s global importance.

    We believe in a positive trade and investment relationship, whilst avoiding dependencies in critical supply chains.

    We want British companies to do business with China – just as American, ASEAN, Australian and EU companies currently do –

    and we will support their efforts to make the terms work for both sides,

    pushing for a level playing field and fairer competition.

    We have an interest in continuing to benefit from Chinese investment,

    but we don’t want the long arm of the Chinese Communist Party reaching towards the central nervous system of our country.

    And in the past, we haven’t always struck the perfect balance between openness and security.

    Now we are gaining the right legal powers to safeguard what we must and be open where we can.

    Above all, we need to be properly skilled for the challenge,

    so we are doubling our funding for China capabilities across Government;

    we’ve allocated the resources to build a new British Embassy in Beijing,

    I’m determined to reach agreement with China’s government so this can proceed.

    So our approach to China must combine all of these currents,

    protecting our national security,

    aligning with our friends,

    engaging and trading with China where our interests converge,

    avoiding policy by soundbite,

    and always standing up for the universal values which Britain holds dear.

    I fervently believe there are no inevitabilities:

    the future is ours to shape,

    in the humble knowledge

    that how we respond to this challenge now will help define the modern world.

    Thank you.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2023 Speech at the Council of Europe Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media

    Lucy Frazer – 2023 Speech at the Council of Europe Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media

    The speech made by Lucy Frazer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on 25 April 2023.

    Good morning everyone, I want to start with an apology.

    I would love to be there with you for what I know will be an informed and fruitful discussion, and one that will lead to a valuable report.

    And I am hugely grateful to your President for the kind invitation to speak to you all today and to have a chance to reinforce the UK Government’s position on the participation of Russia and Belarus in international sport.

    I’d also like to extend my thanks to all the members of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media for your illuminating work in this area.

    The UK Government has been committed to the people of Ukraine from day one of Putin’s barbaric invasion and that commitment is an unwavering one.

    Any change to our position on the participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes representing their states in international sport would be incompatible with that commitment and incompatible with our values as a country.

    As this Council knows, the Olympic Truce – a principle that dates back to the 9th century BC to promote peace, friendship and understanding through sport – and is agreed at the United Nations – has been broken by Russia not once, but twice.

    The first time was – rather unbelievably – at their own hosting of the Winter Games at Sochi in 2014, and the second was during the Beijing Games in 2022.

    Russia has shown nothing but contempt for the values of the Olympics movement and its flouting of the rules has extended beyond the current conflict, as we saw with its involvement in doping programmes.

    The facts are incontrovertible – Russia has devastated Ukraine, Russia has killed Ukrainian athletes and Russia has smashed Ukraine’s sports infrastructure to smithereens.

    This regime does not deserve to see its athletes line up on the starting blocks of races or stand on podiums during medal ceremonies as representatives of their countries.

    As part of our absolute commitment to Ukraine and Ukrainian sovereignty, we have used the convening power of sport to bring together a coalition of 35 countries opposed to Russian and Belarusian participation in international sport.

    The collective statements we issued in March and July of last year, and February of this year, set out shared principles that all those countries agreed on.

    Our common goal is for sporting bodies to minimise the ability of Russia and Belarus to use sport for political gain.

    We recognise and want to maintain the autonomy of sport, and we support those national and international sports bodies who have shown moral clarity and exceptional leadership in this area.

    Bodies like the World Athletics Council that reaffirmed their decision in March to exclude Russian and Belarusian athletes.

    World Athletics President Seb Coe highlighted the substantial damage that Russia and Belarus have already done to ‘the integrity of our major international competitions.’

    It is in our collective gift to restore that integrity.

    And I want to be clear on one point which is really at the heart of this issue: this is not about punishing individual Russian or Belarusian athletes. These individuals have dedicated their lives to sport.

    What we stand against is athletes competing to represent the state of Russia and Belarus. There is a fundamental difference.

    The UK Government has from March 2022 been clear in our guidance to our own domestic sports bodies that individual Russian and Belarusian athletes can compete as ‘neutrals’ on UK soil, as long they really are neutral and are not representing their states in any way.

    And we have been equally clear on what that neutrality looks like. These athletes must not, under any circumstances, express support for the war or the Russian and Belarusian regimes.

    This extends to athlete funding – so athletes funded by their states to compete in events or who are in receipt of funding or sponsorship directly aligned to their states, such as from state controlled companies like Gazprom – cannot be considered to be neutral.

    Athletes directly funded by their states to compete in sports competitions, who would not be present at those events without that support, are de facto representatives of those states. They are only there by virtue of being funded by, trained by, selected by, supported by the Russian state.

    And, in that sense, from the UK perspective both ourselves and the International Olympic Committee, through its recommendations on ‘neutrality’ to International Federations of 28 March, are both seeking the same outcome: ensuring the Russian and Belarusian states cannot be represented in international sport.

    We have seen the IOC start to address some of the concerns our group of 35 nations raised in February and that is to be welcomed.

    But the IOC’s recommendations do not go far enough for us and they leave far too many unanswered questions. Our deep reservations extend across three areas.

    Firstly, there is no reference anywhere in the recommendations to state funding, which as I have said is a breach of neutrality. That issue is simply too fundamental to be ignored and it strikes at the heart of what neutrality is. State funding is state representation.

    Secondly, the provisions set out on military and national security agency links are currently minimal, especially when we know that the links between state, military and sport in Russia and Belarus are root and branch.

    And if you think that sounds like an exaggeration, consider the fact that the two leading Russia sports societies, the Central Sports Club of the Army (CSKA) and the Dynamo Sports Society, were founded by the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Internal Affairs respectively.

    Athletes trained by those two societies consistently bring home by far the largest share of Russian Olympic medals.

    Many Russian athletes have been active in their support for Putin’s invasion.

    The limited focus of the IOC’s recommendations around people being currently “contracted” to the military or national security agencies really does not account for the intrinsic relationship between the military and security apparatus.

    Our concern also covers the potential for loopholes, with people being ‘uncontracted’ before events and then ‘re-contracted’ afterwards to allow them to compete.

    In Belarus, the Lukashenko regime maintains close control of Belarusian sport, with the Belarus Olympic Committee and Presidential Sports Club, which provides direct financial support to Belarusian athletes, led by Lukashenko’s sons.

    The scenes at the pro-war rally at the Luzhniki Stadium last year, with Putin using Olympic athletes to promote his aggression only served to underline this issue.

    Thirdly, we have ongoing serious concerns about how these provisions will be implemented effectively, robustly and consistently.

    For example, there are issues around the consistent definition of ‘teams’ and whether pairs of athletes could be allowed. This issue is one that needs further clarification.

    Let’s be clear on why this matters. You cannot compete in a team event at the Olympics other than by virtue of being the same nationality and representing your country.

    There are no options to pair up across country borders, so there can be no place for any teams, of any numbers

    We are already seeing a great deal of confusion across sports as international federations take different approaches on the issue of allowing Russian and Belarusian athletes back into competition…

    And our fear is this will only escalate over coming weeks, exacerbated by the current lack of clarity on future participation at Paris 2024 for those Russians and Belarusians who may have qualified at events this summer.

    In all of these discussions we must not lose sight of the issues at stake.

    More than 220 Ukrainian athletes and coaches have so far lost their lives at the hands of Russian aggression.

    Countless more have been forced to flee or defend their homeland from invading forces.

    Our countries all have the luxury of talking about our participation in future sporting events – events that will bring joy to millions and showcase our greatest athletes.

    Meanwhile Ukrainian sport facilities have been destroyed or severely damaged by this war.

    None of us should countenance the idea of a Ukrainian athlete being forced to share a pitch, a court, a field, a starting line with state sponsored athletes from Russia and Belarus.

    The IOC must clarify their position or go back to the drawing board. Resolve the issues I have set out today.

    Implement an approach that guarantees only truly neutral athletes can participate.

    Then we can get back to sport.

    Thank you all for your time today.

  • Alex Burghart – 2023 Statement on the List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

    Alex Burghart – 2023 Statement on the List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

    The statement made by Alex Burghart, the Cabinet Office Minister, in the House of Commons on 24 April 2023.

    I am pleased to confirm that the latest list of Ministers’ interests was published last week on 19 April by the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Laurie Magnus. The list has been deposited in the Library of the House and is also available online on gov.uk.

    I note that the hon. Lady’s question talks of a register of ministerial interests. I am afraid that I must point out, for the sake of clarity, that that is not an accurate term. It is important that I provide a little explanation about the list, what it contains and the role it performs. The ministerial code makes it clear that

    “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”

    It is their personal responsibility

    “to decide whether and what action is needed to avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict, taking account of advice received from their Permanent Secretary and the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ interests.”

    On appointment, each Minister makes a declaration of all interests. They remain under an obligation to keep that declaration up to date throughout their time in office. Ministers are encouraged to make the fullest possible disclosure relating to themselves, their spouses and partners, and close family members, even where matters may not necessarily be relevant. The information supplied is then reviewed and advised upon by their permanent secretary and also by the independent adviser. Where needed, steps are taken to avoid or mitigate any potential conflicts of interest. That is the process by which Ministers’ interests are managed. It is thorough and ongoing, and it provides individual advice to all Ministers that reflects their circumstances and responsibilities.

    Twice a year, a list is published, covering those interests that are judged by the independent adviser to be relevant to each Minister’s portfolio. The list is not a register. It is designed to be read alongside the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is maintained by this House, and the register of Members’ interests that operates in the other place. For that reason, the list does not generally duplicate the information that is available in the registers.

    The independent adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, makes it clear in his introduction to the list published last week that it would not be appropriate for all the information gathered as part of the ministerial interests process to be made public. He states that such a move would

    “represent an excessive degree of intrusion into the private affairs of ministers that would be unreasonable, particularly in respect of”

    hon. Members’ families. I am sure hon. Members will understand that the system is designed to gather the fullest amount of information, provided in confidence, so that the most effective advice can be given.

    All Ministers of the Crown uphold the system that I have described. That is true for all Ministers, from the Prime Minister, who has been clear that all his interests have been declared in the usual way, all the way down to, and including, an assistant Whip. In the latest list, the independent adviser highlights the importance of Ministers and their permanent secretaries remaining alert in the context of their respective portfolios if Ministers’ interests change. That is, of course, right. Importantly, though, Sir Laurie Magnus provides his opinion as independent adviser on Ministers’ interests that

    “any actual, potential and perceived conflicts have been, or are in the process of being, resolved”.

  • Dave Doogan – 2023 Speech on Sudan

    Dave Doogan – 2023 Speech on Sudan

    The speech made by Dave Doogan, the SNP MP for Angus, in the House of Commons on 24 April 2023.

    It is very welcome to have our civil servants evacuated, and all credit goes to the men and women in uniform who delivered that operation, but the political decision to evacuate an embassy in these circumstances should be neither complex nor lengthy, so the Government might wish to cease congratulating themselves on that, especially as, in terms of deploying our military professionals to support ordinary citizens trapped in Sudan, the UK is trailing as usual, just as it did at the start of the covid crisis. When other nations stepped up to repatriate their people, as is expected in such circumstances, the UK dithered and mithered.

    Can the Minister explain to the House the root cause of this unfathomable inertia? Is there a tension between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence? If so, is the Foreign Office saying go and the MOD saying no, or is it the other way around? The official UK Government advice is that a ceasefire is the answer to this crisis, but what comfort is that to the thousands of UK nationals still on the ground? We might as well tell them to hold their breath while they wait for the food and water to run out.

    Meanwhile, this weekend France evacuated 388 citizens, including Dutch citizens; Germany airlifted 101 citizens to Jordan; Italy and Spain have evacuated their citizens and those of Argentina, Colombia, Portugal, Poland, Mexico, Venezuela and Sudan; Turkey has evacuated 640, including people from Azerbaijan, Japan, China, Mexico and Yemen; and Ireland, without a tactical airlifter to its name, has evacuated Irish nationals and is evacuating 140 more today. What it is to have friends in the world. On Radio 4 this morning, the Minister said that UK nationals in Sudan would be frustrated. They are terrified, not frustrated. He also said no fewer than three times that if UK nationals chose to flee independently, they would do so at their own risk, which rather exposes Foreign Office priorities in this crisis. The risk assessment taken by Ministers advises UK nationals to stay put. Did they factor in any assessment of access to food and water, of failing sanitation or of escalating violence making future evacuations even harder?

    Mr Mitchell

    I do not agree with the early part of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. This was done because diplomats were specifically being targeted. He will have seen that the European Union representative was held up at gunpoint, and I have already mentioned that the British embassy was caught between the two sides in this. This was extremely dangerous, and I have already mentioned what happened to the French. It was the decision that our diplomats were in extreme jeopardy that led to the operation I have described.

    As I said earlier, we of course have a duty of care to all our citizens. That is why we are doing everything possible, within the art of the possible, to bring them home, but we have a specific duty of care to our staff and our diplomats. Because of the extreme danger they were in, the Prime Minister took the decision to launch the operation that was fortunately so successful.

  • Alicia Kearns – 2023 Speech on Sudan

    Alicia Kearns – 2023 Speech on Sudan

    The speech made by Alicia Kearns, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in the House of Commons on 24 April 2023.

    I echo the thanks that have been expressed to the staff from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence who evacuated our diplomats and their families.

    The central tenet of the contract between British nationals and their Government, or indeed the nation state, is trust, and at this point trust is being stretched: trust that we will evacuate those people and convey them to a place of safety when they are in need. I recognise the complexity and risk, I recognise that we have thousands of nationals in Sudan while others have just hundreds, and I recognise there is reportedly a military reconnaissance team on the ground—perhaps the Minister can confirm that—but I urge my right hon. Friend, who is very honourable, to get our people home, because that is what the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence train our people to do.

    If, however, we are following the United States policy of non-evacuation or limited evacuation, we must have the moral courage to tell our British nationals that that is the case, because they are running out of food, water, electricity and internet signal, and some are killing their pets because they know that they can no longer feed them. We have a duty to empower them with the information that they need in order to make the right decisions for themselves and their families, but I urge the Minister to accept that time is running out and we need to do the evacuation now.

    Mr Mitchell

    I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her comments, and I am grateful to her for thanking the crisis centre, which is working night and day. I can assure her that while the United States made it clear that it was taking its diplomats out in the early operation that both it and we conducted, it has also made it clear that, as things stand, it is not planning to take any of its citizens out. We have not made that clear. Indeed, we made it clear that we are working at all levels to try to ensure that we can do so. We are looking at every single conceivable option, and we will—as my hon. Friend has suggested—do everything we possibly can to help in every way we can.