UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Valerie Vaz – 2023 Speech on Funding and Support for Classical Music

    Valerie Vaz – 2023 Speech on Funding and Support for Classical Music

    The speech made by Valerie Vaz, the Labour MP for Walsall South, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate and for allowing me to speak. I knew that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would be here, and I wish him a belated happy birthday for last Saturday. I, too, want to acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has played in securing widespread support for the BBC Singers. The fight is not over; she will continue, and we will support her.

    I add my voice to everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, has said, although, hon. Members will be pleased to hear, not in song—I will stick to words. This is an extremely important topic. I start with classical music’s large body of work. I was taught the piano by my mother Merlyn when I was quite young. My first piece was Bach’s “Well-Tempered Clavier”, prelude No. 1. I still empty the room when I practise it. My daughter Liberty plays the violin and piano. She did an extended project for her A-level, entitled “Does exposure to music make you more intelligent?” She came down saying yes, it does, but if we have active participation.

    I appreciate that the Minister is going to give birth fairly soon. She does not need to buy “Baby Mozart”, but I encourage her to listen to relax. It is important for children to hear music in the womb it, and later on. The brain waves change when people listen to music. The same can be said of classical Indian music—Ravi Shankar with the sitar, which takes years to learn how to play, has exactly the same effect.

    We know how important music is for children. When I first came here in 2010, I asked the then Education Secretary to make sure that there is a piano in every school, because I grew up surrounded by music. José Abreu suggested that children can benefit from it and formed El Sistema, which has transformed children’s lives in Venezuela. It has now been rolled out throughout the world.

    We are lucky to have very good radio here. Classic FM is a must to listen to, and public broadcasting is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, mentioned, as did the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) in his intervention. We have BBC Radio 3—I do not know whether other hon. Members listen to “Building a Library”, but it is a fantastic programme. The Proms is the biggest music festival in the world—way before Glastonbury. It is so important that international artists come here from around the world. What our public broadcasters do is so important.

    I stumbled upon a documentary about the amazing genius that is Daniel Barenboim on BBC Four last week. The BBC had captured him at 25, conducting a masterclass. It was amazing. Even if someone did not know anything about music, they could see how he explained to the two pianists how they could change and make their music sound better. Added to that, he formed the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra with Edward Said. That is how amazing he is. They brought together young people from Israel, Palestine, Egypt and all across the middle east to play together. Daniel Barenboim said that when they play music, they are all equal—they are just playing Beethoven. It is so important that that continues. I missed the Prom where Martha Argerich and Daniel Barenboim played the piano together, but it was captured at the end of the documentary. I suggest that everyone tries to listen to it.

    Music is inspirational. We can see our achievement as human beings, because a few notes can show what creative people we are. It can start with classical music and move to other forms of music such as jazz and modern music. It forms the basis of every aspect of our life. We need to protect that, because music moves us—it moves our emotions and it speaks to our soul. I hope that the Minister will protect it.

  • Robert Neill – 2023 Speech on Funding and Support for Classical Music

    Robert Neill – 2023 Speech on Funding and Support for Classical Music

    The speech made by Sir Robert Neill, the Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

    I only intervene briefly in this debate to repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) on securing it, and to make a few quick points to the Minister to supplement those that he has already made.

    I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on opera, and I have performers in my family as well. It is precisely because of that connection that I have seen at first hand the effect that the cuts imposed by Arts Council England have had on people who are dedicated professionals and who contribute to the economy of this country in a significant manner. We should not forget the value of classical music to the arts offer of this country, but it also makes a massive change in enriching lives—be it teachers in schools enriching the lives of children—and in enriching communities through community choirs and concerts such as the Bromley festival of speech and music, of which I have the honour to be joint president with my wife, bringing folk together and using music to pull them together.

    However, all that needs an infrastructure and an ecosystem to support it, and some of that requires public support. By the nature of the profession, it cannot entirely operate from the ticket office. That is why the damage done by Arts Council England’s behaviour is so extreme and egregious. To cut the very companies that have done more to promote access to the arts is perverse in the extreme.

    English National Opera in particular performs in English—it is the only company that does—and it is more than willing to tour outside London, if given the chance, but it has not been. It has a more diverse audience and a more diverse workforce than any other company. It is much more user-friendly, if I can put it that way, to those who have not had an experience in classical music and the arts to get into. I have been to recent productions at the ENO. It has a much younger, more diverse and enthusiastic audience than might be seen in many other houses. Every one of its performances is selling at about 95% box office capacity.

    We have the perverse situation of the director of music, heaven forbid, for Arts Council England claiming that she did not believe there is any longer an audience for “grand opera”, whatever she meant by that. I always rather thought grand opera was in five acts by Giacomo Meyerbeer in Paris in the 1850s. It is not putting on La Bohème, Carmen or Akhnaten, a modern opera by Philip Glass that is sold out at the ENO. If the people who are supposed to be running the arts do not understand the art form themselves, where on earth are we going to get to?

    The behaviour of Arts Council England has left Ministers exposed to criticism, because although it is an arms-length body, ultimately the blame will fall on Government. It also demonstrates that there are serious questions about its current viability as the guardians of arts in England. Its mission statement, when it was created, was to spread excellence in the arts throughout the country and to make excellence more accessible. As I pointed out earlier, and as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate rightly said, its decisions have actually been the reverse. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), condemned the way Arts Council England carried out her ministerial instruction. Ministers can give strategic instruction to Arts Council England, although, of course, they do not get involved in individual funding decisions. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister: that which is instructed can also be uninstructed. There is no doubt that Ministers can set the tone in the way in which Arts Council England supports things.

    There is a way forward to save the ENO, with sensible compromise and a very modest injection of funds in the overall scheme of things, which will keep the company in being and enable it to continue to do good work. I hope the same will be done with such things as the Glyndebourne tour. It is bizarre that some of my friends in the corporate world—my corporate lawyer friends, dare I say it?—will be able to pay the prices to go to the Glyndebourne festival, where there is no cost to the public purse, but the public funding that enabled Glyndebourne to go out to non-traditional audiences in places such as the Marlowe Theatre in Canterbury, or to Northampton or to Norwich, is the very thing that has been cut. It is exactly the reverse of what was intended. An organisation that does that has to answer serious questions about both its competence and its processes.

    I hope the Minister will reflect on three points. First, Arts Council England announced it will have an independent review of its approach to opera and classical music. I think the Minister is entitled to say to it, as a matter of strategic importance, that that must be genuinely independent. At the moment, there is a real suggestion and concern that Arts Council England—its members have about 162 notes in their register of interests within the same sector—will be marking its own homework. There has to be a properly independent and rigorous review with the involvement of people—there are many of them in the UK—who are active professionals.

    Secondly, Arts Council England itself needs a review. It is due for a departmental review before too long anyway, as it is some time since its last one. It ought to look at its transparency and decision-making processes. The board papers are never published. The information available would never pass muster in a local authority or health service trust, for example. That must change and the review should look at that, as it should at the composition of the board and the recruitment of its executive team.

    Thirdly, if I might return to a separate matter, touring visas have been a real problem for many people. Now that we are in a much better position with the Windsor agreement and a better relationship with the European Union, there is the suggestion, which has been signed off as being entirely consistent with the trade and co-operation agreement by Sarah Lee KC, that we could have a bespoke visa-waiver agreement with the EU for touring artists for up to 90 days in a period of 180 days. That would be doable and we would not have to reopen the TCA. With the better atmosphere that the Prime Minister has now created, that would be a practical way forward.

    Those are sensible points that I hope the Minister will say she will take away and act on.

  • Bambos Charalambous – 2023 Speech on Funding and Support for Classical Music

    Bambos Charalambous – 2023 Speech on Funding and Support for Classical Music

    The speech made by Bambos Charalambous, the Labour MP for Enfield Southgate, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

    I thank the many constituents who contacted me to ask for this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who cannot speak in this debate owing to her Front-Bench role. I know that she, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has been campaigning on behalf of the BBC orchestras and the BBC Singers.

    The subject of classical music is close to my heart, with a number of musicians living in my Enfield Southgate constituency. Classical music is a crucial part of the cultural infrastructure of London and the UK. Our orchestras are world renowned, as are our opera companies, chamber music groups and highly skilled freelance classical musicians. It is no coincidence that a large number of Hollywood and UK producers choose to have film and TV soundtracks recorded at Abbey Road Studios or AIR Studios in London. Producers choose to have recordings made in London because of the renowned ability of the UK’s classical musicians to sight-read brilliantly and accurately. Classically trained musicians are therefore at the forefront of one of the sectors that is currently driving economic growth in the UK, despite the low overall growth of the economy.

    The music sector adds significantly to the economy—£4 billion in 2021—and is part of our cultural backbone and national identity. Our classical music scene is rightly a source of pride here at home and a source of admiration abroad. Yet despite the UK’s international reputation in the field, we have recently seen several devastating funding decisions for the whole of the UK classical music ecosystem. It is important to stress that the classical music industry is indeed an ecosystem.

    In the UK, our highly trained classical musicians tend to move between freelance and employed roles in both commercial and less commercial employment. For instance, many forge their careers in orchestral positions before going freelance in the recording session world, or vice versa. Damage to one part of that infrastructure therefore damages all of it.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing a debate on this massive issue. He is right about the creation of jobs in classical music. I make this point for those who are at a very early stage —those who are school-age and in education. Some people back home in my constituency of Strangford forged their opportunity through education. They had the chance to play classical instruments in their formative years, and tuition and instruments were available as well. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should think about those who, had they not had that opportunity at school and in education, would never have reached the pinnacle of achievement they have reached? We look to the Minister and the Department to ensure that young people have that opportunity and can thereby forge that classical route for the rest of their life and give enjoyment to everyone else.

    Bambos Charalambous

    The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Music education should also be part of this conversation. It may be outside the scope of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we need to make sure that young people have that musical education and also careers to go into. If we cut the orchestras, we cut the opportunities for people who pick up a musical instrument in school and want to progress in the field of music.

    The recent devastating decisions to which I just referred are, of course, those taken by bodies such as Arts Council England and the BBC. They are going to negatively affect the funding of the English National Opera, the Britten Sinfonia, the Welsh National Opera, Glyndebourne’s touring opera and, of course, all the BBC orchestras in England. In addition, decisions have been taken to reduce funding to established orchestras such as the London Symphony, the London Philharmonic and the Philharmonia.

    Thankfully, we heard last week that the BBC Singers have been given a temporary stay of execution, but this reversal came only after a huge public outcry, and the reversal itself calls into question how such decisions have been taken. More than 150,000 people have signed a petition condemning the cuts, and there have been open letters from appalled global leaders in classical music, including more than 800 composers and many choral groups.

    Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He and I were at a meeting yesterday with members of the company of the English National Opera. They are in the most precarious situation, because they simply do not know whether they will have sufficient work to keep their families in necessities after the end of this season. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the behaviour of the Arts Council—the supposed promoter of excellence in the arts in England—has actually been the reverse of what is supposed to happen? By hitting companies such as the English National Opera, the most accessible of our opera companies, and touring companies such as Glyndebourne and the English tours of the Welsh National Opera, the Arts Council is reducing the spread of excellence in art to people outside London, rather than spreading it out. That is the exact reverse of what the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), told it to do. It makes no sense at all, does it?

    Bambos Charalambous

    The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will address that issue later, but it is true that the companies that have been cut do a lot of touring work and provide access to parts of the UK that would not necessarily be able to access orchestras or opera.

    It is important to note that the BBC Singers’ future still remains highly uncertain, with no plan outlined for their future security. Meanwhile, the BBC is still planning to cut the budgets of its concert, philharmonic and symphony orchestras by 20%. I know that the Minister will argue that the Government do not have direct responsibility for the cuts I am referring to, made as they are by both the BBC and Arts Council England, but let us be clear: the relationships that the Government have with those bodies have a profound influence on the decisions that are taken. It is the Government who set the political environment and the cultural zeitgeist in which decisions are taken. While it is right that the arm’s length bodies are operationally independent, it is also right that major decisions that impact on our cultural and artistic ecosystem can be challenged and questioned.

    In the case of the Arts Council England funding announcement for 2023 to 2026, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), set a directive that told the body where its funding should go. That brings into question the arm’s length principle on which Arts Council England was founded. There is a lack of transparency in how recent decisions at the BBC and the Arts Council have been reached. The Government can, if they choose, create an environment in which classical music is nurtured by the arm’s length bodies taking decisions on the ground, but sadly, what we see at the moment is the opposite. Therefore, I would be very interested to hear from the Minister how the Government plan to support our classical music infrastructure against the recent onslaught of damaging decisions.

    First, I want to speak in more detail about a couple of those decisions. Let us look at Arts Council England’s decision to cut the English National Opera’s annual grant of £12.6 million and replace it with £17 million over three years, with a stipulation that the ENO must move out of London. That decision was announced in November 2022, but in January of this year, Arts Council England announced a review of opera and musical theatre. That review is called “Let’s Create”, but some may think it would be better named “Let’s Destroy” following Arts Council England’s cuts to the ENO and other national portfolio organisations. What sort of chaotic organisation makes the decision to cut first and carry out a review later?

    Following a large public outcry and campaigns by the Musicians’ Union and Equity, it was announced in January that the national lottery would make an additional grant to the ENO of £11.46 million. That still represents a cut of 9%, and the uncertainty about the ENO’s future and its need to relocate has meant that productions for this year have been cancelled. Redundancies have also been made in the ENO Chorus, which is one of the most diverse choruses in Europe.

    Those decisions by Arts Council England appear to have been informed by the levelling-up agenda, plus the direct instruction of the then Secretary of State to move money away from London. However, the ENO has long been at the forefront of offering a commendable outreach programme to local communities and has a strong record of supplying free tickets to the young, as well as relaxed performances for those with sensory needs. Forcing the move of the ENO with the likely loss of its existing orchestra and technicians will not lead to levelling up, but to levelling down overall. The Government really need to step in to ensure that the cultural infrastructure of London is not damaged irrevocably by decisions such as this and the others I mentioned earlier. One area’s cultural offer should not be damaged in the name of another’s.

    That brings me to another set of worrying decisions: those taken at the BBC. Again, these have taken place within the cultural climate and overall policy agenda set by the Government. As I stated before, the BBC’s decision to take the axe to the BBC Singers appears to have been reversed for now, but how appalling it is to even contemplate dismantling one of the world’s most renowned ensembles in what will be its centenary year.

    Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the BBC needs to be very careful about the licence fee? My understanding is that we pay the licence fee so that the BBC can have top-notch news coverage and to support all of our most important cultural attributes as a nation, including classical music and opera. Is the BBC not treading on thin ice by taking these sorts of decisions? It is the breadth and depth of its cultural and news offering that makes the BBC what it is.

    Bambos Charalambous

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the BBC is a public broadcaster, and it therefore has a public duty to do things that are not available elsewhere. However, we have to look at that in the context of what the BBC has been forced to do. It, too, has had to make cuts because the licence fee has been frozen—something that I will come to later on in my speech. The hon. Gentleman is right, though, about the duty of the BBC to provide things that are not provided elsewhere, which I will also come to in a second.

    The most serious threat to the BBC orchestras remains, which is the proposed cut to 20% of orchestral jobs across the BBC’s English orchestras. It is important to note that these cuts come after more than a decade of successive Conservative Governments hammering the BBC’s funding. Ever since 2010, the BBC has faced repeated and deep real-terms spending cuts, and in 2022 the licence fee was frozen for two years. The BBC has said that that is expected to create a funding gap of about £400 million by 2027. That is the important context in which the BBC has taken these decisions. While it is right that the BBC is operationally independent, it is also right that major decisions that impact on our cultural and artistic ecosystem can be challenged and questioned. As a public service broadcaster, the BBC has a public duty of care to its orchestras and ensembles, and it also has a duty to provide excellent, accessible and inspiring content to the public.

    Make no mistake: the proposed 20% loss of jobs across the BBC’s English orchestras is devastating to our classical music infrastructure. The cuts are of course damaging to the highly skilled musicians who face losing their jobs, but they also have serious implications for the wider classical music industry. The BBC has often nurtured new orchestral talent with the career pathway it provides for orchestral players. The BBC is also the largest employer of musicians in the classical music workforce, which is generally insecure and freelance.

    Let us be clear about what these orchestras represent: the BBC Symphony Orchestra, BBC Concert Orchestra and BBC Philharmonic Orchestra are internationally renowned and made up of some of the world’s finest musicians. They are loved across the country for their touring role and for performing at the BBC Proms, including opening and closing the festival. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South has rightly praised the importance of the BBC orchestras to the quality of the UK’s classical music output and the musicians’ ability to adapt rapidly to new commissions and audiences.

    The BBC also appears to be sending mixed messages; it says it is increasing investment in musical education, but it is cutting the jobs to which music students aspire. That makes no sense at all. Even the BBC’s own classical music review has said that the BBC performing groups play a vital role in the pipeline of new talent. These cuts therefore have huge negative implications for future generations of musicians and our wider musical infrastructure.

    The cuts also have negative implications for the cultural life of the regions. The BBC’s classical music review has found that the BBC orchestras perform in parts of the UK that would otherwise not be covered by major orchestras. The loss of a fifth of orchestral jobs in the BBC orchestras can therefore have only a negative impact on the cultural experiences of people living outside London or other main urban areas. Again, as with the cuts to the ENO and all the other institutions I named at the beginning, the BBC orchestral cuts threaten a levelling-down effect and a serious downgrading of the cultural life of the UK.

    Let us put all this into a wider financial context. As Charlotte Higgins of The Guardian pointed out last week, the BBC orchestras are being cut and the BBC Singers’ future made uncertain for the want of a reported £5 million saving to the BBC. Meanwhile, the Government are trying to claw back £122 million from PPE Medpro, the company recommended by Baroness Mone as a supplier of personal protective equipment to the NHS during the pandemic. The sums of investment needed to secure key parts of our classical music industry are therefore small when compared with the vast amounts wasted by this Government. It makes absolutely no economic or cultural sense to allow the devastation of our classical music industry when it can be supported for a fraction of what the Government have wasted on PPE contracts. We need to remember, as I stated earlier, that the music sector adds significantly to our economy; it was £4 billion in 2021.

    There are some other practical things that the Government could do right now to redress some of the damage done to the classical music industry. The following are just some suggestions, any of which would be a small step towards supporting our classical music infrastructure. For instance, VAT on live events, such as music and theatre events, could be reduced to bring the UK more in line with EU nations and to help to stimulate live music. The Government could look at measures such as reducing business rates on live music venues and studios. The classical music industry could be given help through extra support to venues, studios and music spaces hit by soaring energy bills. If they wanted to, the Government could create a new tax relief for the music industry, like those enjoyed by film and TV, to boost music production.

    Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

    The hon. Member is making a thoughtful speech, to say the least. There is an international dimension to this, taking forward his point. Last year, two Ukrainian players, Oleksii and Igor, came to perform in St Finbarr’s church in Dornoch in my constituency. That was an expression of determination that Ukraine would not be crushed and an opportunity for us to say, “We are with you, Ukraine.” The Government could look at that—perhaps they do already—and say, “Let us have more Ukrainian players. Let us use this as our soft power.” Music speaks to everyone. It is an international language, so there is a great opportunity here for us to do more and to stand with brave Ukraine.

    Bambos Charalambous

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Music is international and musicians perform internationally. The reputation that some of the orchestras and ensembles in the UK have is worldwide and they would of course show solidarity with the Ukrainians. We certainly welcome them here to hear them play and other orchestras playing abroad. That is one of the soft power things we can do. The reputation of the classical music world is first class across the world.

    Many classical musicians have felt a negative impact from Brexit, with touring opportunities lessened. The Government could set up a new music export office to drive British music exports and help future talents to grow their international audiences. Classical musicians have been hit by a squeeze on salaries, as well as the cost of living crisis and the terrible impact of covid. On top of this, classical musicians are unfairly deprived of income from streaming platforms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has argued, there is a dire need for equitable remuneration for musicians. At the moment, classical orchestral musicians see all the profits from their work on streaming platforms hoovered up by big corporate record companies and the platforms themselves. The Government could change the law in this regard so that classical musicians get a fair share of the proceeds from their work.

    There is therefore much the Government could do. The Government must support the call on the BBC to set the BBC Singers on a long-term footing as soon as possible and remove the threat to jobs in the BBC Philharmonic, Concert and Symphony orchestras. The Government should also closely examine the decisions by Arts Council England, and ensure the protection of the many fine classical music institutions that now face deep uncertainty. Future decisions must involve improved consultation with the musicians involved, and decisions should be more informed by classical music experts, musicians and our musical infrastructure. We know that investment made in the classical music industry will be repaid many times over by the economic and cultural contribution it makes. It is simply a false economy to stand back and allow the devastation of a classical music scene that contributes so much.

    It is time for the Government to step up to the challenge of protecting and promoting classical music in the UK. It is time for the Government to pick up the baton and change the tempo for the final movement of this discordant cacophony, and to stop the irreparable damage being done to some of the finest orchestras and ensembles. I look forward to the Minister’s response on all these matters.

  • Edward Leigh – 2023 Comments on RAF Scampton

    Edward Leigh – 2023 Comments on RAF Scampton

    The comments made by Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

    Although the Minister did not mention RAF Scampton by name, we assume that that is the base in Lincolnshire to which he is referring. I can inform him that the moment that this is confirmed, the local authority of West Lindsey will issue an immediate judicial review and injunction against this thoroughly bad decision, which is based not on good governance, but on the politics of trying to do something. How can he guarantee that we will not lose £300 million-worth of regeneration, already agreed and signed, between West Lindsey and Scampton Holdings? How will he preserve the listed buildings and the heritage centre? How will he preserve the heritage of the Dambusters and of the Red Arrows? How can he guarantee that there is no contamination from the fuel bay of the Red Arrows? How will he protect the safety of 1,000 people living right next door to 1,500 migrants and a primary school? He cannot guarantee anything. Will he work with West Lindsey and Lincolnshire now to try to find an alternative site? We are prepared to do it, but we do not want to lose £300 million of regeneration. Lincolnshire will fight and Lincolnshire will be proved right.

    Robert Jenrick

    I can only pay tribute to my right hon. Friend—my friend and constituency neighbour. He is representing his constituents forcefully, in the way that he has always done in this place, and he is absolutely right to do so. I can say to him that, while this policy is, without question, in the national interest, we understand the impact and concern that there will be within local communities. All parts of Government want to work closely with him and his local authorities to mitigate the issues that will arise as a result of this site. There will be a significant package of support for his constituents. There will be specific protections for the unique heritage on the site. We do not intend to make any use of the historic buildings. In our temporary use of the site, we intend to ensure that those heritage assets are enhanced and preserved. We see this as a short-term arrangement. We would like to enter into an agreement, as he knows, with West Lindsey District Council, so that it can take possession of the site at a later date, and its regeneration plans, which are extremely important for Lincolnshire and the east midlands more generally, can be realised in due course.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2023 Speech on Illegal Immigration

    Yvette Cooper – 2023 Speech on Illegal Immigration

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

    Today’s statement is an admission of failure—perhaps that is why the Home Secretary has asked the Immigration Minister to make it instead. Four years ago, the Cabinet said that they would halve channel crossings; they have gone up twentyfold since then. A year ago, they said they would end hotel use; they have opened more than ever. They keep making new announcements, but it just keeps getting worse. People want to see strong border security, and properly managed asylum and refugee systems, so that the UK does its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict, alongside other countries, but we have got neither of those at the moment.

    There is no point in the Government blaming everyone else, because they are in charge. The asylum system is broken because they broke it; they have let criminal gangs rip along the channel; people smuggler convictions have halved in the past four years, even though more boats and more gangs have been crossing—and yet Tory MPs yesterday voted against Labour’s plan for cross-border police units to go after the gangs; and they have let asylum decision making collapse—we have had a big increase in staff, but 40% fewer cases being decided. So they have failed to take basic decisions and they are still not doing Labour’s plan to fast-track last year’s arrivals from Albania and other safe countries.

    As for today’s announcements, we need to end costly and inappropriate hotel use, but these plans do not do that. The Minister has had to admit that, contrary to all the briefing in the papers this morning, they will not end hotel use—instead, these sites are additional. Ministers should have been finding cheaper sites and properly managing costs years ago.

    Today’s damning report from the Government’s own independent watchdog, which strangely the Minister did not mention today, says that there has been no cost control; that the Home Office contracts are highly inefficient; that there is no cross-Government transparency and oversight; and that officials did not have financial information on the contracts they were signing and did not compare costs. Most ludicrously of all, it says that

    “different parts of the Home Office operating different schemes…at times, found themselves competing for the same hotel contracts, driving prices up.”

    This is totally chaotic.

    Basically, the Government have written a whole load of cheques in a panic. If they had put that money into clearing the backlog instead, we would not be in this mess now. They should have been working with councils to do that, but they did not. Yesterday, Tory MPs again voted against Labour’s plans for a legal requirement for councils to be consulted. Instead, the Minister has Conservative councils, backed by Conservative MPs, taking action against him. So can he confirm that the Foreign Secretary is backing legal action against the Home Secretary? Frankly, that is a first, even for this chaotic Government.

    The Bill makes things worse. There are no returns agreements with France or Europe. The Prime Minister has just said that the Home Secretary was wrong: the Rwanda flights will not start this summer. The Government have nowhere to send people to and, instead of speeding up asylum decisions, they are just going to cancel them, which means more people in asylum accommodation and hotels and more flimflam headlines that just do not stack up. Today, it was barges and it turns out that there are not any. Desperate to distract everyone from the damage that they might want to do to the Dambusters heritage, they instead start talking about ferries and barges. Three years ago, they said the same thing. Last summer, the Prime Minister said that it would be cruise liners. The Home Office civil servant said that ferries would end up costing more than the hotels on which they are already spending so much money. So, instead, the Immigration Minister has been sent around the country with a copy of “Waterways Weekly”, trying to find barges, and he still has not found any.

    Can the Minister tell us: are these sites going to be additional and not instead of hotel use? Will he still be using more hotels, or fewer for asylum seekers in six months’ time? On the 45,000 boat arrivals last year, can he confirm that more than 90% of decisions have not been taken because the backlog is still the Government’s failure?

    Will the Minister apologise for the Government’s failure on cost control? They failed to support Labour’s plan to go after the gangs, to get a new agreement with France and to fast-track decisions and returns. They are flailing around in a panic, chasing headlines—barges, oil rigs, Rwanda flights, even wave machines—instead of doing the hard graft. They have lost control of our border security, lost control of the asylum system, lost control of their budget and lost control of themselves. Will he answer my questions and will he get a grip?

    Robert Jenrick

    Is it not abundantly clear that Labour does not have the faintest clue how to tackle this issue? It has absolutely no plan. What we have laid out today is three months of intense work, which is seeing the backlog coming down; productivity rising; more sustainable forms of accommodation; a harder approach to make it difficult to live and work in the UK illegally; illegal working raids and visits rising by 50%; and greater control over the channel—all improvements as a result of the 10-point plan that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary set out.

    The right hon. Lady looks back to a mythical time when Labour was last in office— when the Home Office, according to their own Home Secretary, was deemed to be not fit for purpose. Labour calls for more safe and legal routes, even though we are second only to Sweden in Europe for resettlement schemes. It calls for more money for law enforcement, even though we have doubled the funding of the National Crime Agency, and our people are out there upstream tackling organised immigration criminals every day of the week.

    Is it not extraordinary that the Home Secretary—[Interruption]—the shadow Home Secretary cannot bring herself to condemn those illegal immigrants who are breaking into our country in flagrant breach of our laws? That is weak. The truth is that the Labour party is too weak to take the kind of tough decisions that we are taking today. In its weakness, it would make the United Kingdom a magnet: there would be open doors, an open cheque book and open season for abuse. The British public know that the Conservative party understands their legitimate concerns. We do not sneer at people for wanting basic border controls. We are taking the tough decisions. We will stop the boats. We will secure the borders.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2023 Speech on Illegal Immigration

    Robert Jenrick – 2023 Speech on Illegal Immigration

    The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on illegal migration.

    Three months ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out a comprehensive plan to tackle illegal migration. We said we would act, and we have. We have increased immigration enforcement visits to their highest levels in recent years: since December, more than 3,500 enforcement visits have been carried out and more than 4,000 people with no right to be here have been removed. Anglo-French co-operation is now closer than ever before and will be deepened because of the deal struck by the Prime Minister earlier this month. We have expanded our partnership with Rwanda to include the relocation of all those who pass through safe countries to make illegal and dangerous journeys to the United Kingdom. Our modern slavery reforms, introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to prevent those who seek to abuse our generosity from doing so, are bearing fruit. We are tackling the backlog in our asylum system by cutting unnecessary paperwork and simplifying country guidance. As a result, productivity has increased and we are on track to process the backlog of initial asylum decisions by the end of this year.

    We must ensure that our laws enable us to deal with the global migration crisis, which is why we have brought forward the Illegal Migration Bill. The Bill goes further than any previous immigration legislation to fix the problem of small boats, while remaining within the boundaries of our treaty obligations. Of course, as we reform the asylum system, we will continue to honour our country-specific and global safe and legal commitments.

    But we cannot and will not stop here, because illegal migration continues to impact the British public in their day-to-day lives. The sheer number of small boat arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system and forced the Government to place asylum seekers in hotels. These hotels take valuable assets away from communities and place pressures on local public services. Seaside towns have lost tourist trade, weddings have been cancelled and local councils have had their resources diverted to manage them. The hard-working British taxpayer has been left to foot the eye-watering £2.3 billion a year bill. We must not elevate the wellbeing of illegal migrants above that of the British people; it is in their interests that we are sent here.

    The enduring solution to stop the boats is to take the actions outlined in our Bill, but in the meantime it is right that we act to correct the injustice of the current situation. I have heard time and again of councils up and down the country struggling to accommodate arrivals. This is no easy task; the Government recognise that placing asylum seekers into local areas comes at a cost, and so central Government will provide further financial support. Today, we are announcing a new funding package, which includes generous additional per-bed payments and continuation of the funding for every new dispersal bed available. We will also pilot an additional incentive payment where properties are made available faster.

    However, faced with the scale of the challenge, we must fundamentally alter our posture towards those who enter our country illegally. This Government remain committed to meeting our legal obligations to those who would otherwise be destitute, but we are not prepared to go further. Accommodation for migrants should meet their essential living needs and nothing more, because we cannot risk becoming a magnet for the millions of people who are displaced and seeking better economic prospects. Many of our European partners are struggling with the same issue: Belgium, Ireland, Germany and France are having to take similar steps, and the UK must adapt to this changing context.

    I have said before that we have to suffuse our entire system with deterrence, and this must include how we house illegal migrants. So today the Government are announcing the first tranche of sites we will set up to provide basic accommodation at scale. The Government will use military sites being disposed of in Essex and Lincolnshire and a separate site in East Sussex. These will be scaled up over the coming months and will collectively provide accommodation to several thousand asylum seekers through repurposed barrack blocks and portakabins. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is showing leadership on this issue by bringing forward proposals to provide accommodation at the Catterick garrison barracks in his constituency. We also continue to explore the possibility of accommodating migrants in vessels, as they are in Scotland and in the Netherlands.

    I want to be clear: these sites on their own will not end the use of hotels overnight. But alongside local dispersal and other forms of accommodation, which we will bring forward in due course, they will relieve pressure on our communities, and manage asylum seekers in a more appropriate and cost-effective way. Of course, we recognise the concerns of local residents and we are acutely aware of the need to minimise the impact of these sites on communities. Basic healthcare will be available, around-the-clock security will be provided on site and our providers will work closely with local police and other partners. Funding will be provided to local authorities in which these sites are located.

    These sites are undoubtedly in the national interest. We have to deliver them if we are to stop the use of hotels. We have to deliver them to save the British public from spending eye-watering amounts on accommodating illegal migrants. And we have to deliver them to prevent a pull factor for economic migrants on the continent from taking hold. Inaction is not an option. The British people rightly want us to tackle illegal migration. As I have set out today, we are doing exactly that and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Dominic Raab – 2023 Speech at the King’s Counsel Appointments Ceremony

    Dominic Raab – 2023 Speech at the King’s Counsel Appointments Ceremony

    The speech made by Dominic Raab, the Secretary of State for Justice, at Westminster Hall, London, on 29 March 2023.

    It’s a great pleasure to welcome you all, as you make your declarations…

    And confirm your new status as Kings Counsel, and Honorary King’s Counsel.

    This is the first time in over 70 years that a Lord Chancellor has presided over the appointment of ‘King’s Counsels’, since the passing of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

    Of course, for all of you, I know this is the culmination of years of hard work, dedication, and sacrifice.

    The late nights working on a brief,

    The weekends lost to preparing a case in court,

    The countless hours spent representing your clients will now,

    I hope, at long last be worth it today.

    You have made it to the pinnacle of your profession,

    You will be recognised for that by your peers, by the Crown,

    For what is an immense achievement.

    You, your families, friends, and colleagues, should rightly be very proud.

    Steeped in tradition going back to the 16th Century, the KC title has long been a hallmark of excellence.

    It acknowledges your experience, expertise and eminence in your particular fields of law.

    And so, today’s ceremony cements your status as ambassadors for a legal system envied across the world.

    And, as we celebrate your success in these historic surroundings…

    Arguably the birthplace of both British justice and democracy… You are taking your own place personally in our country’s distinguished legal history.

    Of course, the KC quality mark is recognised not just here in the UK, but abroad too.

    It holds up our legal professionals as the best in a global market.

    And it underpins the worldwide appeal of our legal system… along with our common law precedents and world-renowned independent judiciary.

    Our profession is, of course, also one of the reasons the UK has become the world’s pre-eminent centre for dispute resolution.

    Just to give you a flavour, in 2021, over 28,000 civil disputes were resolved through arbitration, mediation and adjudication in the UK, while more than 80 percent of the world’s maritime arbitrations are handled here.

    Businesses around the world turn to us time and time again to be their counsel and courtroom… because they know that a decision from a UK court carries a global kitemark… of impartiality, integrity and enforceability.

    It isn’t by luck that English and Welsh law is the choice for global business and international trade… used in some 40 percent of all global corporate arbitrations.

    Nor is it a surprise that more than 200 foreign law firms, from over 40 jurisdictions have branches in the UK.

    In fact, every single one of the world’s top 40 law firms has an office right here in London.

    A world-beating legal system goes hand-in-hand with our world-beating legal services…

    One of this country’s greatest exports – and at the heart of our future as a global, free-trading Britain.

    Our legal services support the growth of global trade and investment across the whole country… contributing billions to our economy each year.

    And it’s why we’re working hard to promote legal services abroad…

    Targeting priority markets, like the Indo-Pacific and the United States…

    And opening up market access for our legal professionals through free trade agreements… including current negotiations with India, the Gulf states, Canada, Mexico and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

    All this serves as a reminder that our KCs don’t just serve in English and Welsh courts.

    They make a huge contribution to the international rule of law. Never has this been more true than today.

    All the way back to Nuremberg, our legal professionals have played their part in bringing the worst war criminals to justice.

    Take Hartley Shawcross KC – a formidable advocate who led the British prosecution at Nuremberg.

    His opening and closing speeches widely held to be some of the finest of those historic, ground-breaking trials.

    He observed that while some thought the Nazis on trial should have faced summary justice ‘…swept aside into oblivion, without elaborate and careful investigation into the part they have played…’

    ‘Not so would the rule of law be raised and strengthened on the international as well as upon the municipal plane…

    Not so would future generations realise that right is not always on the side of the big battalions…

    Not so would the world be made aware that the waging of… war is not only a dangerous venture… but a criminal one.’

    I think Shawcross’s words resonate, when we consider the importance of the international rule of law… and the ‘elaborate and careful’ investigations currently underway into atrocities in Ukraine.

    Nuremberg paved the way for the prosecution of war crimes and genocide in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and other wars and conflicts…

    And our KCs have been instrumental in the development of international law in the decades since, alongside our allies.

    We just need only look to The Hague to see the influence of some of the UK’s best legal minds.

    Sir Geoffrey Nice, Steven Kay, Andrew Cayley and Jo Korner are just some of the exceptional British barristers to have made their mark there and beyond.

    And another Brit, Karim Khan KC, is currently Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court and responsible for the investigation into atrocities in Ukraine, among other vital work he’s doing.

    All of these appointments are a testament to the standard of our professionals and indeed their standing in the world.

    I saw it myself – twenty years ago as a Foreign Office lawyer… I was posted to The Hague to help bring war criminals to justice at the Yugoslavian and Rwandan tribunals.

    So, I know first-hand the impact the ICC and ad-hoc tribunals can have.

    I remember in particular, Radovan Karadžić, the so called Butcher of Bosnia.

    In 2004, as a fairly fresh faced lawyer, while serving in the Hague I negotiated a sentencing enforcement agreement between the UK and the UN.

    Back then, no one thought we would get to use it…

    But 17 years later, Karadžić was transferred to a UK jail cell under that agreement.

    As you can imagine, I was proud to be a small part of that effort… a 30-year pursuit for justice.

    Now as you will know, on 17th of March, the ICC indicted President Putin for the forcible removal of children from Ukraine. An appalling crime.

    Today again, many doubters ask whether he will face the dock of a court.

    We know, these cases are complex, and it will take patience.

    To the doubters and the cynics I point to Karadžić, to Milošević, to Charles Taylor and others…

    To know that justice is on our side, and history is on our side.

    But justice doesn’t happen by accident.

    It requires deeds, not just words.

    That is why, a week ago today in the UK I hosted a meeting of justice ministers from around the world…

    Bringing together over 40 nations to agree support for the ICC, and its independent investigation into war crimes in Ukraine.

    I’m pleased we could agree that package that will support the ICC’s work in all its investigations.

    But looking at the country and profession, the real success was bringing 42 other countries together to offer support…

    Through the secondment of their national experts, the sharing of best practice to support the most vulnerable victims… and financial support to assist the ICC in its vital work.

    This is global Britain as a force for good in the world – galvanising other nations to act.

    In the same spirit, I have no doubt that many of you will go on to great things at home… and abroad… Building on the achievements of the remarkable KCs that have gone before you.

    I know you will make us proud.

    Today, we are also here to recognise eight candidates being appointed Honorary KCs, for outstanding contributions to the law outside of the courts.

    Our first candidate, John Battle, is a driving force in the campaign for open justice and in particular filming court proceedings.

    He is recognised for his extensive work with the media, Ministry of Justice, and with the senior judiciary.

    Next, Professor Lionel Bently is a universally respected scholar, nominated for his role in influencing intellectual property law in this country and beyond.

    Professor Richard Ekins has made a major contribution to public debate, and parliamentary deliberation, about the constitutional role of the courts…. Issues which are very close to my heart.

    Then we have Professor Rosemary Hunter, a leading Family Justice scholar. Rosemary is recognised for her important work in the field of domestic abuse, which has helped to shape the law in this area.

    Next, Dr Ann Olivarius, recognised for her vital role in the fields of women’s rights, sexual harassment and sexual abuse.

    She was absolutely instrumental in lobbying Parliament to pass laws against so-called ‘cyber flashing’, which I am proud we have now done.

    We also have Professor Richard Susskind is recognised for his important work to promote technology and innovation in legal and court services across England and Wales.

    Next, James Wakefield is nominated for his work to promote better access to the Barrister profession… encouraging retention of those from under-represented groups from across our society.

    Then we have Professor Julian Vincent Roberts, a leading authority on sentencing theory, policy, and practice.

    His work has made a major contribution to the analysis and development of sentencing worldwide.

    Last but certainly not least, there is Sir Michael Wood – a prominent member of the International Law Commission, recognised for his invaluable contribution to the teaching and application of international law in the UK and beyond.

    I have to say, there is one blot on his CV that I feel duty bound to point out.

    Sir Michael recruited me to the Foreign Office legal advisers in 2000, and then deployed me to the Hague between 2003 to 6.

    And was very much a mentor during that time, please don’t hold it against him.

    No one’s perfect.

    Of course, that’s just a brief mention of our recipients’ contribution to the law, which goes so much further.

    In closing, let me say again what an honour it is to preside over this ceremony.

    I hope you enjoy today’s celebration with your family and friends.

    It is truly well deserved.

    Each and every one of you here today is a shining example – the brightest and best of British justice, an inspiration to the next generation of lawyers.

    I’ve absolutely no doubt you will go on to even greater things in future…

    Playing your part in upholding the reputation of the finest legal system in the world.

  • Gillian Keegan – 2023 Speech to BETT 2023

    Gillian Keegan – 2023 Speech to BETT 2023

    The speech made by Gillian Keegan, the Secretary of State for Education, in London on 29 March 2023.

    Mankind’s great light-bulb moments, especially the transformational ones, rely on someone turning inspiration into innovation.

    Before becoming an MP, I spent almost 30 years in business and largely in tech, so it’s a real pleasure for me to be with you here today.

    I spent many years in the financial sector, where among other things I worked on the development of digital payments, to power ecommerce and mcommerce – remember them.

    And I got to see life-changing innovation in action.

    Back then, when you bought a new TV you got out a simple, magstripe credit card; if you wanted to book a family holiday, you queued up at a travel agents.

    I was part of a coalition of banks and mastercard that developed early digital payments using chip and pin technology which was a retail game changer at the time.

    Like many in this room, I’ve seen some incredible tech transformations during my business career. I’ve seen innovation come to life and disrupt whole industries. And I’ve learnt many things along the journey.

    First, you can’t innovate if you haven’t got the basics right;

    Second, you need to know what problems you are solving and not cause new ones;

    And third, what sounds far-fetched now will be commonplace in a couple of years. Tech moves fast.

    These lessons have served me well, and I think we have a lot to learn in education, which has often lagged in tech adoption.

    Let’s look at the basics.

    Top of the list is connectivity. I almost said ‘obviously’. But I guess it can’t be that obvious if some schools are still battling glacial broadband speeds. Connectivity in schools, like everywhere, is a basic utility like water or electricity.

    We are delivering on the pledge made last year to enable all schools to connect to gigabit broadband by 2025.

    We’ve run the procurement for schools in the South West of England, and we’re working with schools across the North West, North East, and Yorkshire and Humber to get new fibre infrastructure.

    We’re also upgrading school WiFi networks that don’t meet our connectivity standards in the 55 Local Authorities where school outcomes are the weakest.

    We need to get the basics right.

    Which brings me on to my second point.

    I’m not the first Education Secretary to say that when it comes to tech, what schools need is stuff that just works, that solves a real problem.

    Tech that doesn’t work is an expensive and potentially dangerous mistake, and it’s one that schools cannot afford to make.

    That is why we are launching the latest set of technology standards. These will build on those published last year and will help schools to develop effective and safe strategies, including safeguarding pupils from potentially harmful and inappropriate material online.

    In September we will also be launching a pilot service in Blackpool and Portsmouth, both priority education investment areas, that will help schools meet standards, make the best use of their technology and plan more effectively for the future.

    We know for instance, that teachers still spend too much time on admin, lesson planning and marking.

    I know there are brilliant products out there to help and many schools use them. With many of the best nominated at the Bett awards this evening.

    I’m also glad to see so many innovative maths tools represented.

    I want to make it easier for schools and colleges to know what works – so we need to see evidence about what your products can do in the real world.

    Which brings me to my third and final point – the game changer.

    Artificial Intelligence.

    I know the education sector, like many, has had its fair share of false dawns when it comes to technology. In some places, really effective and integrated use of tech is making a difference already, but the tasks that really drive workload – things like planning, marking and giving 1-2-1 support to pupils – remain largely unchanged.

    AI will have the power to transform a teacher’s day-to-day work. We’ve seen people using it to write lesson plans, and some interesting experiments around marking too.

    Can it do those things now, to the standard we need? No. Should the time it saves ever come at the cost of the quality produced by a skilled teacher? Absolutely not.

    But could we get to a point where the tasks that really drain teachers’ time are significantly reduced? I think we will.

    Getting to that point is a journey we in this room can go on together – and just as we’ve responded to other innovations like the calculator and Google, we’ll use technology to deliver better outcomes for students.

    We will empower you and support you to try things, to see what works, and you must do the same for each other, by working together.

    We have kicked off that journey today by publishing a statement on the DfE’s website that says a bit more about the opportunities, as well as the risks, that AI brings to education.

    I’m genuinely excited about driving this forward with sector experts including regulators, educators, researchers and the tech sector.

    This is part of the government’s pro-innovation approach to AI regulation, as evidenced by our AI White Paper and the launch of a Foundation Model Taskforce, which will also consider UK domestic capability in this important technology.

    My hope is that quite soon I’ll be able to tell you more about how we can establish a plan for getting the most out of AI in education, as well as protecting against the risks.

    Tech is a tool, and it’s one that schools haven’t yet managed to get the most out of, but it can’t be the tail that wags the dog.

    We have to look at others’ best practice – whether that be Estonia’s integrated education data, or South Korea’s exemplary leadership in AI transition. It is great to see so many of you from overseas here today to do that, and to have met some of you earlier. But we must also lead with our own best practice.

    We’ve already done it in banking, we’ve already done it in travel. We’ve done it in retail, in music, in entertainment. We cannot wait a moment longer to do it in education. I know I’m preaching to the converted here and lots of you are already on this journey

    There’s a great quote by the late Steve Jobs, who once said: “The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.” This is what great innovators do and I know this country’s schools, colleges and universities can be a beacon for innovation that will transform education.

    Thank you.

  • Michelle Donelan – 2023 Speech at the Lord Mayor’s Innovation and Technology Dinner

    Michelle Donelan – 2023 Speech at the Lord Mayor’s Innovation and Technology Dinner

    The speech made by Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, at the Mansion House in the City of London on 29 March 2023.

    The last year has been a year of firsts for technology in the UK.

    For the first time, our tech sector joined China and the USA, as the only countries in the world worth over one trillion dollars.

    The government acquired its very first quantum computer.

    And I am here tonight as our country’s first Technology Secretary.

    But tonight’s event is reassuringly not one of those firsts.

    Nearly 150 years ago, 300 of the country’s best inventors, scientists and technology experts had a dinner just like this at Mansion House.

    They discussed the future of science and technology, wondering what incredible opportunities might be around the corner.

    They sat where we are sitting this evening, before the lightbulb had even been invented, and helped to start a technology revolution that went beyond anything any single one of them could have imagined.

    The next day, the Morning Post described the dinner as a turning point for the United Kingdom – ushering in the age of science and technology.

    Now while I hope we all go away this evening with a renewed sense of optimism for the future, our generations’ technological turning point is not happening in a single dining hall.

    It is happening in cities, towns and villages where the next generation of coders and software engineers are innovating from their own living rooms.

    It is happening in shared office spaces where Britain’s brightest and best are collaborating.

    It is happening in our public services, where our NHS, transport system and military are gradually becoming hotbeds of innovation.

    Our technology revolution is more democratic, open and inclusive than ever before.

    Listening to industry, following the evidence and focusing on outcomes – is the approach that drove many of those here tonight to success,

    And it is the approach that I and my new Department are taking.

    This evening, I want to talk about three of my priorities to drive this incredible culture of entrepreneurialism and creativity forward, and how we are going to solidify this country as a Science and Tech Superpower by the end of this decade.

    At the heart of that mission is going to be scaleups.

    The UK digital sector is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy.

    We are home to over 85,000 tech startups and scale ups, providing over 3 million jobs.

    But it is about more than pounds and pence.

    When we create the right conditions to allow tech businesses to scaleup and grow, it doesn’t just create jobs and grow the economy it advances our way of life:

    Hospitals get next generation, lifesaving equipment.

    Public transport becomes safer, faster and cheaper.

    The police and emergency services become more effective and efficient.

    For people up and down the country, scaling up tech businesses of the future will produce the types of technological breakthroughs that allow us all to live longer, happier, healthier and smarter.

    But there is no magic formula.

    For some businesses, scaleup will require access to the right kind of capital investment.

    Others may need to plug into a cluster or an ecosystem in a local area.

    And many simply need a combination of things like skills, finance, partner organisations and access to new technologies like quantum or supercomputers.

    In just 7 weeks of the department’s existence, we have listened to business and been delivering.

    From our £2.5 billion quantum package, to the UK becoming just one of a handful of countries on the planet building a £900 million exascale supercomputer – we are building the infrastructure that will act as the runway for new scaleups.

    But it is not just about public money.

    Investors and financial institutions are going to be crucial.

    For every pound the government invests in R&D right now, the private sector is investing about 2.

    That is why the Chancellor announced that we are supporting qualifying R&D intensive small businesses with £27 worth of support for every £100 of private expenditure.

    £1.8 billion over the next 5 years.

    It is no wonder then that the UK is attracting more investment into technology than France and Germany combined.

    And we are the Fintech capital of Europe attracting more investment last year than any country expect the US.

    And I am delighted that Ron Kalifa is here with us today, whose review into fintech has been crucial for capitalising on our competitive edge in a uniquely British area of expertise.

    Governments are often accused, of talking too much and acting too little.

    This government is not one of them.

    Instead, we are listening to what businesses and entrepreneurs are asking for … and delivering.

    To name just 2 of the new investments we have launched in less than 7 weeks…

    Our brand new Tech Missions Fund

    – which is backed by £250 million will help businesses scaleup in key technologies like quantum and bioengineering.

    I am also uplifting the UK Innovation and Science Seed Fund by a further £10 million to help scaleups attract private investment.

    This comes up top of quantum and supercomputing capabilities

    – which will fuel thousands of new scaleups across the country.

    These are just a handful of what will be a constant drumbeat, of action-focussed announcements you will see from me in the coming months.

    However, just as those sat here 150 years ago knew, the people in this room tonight know that innovators are our greatest asset.

    People, skills and talent are the lifeblood of our technology sector.

    I mentioned earlier that last year the UK became only the third country in the world with a tech sector worth over one trillion dollars.

    It is only the United States and China who have also passed that incredible milestone.

    What you may not have heard is how much those 3 countries owe to skills for their success.

    If you look behind the rankings, you find that each of these 3 countries understand the importance of skills.

    Just consider the fact that of the 25 highest ranking universities in the world, 22 of them are located in those 3 countries.

    And it is also no coincidence that those 3 countries also occupy 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the rankings for the number of academic publications per year, and between them produce more Nobel Prize winners than the rest of the world combined.

    However getting to a trillion dollar valuation is no accident – in each of these 3 cases it came about because the importance of skills was recognised.

    But as our Science and Technology Framework recently set out, we are not content to simply be a challenger nation to China and the United States.

    We want to become a genuine Science and Technology Superpower by 2030.

    In the 7 weeks since I became the Secretary of State, I made skills a key priority and have started to take decisive action…

    Working with the Department for Business and Trade we have started a Global Talent Network for AI to bring the best AI minds in the world to come and work in the UK.

    We’re pumping an extra £50 million into modernising our world class labs.

    And we’re doubling the number of AI PhD researchers.

    That’s what we’ve done in 7 weeks – imagine what we’ll have done in 7 months.

    However, the right skills and the right scaleup ecosystem won’t deliver results if we don’t have the right approach to regulation.

    Not only do regulations themselves need to be clear to interpret and simple to implement, but we have to have the right regulatory behaviour.

    Of course regulations need to be grounded in common-sense for people to understand their intention, but they also need to be agile enough to keep up with the pace of change, especially in areas like AI with a cohesive framework that all regulators can work to.

    And you will hear more this week when we launch the AI White Paper, because regulation must not stamp out innovation.

    Regulate to innovate is the culture I am bringing to my new department.

    Just take data – it is the foundation for innovation across science and technology.

    Once again, rather than simply diagnose the problem, my department is getting stuck in with the solution.

    We launched a co-design process with businesses on data, some of whom will be here tonight, to create a new, bespoke and simplified version of GDPR for the UK.

    UK GDPR, will build on the strengths of EU GDPR, while ensuring that we maintain our adequacy status to allow businesses to trade and share data across Europe safely.

    To be clear it won’t mean companies trading with the EU will have to run 2 systems, because companies operating on EU GDPR will largely comply with our system automatically with some minor changes like a requirement for a complaints system.

    UK GDPR will however be simpler and easier to follow – avoiding the behaviour we often currently see where companies can become data adverse.

    Talking of regulation – a few weeks ago we published our Science and Technology Framework document, one of the 10 points is dedicated to regulations and standards– setting out a pro-growth, pro-innovation and pro-business approach.

    It also provides business with the government’s long term strategic direction needed to provide clarity, stability and confidence.

    This will be backed up by our soon to be published AI White Paper, which sets the UK apart in AI by ensuring that agility and innovation come first.

    And just the other week, we announced in the government’s response to the Vallance Review that we will be accepting all recommendations starting with the creation of an AI sandbox.

    We agree the government should avoid regulating emerging digital technologies too early, to avoid the risk of stifling innovation.

    Before I hand over to the Brian McBride,

    I want to leave you all with one thought for the coming year.

    Whether you are a captain of industry or a young entrepreneur, we want to work with you to achieve our goal to become a Science and Technology superpower.

    But be in no doubt, we are not chasing that title for status or glory.

    Being a Science and Technology Superpower is not about records, rankings or awards.

    I will be measuring our success by the things that matter to real people.

    When all is said and done, access to technology is often the difference between living comfortably… and having to live with hardship.

    It is the difference between having a job that is fulfilling and meaningful… and simply working to survive.

    Very often, it is the difference between losing a loved one prematurely… and having them here with us.

    I want our generation’s technology revolution to change everyone’s lives for the better in ways they can see and feel around them.

    If we can achieve that, then we will truly be a Science and Technology Superpower.

    Thank you once again.

  • Kieran Mullan – 2023 Speech on the Firearms Bill

    Kieran Mullan – 2023 Speech on the Firearms Bill

    The speech made by Kieran Mullan, the Conservative MP for Crewe and Nantwich, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2023.

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

    It is a privilege for me to move the Bill’s Third Reading, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), following its recent consideration in Committee.

    The UK has some of the toughest gun controls in the world, and robust licensing controls are key to keeping the public safe. Firearms deaths or serious injuries are relatively rare, but the consequences of firearms in the wrong hands can be devastating. That is why we keep our controls under constant review to safeguard against firearms falling into the hands of criminals, terrorists and other individuals who might put public safety at risk, while ensuring that legitimate firearms users can participate in shooting safely, through an effective licensing system.

    The Bill will help to further strengthen the controls by addressing two vulnerabilities that could be exploited by criminals, terrorists and others with a malicious intent. Clause 1 deals with controls on miniature rifle ranges. It would be fair to say that the current exemption in law for miniature rifle ranges is a lesser-known area of firearms law, but it is none the less extremely important that we improve the legislative regulation relating to them. Section 11(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 at present allows a person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range or shooting gallery at which only miniature rifles and ammunition not exceeding .23-inch calibre or air weapons are used to purchase, acquire or possess miniature rifles or ammunition without a firearm certificate. Additionally, a person can use these rifles and ammunition at such a range without a certificate. Although the term “miniature rifle” is used in the legislation, the firearms this applies to are lethal guns that are otherwise subject to the requirement for the holder to apply for a certificate in order to possess them.

    The existing exemption in section 11(4) of the 1968 Act means that a person can purchase firearms and operate a miniature rifle range, at which others can shoot, without a certificate and therefore without having undergone the usual stringent police checks on a person’s suitability and assessment of how they will store and use the firearms safely. The police and others have raised concerns that the exemption is a loophole in firearms law that is vulnerable to abuse by criminals or terrorists seeking to access firearms and sidestep the usual robust checks carried out by the police.

    Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)

    My hon. Friend is making a compelling case, and I entirely support the Bill’s aim in tackling crime, closing those loopholes and increasing public safety. However, will he give further reassurance that this Bill, through targeting these loopholes, will not have an undue impact on those who collect such rifles for historical and ornamental purposes, not for shooting? Will he confirm that it will not put too much of a burden on such people, who already go through checks? This issue has been raised by a constituent who is a collector of such weapons.

    Dr Mullan

    I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question. His remarks are particularly pertinent to clause 2, on ammunition components and parts of guns that people might own, whether they are miniature rifles or not. I assure him that that element of the law focuses on the person’s intent, as I will come on to describe. If a person has reasonable grounds for having the components of ammunition, and it is clear to the police that they have no malicious or untoward intent, they will be okay.

    As I say, the miniature rifle range exemption has been in existence for many years, and is used extensively by small-bore rifle clubs to introduce newcomers to sport shooting. It is used by some schools and colleges, activity centres offering targeted shooting, at game fairs, and in a number of other legitimate environments. Many of those would be severely affected if the exemption were removed entirely, which was never the intention. If it were removed, clubs could no longer enable newcomers to try out target shooting in a safe, controlled way. In recognition of this, the Bill preserves the benefits of the miniature rifle range exemption, while bringing in appropriate controls by making it a requirement that the rifle range operator be granted a firearm certificate by the police, having undergone all the necessary checks as to suitability, security and good reason.

    The Bill also more tightly defines what may be considered a miniature rifle. It restricts the definition to .22-inch rimfire guns, which are lower-powered rifles. There is concern that the definition in current legislation—

    “not exceeding .23 inch calibre”—

    could allow the use of more powerful firearms that would not be suitable for use on a miniature rifle range by an uncertified person, even when the necessary supervision and safety measures are in place.

    The second firearms measure in the Bill is the measure on ammunition, which will help the police to tackle unlawful manufacture of ammunition by introducing a new offence of possessing its component parts with an intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of complete ammunition. The police have raised concerns that the component parts of ammunition are too easy to obtain, and are being used by criminals to manufacture whole rounds of ammunition.

    Mr French

    My hon. Friend is making a really passionate speech. He has picked up on some interesting distinctions between what will be in the Bill and what will not. Could he please outline what guidance there will be for the police, who will have to enforce the measures, on these clear distinctions in the law?

    Dr Mullan

    Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I welcome the opportunity to clarify that, as he says, the police will have to make new and different decisions in enforcing this legislation. I am pleased to say that a new training and quality assurance package for police firearm licensing teams is being developed, which will contribute to their being able to make those decisions in a reliable and effective way.

    It might be helpful if I briefly explained what the components of ammunition are, and how they go together to make a round of ammunition. The components are the gunpowder, used to propel a projectile from a firearm; the primer, which is an explosive compound that ignites the gunpowder, projectile or bullet; and the cartridge case. There are already controls on primers in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Section 35 of that Act makes it an offence to sell or purchase primers unless the purchaser is authorised to possess them—for example, by being a registered firearms dealer, or by holding a firearm certificate authorising them to possess ammunition for a firearm.

    Controls on the possession of gunpowder are set out in the Explosives Regulations 2014, which state that with certain exceptions, anyone wanting to acquire or keep explosives must hold an explosives certificate issued by the police. The projectiles or bullets and the cartridge case are constructed of inert material, and are not controlled. Frankly, given the nature of those two components and the quantities in which they are made, it would be difficult to control their possession, and there is no wish to do so.

    The present situation can make the prosecution of certain cases by the police difficult. Where there is intent to produce ammunition unlawfully, the police may be unable to progress with certain criminal cases if the materials found are not controlled. In view of those concerns, the firearms safety consultation sought views on whether controls on component parts of ammunition remained sufficient, or whether they should be strengthened by making it an offence to possess component parts with intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of ammunition. As I say, intent is vital. A majority of respondents—62% —agreed or strongly agreed that possession of component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacturer unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition should be made an offence.

    Assembly of ammunition requires use of the various component parts, including the restricted and unrestricted components. The new offence will better enable the police to prosecute criminals who are manufacturing ammunition, including in cases in which only some of the component parts are present, provided that intent is shown. It will be a significant step forward in helping the police to tackle gun crime.

    This is a small but important Bill. Events such as those in Keyham in August 2021, on Skye in August 2022 and more recently at Epsom College are clear reminders that we cannot afford to be complacent about the risks that firearms present. The Bill will address two identified vulnerabilities in this country’s firearms controls, and it is right that we take action to address them. I very much appreciate the support that it has so far received; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West feels the same. I commend the Bill to the House.