UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Liam Byrne – 2025 Speech on the UK-EU Summit

    Liam Byrne – 2025 Speech on the UK-EU Summit

    The speech made by Liam Byrne, the Labour MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    I rise to speak to the House today on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee on our sixth report—a road map for the EU reset. I hope you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for using this moment to share my profound thanks to the members of the Committee, who are both diligent and hard-working.

    From our earliest days together as a Committee, it was clear to us all that our relationship with the European Union had been trapped in the logic of the past, and that although not all of that past was bitter, the present was clearly unsatisfactory, and the future could be richer if we collectively chose to reset that relationship with more ambition. That, we sensed, was also the analysis of His Majesty’s Government. We asked ourselves what could be done to move this relationship forward—not distracted by fantasy, but informed with a real, hard-headed and pragmatic focus.

    We travelled to Brussels, Belfast and Geneva. We listened to businesses, trade unions, diplomats and officials in the European Commission. We looked at border posts, trade barriers and, I am afraid to say, an awful lot of lost opportunities. We asked one simple question: how can we make these arrangements better? We sought not to reopen old wounds, but to open new doors.

    What surprised us was that it was not difficult to find 21 different ways in which our relationship with the European Union could be reset in a manner that would make our country richer—with steps that would support our security, deepen our energy ties, and cut the red tape that is throttling trade with the EU. These were not abstract aspirations. They were grounded, practical and deliverable, and they were supported by an overwhelming coalition of business groups that we met. In short, the proposals we presented were backed by business, because they were good for business and therefore good for our country.

    We divided the work into three ambitions: first, to defend our prosperity; secondly, to defend and advance energy co-operation; and, thirdly, to cut the red tape strangling trade at the border.

    On security, we proposed a bold new partnership: a joint defence industrial policy, a framework for protecting critical national infrastructure and stronger co-ordination to tackle economic crime. We called for closer co-operation at the World Trade Organisation, including UK participation in the new dispute resolution procedures, because a rules-based order is not just idealism; for us it is insurance. On energy, we saw something extraordinary: an opportunity to unlock the potential of the North sea as the world’s biggest green energy power station. That vision demanded that we come together with the EU to create a single carbon border adjustment mechanism and to connect, again, electricity trading and emissions trading. That could add up to a faster and cheaper path to net zero for both us and our European neighbours.

    On trade, we welcomed the Government’s ambition for a deep sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and, indeed, a fair fisheries deal, but we pressed for some specifics: mutual recognition of alternative economic operator schemes; bilateral waivers for safety and security declarations; co-operation around roll-on, roll-off ferries; rejoining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention; mutual recognition of conformity assessments; and a long-term road map for compatible regulation.

    On services, we urged His Majesty’s Government to strike a new data adequacy agreement, pursue deeper co-operation on financial services, ensure UK access to Horizon Europe framework programme 10, sort out a new road map for mutual recognition of professional qualifications, reduce the barriers for touring artists, and implement a visa-based, number-capped, age-capped youth experience scheme.

    We published our draft report to test it. The response was overwhelming, with support levels of between 80% and 90% for the measures that we proposed. Businesses said, “This is what we need, because it will unlock growth, create jobs and raise wages.”

    On Monday, we saw some signs that the Government had listened. We were glad to see progress on security, defence, electricity trading and emissions alignment. There was a new security and defence pact. There was useful language on critical national infrastructure. There was a welcome step towards joining electricity and carbon markets together. There was, however, also much left in the to-do pile. There was no iron-clad commitment to a shared defence industrial policy and there was too little progress on law enforcement co-operation. There was silence on WTO co-operation, although I acknowledge that may come in the trade strategy when it is published. We also thought that there could have been more on financial services co-operation, data adequacy and mutual recognition of conformity assessments.

    This is a deal without a date—a handshake, but not yet a contract. None the less, it was an important start. After years of drift and division, this was the first time since Brexit that, collectively, we had the chance to stop digging ditches of grievance and start rebuilding some bridges of co-operation. This was a step forward, but it was only a step. What comes next must be really clear. We must now have a timetable for drawing up, finalising and implementing these agreements. There should be action to take forward the unfinished business, which we have set out in this report. Crucially, we think there should be a bigger role for Parliament, because Parliament should not be a bystander while our future is forged.

    Let us not retreat into nostalgia. Let us work pragmatically together in the national interest, because that is how futures are built. We are at our best in this Parliament when we choose to lead, and that is exactly what this relationship now needs. I commend to the House this report and its call to action.

    Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that consistency and clarity are exactly what businesses require to grow and thrive? That is why the Government should consider the report’s recommendation to consult with industry on rejoining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. PEM membership could support tariff-free trade, simplify rules of origin and reduce trade barriers for key sectors such as automotive, manufacturing, chemicals and food production. By joining PEM, British business would expand its preferential market access to 25 countries, thereby strengthening supply chains and boosting the competitiveness of British exports.

    Liam Byrne

    My hon. Friend made that point repeatedly during the Committee’s deliberations. What has been especially welcome is how she consistently brings the perspective of local businesses in her Dudley constituency —the home of the industrial revolution, as we all know. She is right that, subject to consultation, in particular around the implications for the electric vehicle industry, rejoining the PEM convention could deliver us some rules of origin that would radically cut red tape for many businesses in her constituency and across our country. Frankly, it would also lower costs at a time when that is much needed.

    Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their extensive piece of work and for the report he has presented today. He mentions the wide range of different asks that the UK Government had and that he recommended that they pursue. Does he agree that it is disappointing that out of the areas that the UK wanted to achieve agreement on, movement for touring artists and participation in EU defence spending are left unagreed, while the UK Government seem to have agreed on and traded one of our most valuable areas in the negotiation: access to our fishing grounds?

    Liam Byrne

    The hon. Lady will know, as I do, that although fisheries and the fishing industry constitutes quite a small part of our economy—about 0.04% of GDP—for many coastal communities it is a vital industry. Nevertheless, we felt—I certainly did—that the prize of an SPS agreement, which could be worth a huge boost of up to £3 billion to £4 billion a year according to Aston University and that allows for shellfish exports to the European market, was potentially a prize was worth having.

    However, the hon. Lady is right to say that the biggest concern that we should have had was defence industrial co-operation. We cannot defend Europe in the way that we should, and we cannot spend the increases in our defence spending in the way that we should, unless we reorganise Europe’s fragmented defence industrial base. We cannot be stronger together unless we build that shared defence base together. I very much hope that we will hear of progress on that in the strategic defence review and the national security review when those strategies are presented to Parliament before the summer recess.

    Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)

    Our Committee’s report covered how we can help agrifood businesses export to the EU, and I was delighted to see Salmon Scotland and the National Farmers Union Scotland come out in support of the deal this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was baffling to see the SNP stand with Reform and the Tories in opposition to the deal?

    Liam Byrne

    The consensus when we published the draft of our report was overwhelming, and the measures we proposed were backed by an enormous majority of business groups across the country, including groups across Scotland. What business saw was a practical, hard-headed, common-sense set of recommendations that should be supported by not only the Government but those in public life across our country.

    Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)

    I thank the right hon. Member for his leadership and hard work on the Committee. I welcome the move this week, and the set of aspirational statements of intent that go in the right direction. That is great, but does he agree that we should focus on the big stuff? Proportionately, the deal with India will get us 0.1% of GDP growth by 2040 and the American pact takes us to a position that is worse than where we were six months ago, so Europe is where it is at. Europe represents 45% of our trade versus 12% with the US, but of the beneficial 21 recommendations that the Committee set out, maybe five or six have been hit. The key thing is to go for the big stuff, such as being back inside the customs union. That would make a big difference.

    Liam Byrne

    The report could not have been as well written or as strong and robust in its recommendations without the hon. Member’s input. We are grateful for the hard work he put into getting the report right. As he knows, a bespoke customs union was not a proposal we made, perhaps because it would not necessarily have swept up the Committee in unanimity. What is striking is that the measures set out in the report would have been significant enough to offset the economic damage we will suffer because of the tariffs introduced by President Trump. The hon. Member is right that in economic matters it is always wise to focus on the big numbers, and the big numbers in trade come from a better, closer, stronger relationship with the European Union.

    Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his report and his stewardship of the Committee. My inbox was full of emails from local businesses in Redditch, relieved that after years of hesitation and no progress we are finally in a dialogue with the EU about improving access for businesses. Does he agree that, as the report states, by continuously speaking to the EU we can finally start getting rid of the red tape, as was promised to businesses by many on the pro-Brexit side, and get proper access to the markets that world-leading companies in Redditch really should be able to access freely?

    Liam Byrne

    My hon. Friend has consistently been a strong voice for the business community in Redditch since he joined us in the House. He is right that what has been lacking for a long time in the relationship with the European Union is the kinetic energy required to drive any bureaucracy forward.

    A number of working groups were set up because of the trade and co-operation agreement. In a cross-party spirit, I should say it is important to note that the mood in Brussels changed significantly under the last Prime Minister, with the progress made in the Windsor framework. However, unless significant amounts of political attention and energy are invested, things will not move forward, and there is still a long way to go. The Committee has set out in the report where some of that progress still needs to happen, but ultimately politics is what changes things. I hope that the political energy that went into Monday can be sustained for the future.

    John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman, whose tremendously adroit chairmanship of the Committee has allowed a lot of cross-party working, which has been really refreshing and very good. This is a moment of regret: the Committee did flag up how fragile coastal communities could be damaged badly by a multi-year deal on fishing, and the 12-year deal is beyond anything anybody imagined. It will hammer fragile communities right across Britain, and particularly in Scotland; that is unfortunate. Does he agree that achieving an SPS deal must be balanced with the deals with India, America and so forth that are coming down the tracks—I am sure the Committee will look at this—and that we must have due care for ensuring that the Brexit freedoms that allow us to strike those deals are not damaged?

    Liam Byrne

    The hon. Gentleman is right. As we were composing the report for the House over the last few weeks, he consistently underlined the risks that coastal communities would confront if the deal were to go the wrong way. We are all incredibly grateful to him for the voice he provided

    We must ensure that we enshrine certain standards that allow us to draw closer to Europe without compromising the alliances already coming into place and those that we still need to strike in order to restore our role as the great free trading nation on this planet. The way in which the Government seek to tessellate the agreement with the trade deal with the United States, with our leadership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, with the deal with India and with the deals that are still to come with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Korea and Switzerland needs to be very carefully balanced. It looks like the Government have just about got it right. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will want our Committee to keep an extremely close eye on that as the trade talks proceed.

    James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for this excellent report that is rooted in pragmatism and practical steps, which I know my constituents welcome. He has highlighted a gap—as he sees it, it is a first step —and there is a lot more to do. Will his Committee undertake to monitor the gap between what the Government have committed to and where he would like the Government to be, and will he and his Committee continue to make recommendations to the Government?

    Liam Byrne

    My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The good news for the Minister is that he now has the scrutiny framework in front of him that the Committee will use to judge the progress that he makes over the course of this Parliament. There is a moment that is still to come for this Parliament, however. At some point—we are not quite sure when—scrubbed treaties will need to be laid in this House. This House will then enjoy the grand total of 21 days during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process in which to scrutinise them. That is not very long. The Committee has therefore decided this week that we will open inquiries on the EU, India and United States deals. We will seek to hold hearings on each of those trade deals before the summer so that the House can be as well informed as possible when the CRaG process begins, and we can zero in on the issues that are at stake for our constituents.

    Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)

    I am grateful to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee for this thorough set of proposals, and especially for the call for a greater role for Parliament. The Committee red, amber and green-rated its 20 proposals and marked as green the UK-EU security pact. Yet the Prime Minister’s spokesman admitted:

    “This is a first step towards UK participation in Europe’s defence investment progression”

    and went on to say that it merely

    “opens the door towards joint procurement.”

    Will the Committee Chair acknowledge how much more there is to do before this amounts to a shared defence industrial base?

    Liam Byrne

    The hon. Member is absolutely right. He knows, because of the extraordinary record of service that he brings to this House, that there is an immense amount of work that we still need to do to conquer the inefficiencies and fragmentation of the European defence industrial base. We cannot spend the money that we propose to spend on defence wisely unless we change the way that we procure military equipment. On the one hand, that will provide greater certainty and long-term contracts to defence suppliers and, on the other, it will help ensure that we are building an innovative ecosystem of funding to help smaller, innovative, nimble and agile suppliers of weaponry to come forward in the way that they can to ensure that the lessons that we have learned on the battlefields of Ukraine inform our military strategy in future.

    If there is one lesson that we have learned, it is that any warfighting capability depends on the strength of our defence industrial base. Quite obviously, today’s defence industrial base in Europe is not in the right place, and together with our partners we have to work hard on that. I hope that the strategic defence review will set out some practical steps for how we will do that together with our allies in Europe.

    Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)

    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement and on the work of his Committee. Clearly, renewable energy is an important part of our relationship with the European Union. What opportunity did his Committee have to examine that and the trade of energy between the UK and the European Union, particularly in the light of the possibility in the near future of an interconnector between Morocco and the UK by way of the UK-Morocco Power Project, or Xlinks? He may know that if the UK does not greenlight that in the near future, other European countries certainly will.

    Liam Byrne

    The right hon. Member is absolutely right to say that Morocco is a country that we should work more closely with. Xlinks is an exciting proposal. As a stable, long-term partner to Europe, Morocco is a country with which we have a shared interest in the future.

    The perspective that we brought to the question was on how we can ensure a faster, cheaper and less risky path to net zero for us and for Europe. We heard striking evidence from many in the electricity and energy sectors about almost the thoughtless way that we had been disconnected from electricity trading schemes. What really worried us in the near term was that, given different carbon prices in the UK and Europe, if Europe introduced a carbon border adjustment mechanism, and we did a little later on, almost a tariff wall would be created.

    We think the Government have done well in seizing that win-win, but that is not to take anything away from the logic and force of the hon. Member’s remarks. Ultimately, we will need several big infrastructure initiatives if we are to do what we all know needs to be done in this country: to drive down industrial electricity prices.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2025 Speech on the Independent Sentencing Review

    Robert Jenrick – 2025 Speech on the Independent Sentencing Review

    The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    Today is about one question: should violent and prolific criminals be on the streets or behind bars? I think they should be behind bars. For all the Justice Secretary’s rhetoric, the substance of her statement could not be clearer: she is okay and her party is okay with criminals terrorising our streets and tormenting our country. The truth is this: any Government—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I thought people had come to listen to the statement and I expect them to listen. I expected the Opposition Front Bench to be quiet; I certainly expect better from the Government Front Bench.

    Robert Jenrick

    Mr Speaker, the truth is this: any Government serious about keeping violent criminals behind bars, any Government willing to do whatever it took, could obviously find and build the prison cells required to negate the need for these disastrous changes. What do the changes amount to? [Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Mr Swallow, you are getting very excited. You were telling me how good a schoolteacher you were; this is a very bad example of that.

    Robert Jenrick

    What do these changes amount to? They are a “get out of jail free” card for dangerous criminals. Has the Justice Secretary even gone through a court listing recently? Pick one from anywhere in our country: those currently going to jail for 12 months or less are not angels. They are Adam Gregory in Calne, who got 12 months for sexually assaulting his partner; Vinnie Nolan, who got 12 months for breaking someone’s jaw; Shaun Yardley, 10 months for beating his partner; or Paul Morris, who got six and a half months for shoplifting 36 times. Her plan is to let precisely these criminals loose. It is a recipe for a crime wave.

    What about the Justice Secretary’s plan for most criminals going to jail to serve just one third of their prison sentence there and for her slashing of sentences across the board—discounts so big they would make Aldi and Lidl blush? I would call it a joke if the consequences for the public were not so terrifying. In fact it gets worse, because criminals who plead guilty—and most do—already get a third cut in their sentence, so under her scheme a burglar who pleads guilty to an 18-month headline term would spend just one fifth of that term in jail—barely 11 weeks. Eleven weeks for smashing through a family’s door and storming through a child’s bedroom looking for valuables, leaving them traumatised for life. Is that the Justice Secretary’s idea of justice for victims? The least she could do is here and now guarantee that violent criminals, domestic abusers, stalkers and sexual assaulters will not be eligible for any discount in their sentence. Will she commit to that?

    If not prison, what is the plan to punish these criminals and to keep the public safe? Well, the Justice Secretary says it is digital prisons—as she puts it, prison outside of prison, words that lead most people in this country to conclude that the Justice Secretary is out of her mind. I am all for technology but tags are not iron bars—they cannot stop your child being stabbed on their walk home from school, or a shop being ransacked time and again, or a domestic abuser returning to their victim’s front door.

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I do not think that “out of her mind” is language that should be used. I am sure the shadow Secretary of State would like to reflect on that.

    Robert Jenrick

    Of course, Mr Speaker.

    The Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme found that 71% of tagged offenders breached their curfew. When it comes to stopping reoffending, tags are about as useful as smoke alarms are at putting out bonfires. What is the Justice Secretary going to say when she meets the victims of offenders that she let off? How is she going to look them in the eye and say with a straight face, “I’m sorry—we are looking into how this criminal escaped from their digital prison cell.” Her reforms are a recipe for carnage.

    I urge the Justice Secretary to change course and to make different choices—yes, choices—from the ones that we knew the Government would make from the day that the Prime Minister hand-picked Lord Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, a man who is on record as saying that

    “a lot of people in prison…shouldn’t be there”—

    two thirds of them in fact, he said—

    “and they are there for far too long”.

    The Labour party is clearly ideologically opposed to prison and that is why the Government are letting criminals off with a “get out of jail free” card, rather than deporting the 10,800 foreign national offenders in our prisons—one in every eight cells—a figure that is rising under the Justice Secretary’s watch. If she is actually serious about keeping violent criminals off our streets and finding the cells that are needed, will she bring forward legislation, tomorrow, and disapply the Human Rights Act 1998, which is stopping us from swiftly deporting foreign national offenders?

    Some 17,800 prisoners are on remand awaiting trial—another figure that has risen under the Justice Secretary. In fact, her own Department’s figures forecast that it could rise to as many as 23,600. If she is serious, will she commit to taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s request for extra court sitting days to hear those cases and free up prison spaces? Will she commit, here and now, to building more than the meagre 250 rapid deployment cells her prison capacity strategy says she is planning to build this year? They have been built in seven months before, and they can be built even faster.

    If the Justice Secretary were serious, she would commit to striking deals with the 14 European countries with spare prison capacity, renting their cells from them at an affordable price, as Denmark is doing with Kosovo. Between 1993 and 1996, her beloved Texas, the state on which she modelled these reforms—a state that, by the way, has an incarceration rate five times higher than that of the United Kingdom—built 75,000 extra cells. If the Government were serious, why can they not build 10,000 over a similar time period?

    Labour is not serious about keeping hyper-prolific offenders behind bars. In fact, there is nothing in the Justice Secretary’s statement on locking them up or cutting crime, because the Labour party does not believe in punishing criminals and it does not really believe in prison. The radical, terrible changes made today are cloaked in necessity, but their root is Labour’s ideology. It is the public who will be paying the price for her weakness.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The shadow Secretary of State talks about serious Government—if the Government that he was a part of had ever been serious, they would have built more than 500 prison places in 14 years in office—[Interruption.] He is a new convert to the prison-building cause. He and his party have never stood up in this Chamber and apologised for adding only 500 places—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I want the same respect from Members on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] Do we understand each other?

    Robert Jenrick indicated assent.

    Shabana Mahmood

    Mr Speaker, if I were waiting for respect from Opposition Members, I would be waiting for a long time, so it is a good job that I do not need it.

    The shadow Secretary of State talks about “iron bars”, but he was part of a Government that did not build the prison places that this country needs. Unlike him, I take responsibility, and it has fallen to me to clean up the mess that he and his party left behind. In case there is any confusion, let me spell out what happens when he and his party leave our prison system on the brink of collapse, which is exactly what they did, and set out the prospect that faced me on day one, when I walked into the Justice Department. When prisons are on the verge of collapse, we basically have only two choices left at our disposal: either we shut the front door, or we have to open the back door. The right hon. Gentleman’s party knew that that was the situation it was confronted with, but did it make any decisions? No, it just decided to call an election instead and did a runner.

    The public put the Conservatives in their current position. If they ever want to get out of that position, I suggest that they start by reckoning with the reality of their own track record in office. In any other reality, they should have started already with an apology. Conservative Members have had many chances to apologise to the country for leaving our prisons on the point of absolute collapse, but they have never taken them. Frankly, that tells us everything that anyone needs to know about the modern Conservative party.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Sentencing Review

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Sentencing Review

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, the independent sentencing review was published today. It was chaired by David Gauke and his panel comprised experts, including a former Lord Chief Justice, and representatives from the police, prisons, probation and victims’ rights organisations. The Government are grateful for the review’s recommendations, and I will ensure that a copy is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Today, I will set out our in-principle response.

    First, however, it is essential that we set the review in its proper context. A year ago today, the Conservative party called an election. They did so because they were confronted by the prospect of prisons about to collapse. Rather than confront their failure, they chose to hide it and hoodwink the public into re-electing them. It did not work, but their legacy lives on.

    Our prisons are, once again, running out of space and it is vital that the implications are understood. If our prisons collapse, courts are forced to suspend trials, the police must halt their arrests, crime goes unpunished, criminals run amok and chaos reigns. We face the breakdown of law and order in this country. It is shameful that, in this day and age, we are confronted by this crisis once more. The reasons are clear. The last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate, while at the same time, sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and we are heading back towards zero capacity. It now falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis. That starts by building prisons.

    Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 places. Last week, I announced an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031, in the largest expansion since the Victorian era. That investment is necessary, but not sufficient. We cannot build our way out of this crisis. Despite building as quickly as we can, demand for places will outstrip supply by 9,500 in early 2028, and that is why I commissioned the sentencing review. Its task was clear: this country must never run out of prison places again. There must always be space for dangerous offenders.

    At the same time, the review was tasked with addressing the fact that our prisons too often create better criminals, not better citizens. Instead of cutting crime, they are breeding grounds for it. The reviewers have followed the evidence and example of countries across the world. Today I present an initial response, with further detail to follow once legislation is placed before the House.

    Let me start with the report’s central recommendation: the move to a three-part sentence called the earned progression model, which the Government accept in principle. Under the model, an offender will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. That echoes the model I witnessed in Texas earlier this year, which cut crime and brought their prison population under control.

    Under the new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release will be one third, with additional days added for bad behaviour. The review suggests a new maximum of 50%, but for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit. For those currently serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release will be 50%. Again, for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit.

    David Gauke also suggests that those serving extended determinate sentences should also earn an earlier release. This we will not accept. Judges give extended sentences to those they consider dangerous, with no Parole Board hearing until two thirds of time served, and I will not change that. I can also confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences will be eligible for earlier release from prison.

    In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision. That will see more offenders tagged and close management from probation. The Government will therefore significantly increase funding: by the final year of the spending review period, an annual £1.6 billion will rise by up to £700 million, allowing us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders. If offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, the sentencing review has suggested that recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy in principle, though the precise details will be placed before the House when we legislate. In the final stage of the three-part sentence, offenders could still be recalled if a new offence is committed, and I will also ensure that the most serious offenders continue to be subject to strict conditions.

    The review also recommends a reduction in short prison sentences. A compelling case for doing so has been proposed in this House many times. In the most recent data, nearly 60% of those receiving a 12-month sentence reoffended within a year. With reoffending rates for community punishment consistently lower, we must ask ourselves whether alternative forms of punishment would make the public safer. It is important, however, to note that the review recommends a reduction in short sentences, not abolition. It is right that judges retain the discretion to hand them down in exceptional circumstances. In considering exceptional circumstances, we will continue to ensure that courts have access to thorough risk assessments for domestic abuse and stalking cases, and breaches of protective orders linked to violence against women and girls will be excluded.

    The review also recommends an extension of suspended sentences from two to three years. In this period, the prospect of prison time hangs over an offender should they break any conditions imposed upon them, and we accept that recommendation.

    The recommendations set out above will see more community punishment. For that reason, it is essential that it works. The review recommends a series of measures to make community punishment tougher and force offenders to pay back to those they have harmed. We will consider new financial penalties, which could see offenders’ assets seized, even if they are not knowingly linked to crime, and expanded use of punishments such as travel and driving bans that would curtail offenders’ liberty.

    We accept a recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. Those impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, that tackle the root causes of prolific offending. Offenders are brought before a judge regularly to monitor compliance, and the prospect of prison hangs over them like the sword of Damocles.

    However, I believe community punishment must be tougher still. Unpaid work must pay back, so I will shortly bring together business leaders to explore a model whereby offenders work for them, and the salary is paid not to the offender but towards the good of victims. I will also work with local authorities to determine how unpaid work teams could give back to their communities, whether by filling potholes or cleaning up rubbish.

    I invited David Gauke to consider cohorts of offenders who this Government believe require particular focus. I welcome his recommendations on female offenders. Approximately two thirds of female offenders receive short sentences. Around the same number are victims of domestic abusers. I am pleased to say that the review’s recommendation on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison.

    I asked David Gauke to consider how we tackle foreign national offenders. Today, our deportation rate is ahead of the last Government’s. I welcome the recommendations to make it quicker and easier to deport foreign criminals. Under the existing scheme, they are sent back to their country of origin after serving 50% of the custodial sentence. We will bring that down to 30%. We will also conduct further work with the Home Office on how we can deport foreign prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after their sentencing.

    I also asked the review to consider how we manage sex offenders. The review has recommended we continue a pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. I will go further, with a national roll-out beginning in two regions, covering 20 prisons. I am exploring whether mandating the approach is possible. Of course, it is vital that this approach is taken alongside psychological interventions that target other causes of offending, such as asserting power and control.

    When discussing sentencing, it is too easy to focus on how we punish offenders when we should talk more about victims. Everything I am announcing today is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. By cutting reoffending, we will have fewer victims in future, but there is more we must do to support victims today. The review recommends a number of important measures, including better identifying domestic abusers at sentencing, so that we can monitor and manage them more effectively. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned on this, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, where trained staff support victims. To improve transparency in the system, we will extend a pilot of free sentencing transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual offences.

    I want to go further than the review recommends to better support victims. Exclusion zones are an important tool, preventing offenders from entering areas their victims might be in, but these place greater limits on victims than on offenders. I want to change that, locking offenders down to specific locations so that victims know they are safe wherever else they want to go.

    This review sets out major reform. I know its recommendations will not be welcomed by all. By appointing David Gauke, a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, I hoped to show that two politicians from different traditions can agree on the reforms our justice system requires. I do not expect Conservative Members to join me to solve this crisis. In fact, I can hear their soundbites already. “Just build faster,” they will say. Well, we are building faster than they did: we have already added 2,400 places, and we are now investing £4.7 billion more. “Just deport more foreign criminals,” they will say. Well, we are ahead of where they were, and today we have accepted major reform to go further and faster. “Clear the courts backlog,” they will say despite having created it themselves. Well, we are investing more in our courts than they ever did, and we are ready to embrace once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims.

    While we are doing more on each of these areas than they ever did, these are not solutions that rise to the scale of the crisis that they left behind. We must build prisons on an historic scale, deport foreign national offenders faster than ever, and speed up our courts; and yet still, despite all that, we must reform sentencing too. So, more in hope than expectation, and despite, not because of, experience, by appealing to the better angels of their nature—if they have any—I end by inviting those opposite to help us fix the crisis that they left behind. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Catherine McKinnell – 2025 Statement on Teacher’s Pay

    Catherine McKinnell – 2025 Statement on Teacher’s Pay

    The statement made by Catherine McKinnell, the Minister for School Standards, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    May I start by thanking our teachers, school leaders and school staff for all they are doing right now to ensure a successful exam season for students, and indeed for all their hard work throughout the year?

    Rather than scaremongering with fantasy statistics, the Government are getting on and delivering. We are already seeing positive signs that our plan for change is working. Teacher recruitment is up, with 2,000 more people in training than last year. Teacher retention is up, with thousands more teachers forecast to stay in the profession over the next three years. This Labour Government are getting on and delivering. Unlike the Opposition, who last year sat on the STRB report, hid from their responsibility and left it to Labour to sort out, this afternoon we will announce the teachers’ pay award, which will be the earliest announcement for a decade.

    We understand the importance of giving schools certainty, giving them time to plan their budgets, and ensuring that they can recruit and retain the expert teachers our children need. The Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement will be coming out this afternoon—[Interruption.] It will show once again that this Labour Government—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I have granted the urgent question, so please will Members on the Opposition Front Bench wait for the Minister to finish her answer. I do not want you, Ms Trott and Mr O’Brien, to be a bad example of this school class.

    Catherine McKinnell

    The written ministerial statement is laid before the House and will be coming out this afternoon, showing once again that this Labour Government are getting on and delivering on our plan for change.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    Laura Trott

    Mr Speaker, this is absolutely outrageous. It is astonishing that we have had to summon the Government to the House today, but the Minister cannot even tell us what pay rise teachers will get and whether it is going to be funded. That does not allow us to scrutinise the matter in this House.

    The Government said that they would tax private schools to fund 6,500 more teachers, but the reality is that state schools have not got any of that money. Instead, we have had broken promises on compensating schools for the jobs tax, confirmation from the Department for Education itself that there will be a shortfall in teacher pay funding, which we are not allowed to discuss here today in this urgent question, and uncertainty as to what the actual pay rise for teachers will be. That is a disgrace, and it is the opposite of what people who voted for Labour expected.

    All that is in the final two weeks when headteachers up and down the country have to decide whether to make teachers redundant in time for September—in fact, sadly, many schools will already have made the difficult decision to let good teachers go. These are job losses on the Minister’s watch, due to her inability to provide schools with the clarity that they need. Do not just take my word for it. Dan Moynihan, from the Harris Federation, says that it proposes to make 40 to 45 teachers redundant. Jon Coles, the chief executive of United Learning, which runs 90 state sector academies, said that the trust has been left with £10.5 million a year of unfunded costs. He said:

    “It’s no good Treasury waving their hands and saying ‘efficiency’—that would be 400 job losses. Sector wide, that would extrapolate to ruinous harm in the one well-functioning public service: tens of thousands of redundancies.”

    Simon Pink, the finance director at the Elliot Foundation, which has 36 primaries, said:

    “This is the toughest budget…in a generation.”

    One secondary school headteacher has already had to cut two teaching assistant posts and a teacher role due to rising national insurance and anticipated wage rises.

    What is the pay rise that the Government recommend for teachers? The Prime Minister’s spokesman said on 28 April:

    “There’ll be no additional funding for pay.”

    Yesterday, the Government started to U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. Will the Minister now fully U-turn and fund the national insurance rise and agree to fully fund the pay increases, whatever they are?

    Catherine McKinnell

    Neither I nor any Minister in this Government will take lessons from Conservative Members, who, after 14 long years in power, had still not restored real-terms spending in our schools to the level that they inherited. The brass neck of the Opposition is quite extraordinary. Conservative Members would also do well to remember the difficult decisions that this Government have had to take because of the utter mess that they left behind. The right hon. Lady was in the Treasury, creating the mess—she knows very well what happened.

    Recruiting, retaining and supporting expert teachers is central to our vision for delivering high and rising standards in our schools. Despite the challenging financial context and years of missed recruitment targets under the previous Government, this Administration are prioritising education and ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality teacher. We are working at pace to ensure excellence for every child. That is why we remain committed to our manifesto pledge for 6,500 teachers and to ensuring that it responds to the demand in secondary schools, special schools and further education.

    We know that high-quality teaching is the in-school factor that has the biggest positive impact on a child’s outcomes, breaking down barriers to opportunity for every child, so recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers is clearly absolutely central to our vision for delivering high and rising standards. That is why, despite the challenging financial context and years of missed recruitment targets, we are getting on and delivering on our plan for change. The right hon. Lady will have to wait, like everybody else, for the statement that she knows is coming this afternoon.

  • Liz Kendall – 2025 Speech to the IPPR

    Liz Kendall – 2025 Speech to the IPPR

    The speech made by Liz Kendall, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, at the IPPR on 21 May 2025.

    I’m very grateful to my former employer IPPR for hosting us today.

    And to all of you for taking the time to come along.

    I’m especially grateful to Dominic for sharing his experiences, and I thought that was really important for us to hear today – about the benefits that work brings to you, the struggles you have faced and your ambitions and hopes for the future.

    I want to talk about the Government’s welfare reforms.

    How they will help transform people’s lives, as part of our Plan for Change.

    How they follow in the footsteps of the great reforming Labour governments of the past; rooted in our enduring values of fairness, equality and opportunity.

    How these reforms will help ensure our welfare state is sustainable for the future.

    And how I believe they are crucial to fighting the rise in populist politics, which offers easy but empty solutions to the people we came into politics to serve.

    Getting Britain Working is central to the Government’s Plan for Change.

    It is vital to delivering higher living standards in every part of Britain.

    And it is vital to achieving the number one mission of this Government, which is growing the economy.

    But Getting Britain Working is about so much more than this.

    It is about giving people the dignity and self-respect that we know good work brings.

    The purpose and belonging that Dominic spoke about so powerfully.

    It’s about improving the health of the nation, because we know good work is good for people’s mental and physical health – and can help reduce pressure on the NHS.

    And Getting Britain Working is critical to driving down child poverty and ensuring every child starts school ready to learn – perhaps the single most important step to transforming equality and opportunity in this country.

    And the scale and urgency of our task is there for all to see.

    Nearly 1 in 10 people of working age are now on at least one sickness or disability benefit.

    A near record 2.8 million people are out of work due to long-term sickness.

    1 million young people are not in education, employment or training – that’s more than 1 in 8 of our young people – with all the long-term consequences this brings for their future health, job prospects and earnings potential.

    And 300,000 people with health conditions are falling out of work every single year, piling up even greater problems for the future.

    And the result is millions of people who could work written off and denied the chance to build a better life, with all these challenges far worse in parts of the Midlands and the North, whose economies were decimated in the 1980s and 1990s when whole industries closed, and who have never been given the investment, support and opportunity they need to recover.

    And taxpayers have been left paying billions more on the cost of Conservative failure, with the benefits bill for sickness and disability up £20 billion since the pandemic and set to rise by a further £18 billion by the end of this Parliament, unless we change course.

    And the truth is, it doesn’t have to be this way.

    We are the only economy in the G7 whose employment rate still hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels.

    And spending on sickness and disability benefits in most other comparable countries is either stable or falling since the pandemic, yet ours continues to inexorably rise.

    There is nothing Labour about accepting the cost of this economic but, above all, social crisis, paid for in people’s life chances and living standards.

    And there is nothing inevitable about Britain’s future path, if we have the courage and conviction to act.

    We must start shifting so much spending on the costs of failure to investing in the jobs, skills and public services that people need to build a better life.

    And this requires leadership and it requires reform.

    Now the truth is welfare reform is never easy. And it is rarely popular.

    Perhaps especially for Labour governments.

    But no responsible Labour government can resile from taking decisions because they are too difficult.

    Because this is not good enough for the people we came into politics to serve.

    So we will reform the welfare state.

    Just as great reforming Labour governments have done in the past.

    Changing it to meet the social and demographic challenges of today and tomorrow, and delivering the fairness, equality and opportunity people need and deserve.

    Now we know change is possible, because we have done it before.

    Take the fight for women’s equality in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

    It was Labour women MPs and trade unionists who campaigned for and then legislated to transform opportunities for women.

    We changed the world of work – with rights to maternity pay.

    We invested in childcare – with the first ever national childcare strategy and thousands of Sure Start Children’s Centres.

    We delivered active employment support – with the groundbreaking New Deal for Lone Parents.

    Transforming women’s participation in the workforce, and their equality, independence and freedom through work.

    We must now bring the same focus, energy and commitment to doing the same for sick and disabled people.

    Reforming the welfare state to offer them the same rights and chances to work as anybody else.

    When the welfare state was created, average life expectancy was 65, and the most common cause of illness and death was infectious diseases and accidents.

    Now, average life expectancy is around 80. And 1 in 7 babies born today is likely to live to 100.

    Back then, disability was the exception. Now, 1 in 4 of us self-reports as disabled. And 1 in 3 of us will have a long-term health condition.

    But the welfare state has simply not kept pace with these changes.

    Our benefits system in particular forces too many sick and disabled people into a binary choice of can or can’t work – when we know many people’s physical and mental health conditions fluctuate, and many sick and disabled people want to, and need to, work.

    The system then writes people off, and traps them, without offering any help or support.

    The number of people on the health top up of Universal Credit is set to rise by 50 per cent to 3 million by the end of the decade.

    And the number of people on Personal Independence Payments is set to more than double to 4.3 million.

    There are now 1,000 new PIP awards every single day.

    That’s the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year.

    This is not sustainable or fair – for the people who need support and for taxpayers.

    So unless we reform the system to help those who can work to do so.

    Unless we get social security spending on a more sustainable footing.

    And unless we ensure public money is focused on those with the greatest need and is spent in ways that have the best chance of improving people’s lives.

    The risk is the welfare state won’t be there for people who really need it in future.

    That is why we are grasping the nettle of reform.

    Not for the sake of it, but to ensure the welfare state lasts for generations to come.

    Now we have already made huge strides in getting Britain working and growing again.

    We are improving the quality of work and making work pay, with our landmark employment rights bill.

    We are creating more good jobs in every part of the country – from clean energy to construction and through our modern industrial strategy.

    And we are investing an additional £26 billion this year to drive down waiting lists, because getting people back to health is crucial to getting them back to work.

    But we also need big changes in our system of social security and employment support to deliver greater fairness and opportunity.

    Our plans are based on three clear objectives.

    First, overhauling the system to help those who can work, get into work and stay in work.

    Last autumn, our Get Britain Working white paper kicked off the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, backed by an additional £240 million.

    Overhauling our job centres to create a new national jobs and careers service, and shift the focus away from benefit administration alone.

    Investing in 16 new trailblazing programmes across the country – led by mayors and local areas – to join up work, health and skills support, ensure every young person is earning or learning and to tackle the scar of economic inactivity.

    This spring, we announced a further £1 billion a year in our new Pathways to Work offer.

    Along with programmes like Work Well, Connect to Work – which is being rolled out to the whole of England and Wales by December – and freeing up 1,000 work coaches to support sick and disabled people.

    Pathways to Work will guarantee a comprehensive offer of health, work and skills support for anyone who needs it, rolling out from next April when our benefit changes start to come in.

    The biggest ever packages of support for sick and disabled people.

    To underpin these changes in employment support, we are also creating a more proactive, pro-work system.

    We are consulting on a new Unemployment Insurance to provide a higher rate of time-limited income protection for people who lose their job but have paid into the system.

    We are scrapping the failed Work Capability Assessment – and the Conservatives discredited WCA plans – to help end the binary can/can’t work divide.

    We are reforming Universal Credit to encourage people to find work and not stay on benefits, reducing the health top up for new claims from April 2026, alongside active help to find work.

    And bringing in a sustained above inflation increase to the standard allowance in Universal Credit for the first time ever, delivering a cash increase of £725 a year by the end of the Parliament.

    We’re introducing a new ‘right to try work’ by legislating to guarantee that work in and of itself will never lead to someone being called in for a benefit assessment, to give people the confidence to take the plunge and try work.

    To underpin our Youth Guarantee, we are consulting on delaying access to the health top up in Universal Credit until someone is aged 22, with the savings reinvested into work support and training opportunities.

    And we will help employers to recruit and retain more disabled people with health conditions through our Keep Britain Working review, led by the former boss of John Lewis, Sir Charlie Mayfield.

    The second objective of our plans is to protect those who cannot work.

    Those with the most severe, life-long conditions that will never improve and who can never work will have their Universal Credit protected – including young people aged under 22.

    And we will guarantee they will never be reassessed in future, removing totally unnecessary stress, anxiety and uncertainty.

    To improve trust, we will also fundamentally overhaul our safeguarding approach to ensure all our processes and training are of the highest possible quality and to protect and support vulnerable people.

    Our third objective is to focus Personal Independence Payments on those with higher needs and to review the PIP assessment to ensure it is fair and fit for purpose.

    I know the concerns that have been raised about our proposals.

    I am listening carefully to all the points people raise.

    But 9 out of 10 people claiming PIP at the point when the changes come into force in November 2026 will not be affected by the end of the Parliament.

    And even with the changes we are making, there will still be 750,000 more people receiving PIP by the end of this Parliament than there were at the start.

    And spending will be £8 billion higher than it is now: rising faster than GDP, and faster than spending on public services.

    In making our changes we are preserving PIP as a vital cash benefit that makes a contribution towards the extra cost of living with a disability – not means testing it and not replacing it with vouchers as the Tories proposed.

    We are consulting on how best to support those who will no longer be eligible, including so their health and care needs are met.

    We will improve the experience of those going through the PIP assessment, switching back to more face-to-face assessments and recording them as standard.

    And we have begun the first review of the PIP assessment in more than a decade – including the descriptors, and in consultation with disabled people and the organisations that represent them – to ensure it is fair and fit for purpose.

    Taken together, our measures will reform the system to support those who can work, to protect those who cannot and to help ensure our welfare state lasts for generations to come.

    I want to finish by saying this.

    When I travel around the country, I know the places with the highest levels of economic inactivity and the largest number of people on sickness and disability benefits, are the same places with the worst health, lowest life expectancy and fewest opportunities.

    The villages, towns and cities, especially in parts of the Midlands and the North whose economies have still not recovered from the 80s and 90s, where economic demand remains weakest.

    Places that are full of talent and ambition, but which need the investment – in jobs, infrastructure, skills, and public services – to build a better life for themselves and their communities.

    People in this country rightly demand change.

    But populist politics – the politics of division and easy but empty solutions – won’t deliver the change people are crying out for.

    They need real hope built on real solutions.

    And that is what this Labour Government is doing.

    Tackling problems that have been ducked or ignored for too long, because the failure to do so is precisely why people think politics doesn’t matter and that politicians are all the same.

    Change of this scale isn’t easy, but it is possible, and we know because we have done it before.

    Labour’s mission is to give people hope tomorrow will be better than today.

    That we will create the jobs, opportunities and public services people want and deserve.

    Because a future dependent on benefits alone is not good enough for people in Blackpool, Birkenhead or Blaenau Gwent.

    I am confident we will deliver.

    Because all the evidence shows hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people want to work.

    That when they have a government that is on their side and provides the right support, they can get work.

    And that this can transform their lives.

    Our task is urgent.

    Not just because we have only four more years of this Parliament, which is no time at all – although this is true.

    Not just because we must deliver real change to fight the rise in support for populists – although we must.

    But because the people who we came into politics to serve cannot and should not wait any longer for a chance to build a decent life, because they have waited far too long already.

    This is why we fought for 14 long hard years in opposition – for the chance to change our country.

    So now let’s get on with the job.

    Thank you.

  • Calum Miller – 2025 Speech on Israel

    Calum Miller – 2025 Speech on Israel

    The speech made by Calum Miller, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, in the House of Commons on 20 May 2025.

    I also thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I know that he, like me, has been horrified by the scenes coming out of Gaza. Tom Fletcher, the UN’s humanitarian chief, has indeed highlighted and predicted the imminent death of thousands of infants without immediate aid, and said that the amount of aid entering the strip is but “a drop in the ocean”.

    Let us be clear that mass starvation will do nothing to remove Hamas or secure the release of the hostages, so I welcome yesterday’s joint statement with Canada and France. In it, the Prime Minister spoke of taking further action if Israel does not fully lift its aid blockade and draw back from its expansion of military activity. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the expanded sanctions list includes extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who have advocated illegal actions to dispossess Palestinians across the occupied territories, and if not, why not? Will the Government go beyond reviewing the 2030 bilateral road map and urgently suspend it unless the Government of Israel change path? Will they now finally block the export of all UK arms to Israel?

    In response to my letter to the Foreign Secretary last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), reaffirmed the Government’s position that they consider that Israel only “risks” breaching international law through its blockade. I ask the Secretary of State what more Israel would have to do to the people of Gaza for its actions to constitute not simply a “risk”, but an actual breach of international law.

    The Minister also stated in his reply that the Government would only proceed with recognition of the state of Palestine at

    “a time that is most conducive to the peace process”.

    Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me and the Liberal Democrats that the time to recognise Palestine is now and that immediate recognition—ideally jointly with France at next month’s summit—would send the strongest possible signal about the UK’s commitment to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination?

    Mr Lammy

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have condemned the statements of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in the past. On 6 May, Israel’s Finance Minister Smotrich said:

    “Gaza will be entirely destroyed, civilians will be sent to…the south to a humanitarian zone without Hamas or terrorism, and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries”.

    We condemn that language. We condemn the language of Minister Ben-Gvir and, of course, we keep that language under review and continue to discuss these issues with our international partners.

    The hon. Gentleman asks about recognition and the work that we see France and Saudi Arabia doing. Of course, we are in close dialogue with our P5 partner of France and with Saudi Arabia, in fact. I touched on these issues with the Saudi Arabian PM in Rome at the weekend. The hon. Gentleman asked about the road map. As I have said, we will review the road map. He will recognise that there are elements of that road map, particularly as they pertain to security issues and the work we do jointly on Iran, that would not be right to suspend, but we are reviewing it—as we should, given the circumstances. I have said time and again that we have suspended arms sales that could be used in Gaza, notwithstanding those we must necessarily retain that particularly pertain to the supply chain on F-35s and their use in warfare in other theatres with which we have an interest.

  • Priti Patel – 2025 Speech on Israel

    Priti Patel – 2025 Speech on Israel

    The speech made by Priti Patel, the Conservative MP for Witham, in the House of Commons on 20 May 2025.

    I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of his statement. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is appalling and we continue to see the intolerable suffering of life being lost. A sustainable end to this terrible conflict is urgently and desperately needed, and that means the release of the remaining 58 hostages from the cruel Hamas captivity that we have all witnessed for too long; it means a significant increase in aid getting into Gaza; and it means a new future for Gaza, free from the terror and misery caused by Hamas, who bear responsibility for the suffering we have seen unfolding since 7 October 2023. I will take each of those three issues in turn.

    First, on the hostages, will the Foreign Secretary explain what recent engagements he has had to try to secure their release and return to their loved ones? Is Britain contributing to an overall strategy to free the hostages? Are we in the room for these critical discussions? We know the hard work that went into all this at the beginning of the year.

    Secondly, on aid, I have been asking the Government for weeks for clarity over the way they are using their influence to get aid into Gaza. On 6 and 14 May, we questioned the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), on the steps being taken to unblock aid delivery. We have asked the Government for details of their engagement with Israel, about their response to Israel’s plans for an alternative aid delivery model, and about what practical solutions the UK has worked on with Israel to address concerns about aid diversion, but no substantive answers were given. What have the Government been doing in recent weeks to facilitate the delivery of aid and find practical solutions with other countries to get aid in?

    Have the Government just been criticising Israel, or have they been offering to work constructively to find solutions on aid delivery and securing a ceasefire? We see from the joint statement issued yesterday that the Government and other international partners may not be supporting or participating in the aid delivery model proposed by Israel, so can the Foreign Secretary explain why that conclusion has been reached?

    Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)

    Shameful!

    Priti Patel

    If I can return to my remarks, how does that non-participation help to get aid into Gaza and stop the suffering that is being experienced by everyone? [Interruption.] Members shake their heads, but we should all be focused on securing—[Interruption.] Labour Members should be ashamed of themselves, because the focus of this House should be on getting aid into Gaza. The UK—[Interruption.] I can speak as someone who has supported aid getting into Gaza and other humanitarian crises. The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) might want to intervene rather than calling me out and saying that my comments are shameful. The UK has consistently been a world leader when it comes to aid delivery. We should be at the forefront of finding practical solutions and supporting the delivery of aid to those in need, so has the Foreign Secretary, in the approach that he has just outlined towards Israel, done all he can to secure an increase in aid? Has the UK’s influence fallen in this aid discussion and in the dialogue with Israel?

    Thirdly, on the future of Gaza, the Government have agreed with our position that there can be no future for Hamas—that is completely non-negotiable—so what practical steps are being taken to end their role in Gaza and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure? What co-ordinated international steps are being taken to stem the flow of money, weapons and support bankrolled by Iran? We are still awaiting an Iran strategy from the Government. Can the Foreign Secretary expand upon this?

    We had a statement last month from the Foreign Secretary on the memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority. Can he give an update on what steps are being taken to improve the governance of the PA? The MOU posed many questions, but I do not need to go over them again as I have raised them previously. The UK obviously needs to be involved in this process, given our historical role in, for example, the Abraham accords. This may be our best shot when it comes to regional peace, and the Foreign Secretary must convince us that we have influence when it comes to the ceasefire and negotiating a better future in this part of the world. What discussions have taken place with Administration of the United States—one country that does have influence—on peace efforts and getting aid into Gaza?

    In conclusion, strong words will do little to resolve the real challenges and the suffering that we are seeing day in, day out—[Interruption.] That is a matter for the Government to address. It should be a cause for concern that we have reached a situation where the statements and actions that have been echoed by the Government today—I am referring to the Prime Minister’s joint statement with France and Canada—have now been supported by Hamas, a terrorist organisation that I proscribed as Home Secretary—[Interruption.] They have actually put out a statement, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary has seen it.

    The Foreign Secretary’s decision to tear up trade negotiations with Israel and stop the bilateral road map will not—[Interruption.] It is not shocking. These are important questions. If the Foreign Secretary finds this—[Interruption.] If he cannot answer these questions, that is fine—[Interruption.] Then please do answer the questions, because they are important—[Interruption.] I would if Members did not keep interrupting me. It is quite obvious that the Government do not want to respond to these important questions, but this is important because there is so much human suffering. I understand the Foreign Secretary’s points about the steps he is taking with Israel, but how is this going to help now when it comes to wider security issues and threats from Iran? How do we know that this will not be self-defeating in any way?

    Mr Lammy

    For decades there has been a cross-party commitment to a two-state solution and the pursuit of peace from friends of both Israel and the Palestinian people across this House. It was the Thatcher Government that imposed an arms embargo after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It was David Cameron who first called Gaza a prison camp, and it was Theresa May’s Government that championed UN resolution 2334 on settlements. It was William Hague who worked with John Kerry on the push for peace and condemned the idea of moving the British embassy to Jerusalem. Sadly, today, it seems that the Conservative party, or at least its current Front Bench, is refusing to confront the appalling reality of what is happening in Gaza and what the Netanyahu Government are doing.

    The right hon. Lady seems incapable of offering any serious criticism about the egregious actions of the Netanyahu Government, unlike many hon. Members on her own side. The whole House should be able to utterly condemn the Israeli Government’s denial of food to hungry children. It is wrong. It is appalling. Will she condemn it? Well, the whole House has seen her response. Opposing the expansion of a war that has killed thousands of children is not rewarding Hamas. Opposing the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians is not rewarding Hamas. On this side of the House, we are crystal clear that what is happening is morally wrong and unjustifiable, and it needs to stop.

    That is why we have taken the actions we have. The right hon. Lady knows hostage families are deeply concerned about what is happening and about their loved ones—she knows that. She knows we oppose the blockade on aid—does she? It was not clear from her statement whether she does oppose the blockade of aid to children. She should note that our diplomats led that call, with 27 countries joining us, to condemn what is happening and stand on the side of truth and history. What a shame she could not bring herself to do so today.

    Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)

    I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Just last week, the UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher warned that the Security Council must act “decisively” to prevent genocide. Today, he said that 14,000 babies could be dead in the next 48 hours. The level of destruction we have seen of the Palestinian people and their land is remarkable. Israel has shown that it will not respond to diplomatic appeals. We now need the continuation of a full arms embargo, sanctions, accountability for war crimes, immediate recognition of the state of Palestine, and the return of UNRWA. What additional steps will the Foreign Secretary take to stave off this genocide?

    Mr Lammy

    I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the announcement I have made today on further sanctions, building on the announcement I made back in October. It is very important that we send a clear message to Israel that it should allow the full resumption of aid into Gaza immediately and should enable the UN and humanitarian organisations to work independently and impartially to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity. She will have noted the co-ordinated statement of 27 countries, including Canada, Denmark, Finland, France and many others, who came together to make their views crystal clear about what we now see happening, what we expect to see happen, and the further action that will have to take place if we do not.

  • David Lammy – 2025 Statement on Israel

    David Lammy – 2025 Statement on Israel

    The statement made by David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 20 May 2025.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This weekend, the Israel Defence Forces started a new, extensive ground operation throughout Gaza: Operation Gideon’s Chariots. Five Israeli divisions now operate there. Prime Minister Netanyahu says that they are going to take control of the strip, letting only minimal amounts of food reach Gazans; to quote Mr Netanyahu,

    “just enough to prevent hunger.”

    Fewer than 10 trucks entered Gaza yesterday. The UN and the World Health Organisation have issued stark warnings of the threat of starvation hanging over hundreds of thousands of civilians. This is abominable. Civilians in Gaza facing starvation, homelessness and trauma, desperate for this war to end, now confront renewed bombardment, displacement and suffering. The remaining hostages, kept apart from their loved ones by Hamas for almost 600 days, are now at heightened risk from the war around them.

    Two months ago the ceasefire collapsed. Since then, the humanitarian catastrophe has rapidly intensified. For 11 weeks, Israeli forces have blockaded Gaza, leaving the World Food Programme without any remaining stocks. Israel has repeatedly struck hospitals, and three more in northern Gaza ceased operations this weekend. Yet more aid workers and medical workers have been killed, after last year proved the deadliest year on record for humanitarian personnel.

    The diplomatic deadlock between Israel and Hamas has also hardened. Despite the efforts of the United States, Qatar and Egypt, which we of course support, no ceasefire has emerged. We repeat our demand that Hamas release all the hostages immediately and unconditionally, and reiterate that they cannot continue to run Gaza.

    We are now entering a dark new phase in this conflict. Netanyahu’s Government plan to drive Gazans from their homes into a corner of the strip to the south and permit them a fraction of the aid that they need. Yesterday, Minister Smotrich even spoke of Israeli forces “cleansing” Gaza, of “destroying what’s left” and of resident Palestinians being “relocated to third countries”. We must call this what it is: it is extremism, it is dangerous, it is repellent, it is monstrous and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

    Israel suffered a heinous attack on 7 October. The Government have always backed Israel’s right to defend itself. We have condemned Hamas and their abhorrent treatment of the hostages. We have stood with the families and demanded that their loved ones be released. Israel’s plan is morally unjustifiable, wholly disproportionate and utterly counterproductive, and whatever Israeli Ministers claim, it is not the way to bring the hostages safely home. Nearly all the hostages have been freed through negotiations, not military force. That is why hostage families themselves, and many other Israelis, oppose this plan so strongly. It will not eliminate Hamas or make Israel secure either. This war has left a generation orphaned and traumatised, ready for Hamas to recruit. As we learned in Northern Ireland, to defeat terrorists and their warped ideology, we cannot just rely on military might; we have to offer a viable political alternative. Opposing the expansion of a war that has killed thousands of children is not rewarding Hamas.

    Since entering office, we have taken concerted action on Gaza. We have restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, supported the independence of international courts, suspended arms export licences, provided food and medical care to hundreds of thousands of Gazans and worked with Arab partners on a plan to ensure a reconstructed Gaza no longer run by Hamas. Since Israel restarted strikes on Gaza, this Government have demanded that Israel change course.

    Privately, in my conversations with Foreign Minister Sa’ar and Strategic Affairs Minister Dermer, and publicly, in repeated joint statements with my French and German counterparts, we have made clear that Israel’s actions are intolerable. We have raised our concerns in the UN Security Council and before the International Court of Justice. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister joined leaders from France and Canada in strongly opposing the expansion of Israel’s military operations. The UK also led a further statement with 27 partners criticising Israel’s proposed new aid delivery mechanism and defending the essential humanitarian principles of the international system that the UK did so much to establish in the first place.

    Our message is clear. There is a UN plan ready to deliver aid at the scale needed, with mitigations against aid diversion. There are brave humanitarians ready to do their jobs. There are over 9,000 trucks at the border. Prime Minister Netanyahu: end this blockade now and let the aid in.

    Regrettably, despite our efforts, this Israeli Government’s egregious actions and rhetoric have continued. They are isolating Israel from its friends and partners around the world, undermining the interests of the Israeli people and damaging the image of the state of Israel in the eyes of the world. I find this deeply painful, as a lifelong friend of Israel and a believer in the values expressed in its declaration of independence. As the Prime Minister and fellow leaders said yesterday, we cannot stand by in the face of this new deterioration. It is incompatible with the principles that underpin our bilateral relationship, it is rejected by Members across this House, and frankly, it is an affront to the values of the British people. Therefore, today I am announcing that we have suspended negotiations with this Israeli Government on a new free trade agreement and we will be reviewing co-operation with them under the 2030 bilateral road map. The Netanyahu Government’s actions have made this necessary.

    Today, the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) is summoning the Israeli ambassador to the Foreign Office to convey this message. I say now to the people of Israel that we want—I want—a strong friendship with you based on shared values, with flourishing ties between our people and societies. We are unwavering in our commitment to your security and to your future, to countering the very real threat from Iran, the scourge of terrorism and the evils of antisemitism. However, the conduct of the war in Gaza is damaging our relationship with their Government and, as the Prime Minister has said, if Israel pursues this military offensive as it has threatened, failing to ensure the unhindered provision of aid, we will take further action in response.

    The UK, will not give up on a two-state solution: Israelis living within secure borders, recognised and at peace with their neighbours, free from the threat of terrorism; and Palestinians living in their own state, in dignity and security, free of occupation. The two-state solution remains the ideal framework; indeed, it is the only framework for a just and lasting peace. Yet as the House knows, its very viability is in peril, endangered not only by the war in Gaza but by the spread of illegal Israeli settlements and outposts across the occupied west bank with the explicit support of this Israeli Government.

    There are now weekly meetings to approve new settlement construction. Settlement approval has accelerated while settler violence has soared. Here, too, we have acted: repeatedly pressing for a change in course and direction, sanctioning seven entities in October and signing a landmark agreement to bolster support for the Palestinian Authority when Prime Minister Mustafa visited London last month. But here too, we must do more. Today, we are therefore imposing sanctions on a further three individuals and four entities involved in the settler movement. I have seen for myself the consequences of settler violence, the fear of its victims and the impunity of its perpetrators. Today, we are demonstrating again that we will continue to act against those carrying out heinous abuses of human rights.

    Despite the glimmer of hope from January’s ceasefire, the suffering in this conflict has worsened. January showed that another path was possible, and we urge the Netanyahu Government to choose this path. The world is judging. History will judge them. Blocking aid, expanding the war and dismissing the concerns of their friends and partners is indefensible and it must stop. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Keir Starmer – 2025 Comments at Business Reception in Downing Street

    Keir Starmer – 2025 Comments at Business Reception in Downing Street

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, in Downing Street on 19 May 2025.

    Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

    Commissioner Sefcovic.

    It’s fantastic to welcome you all to mark the strategic partnership that we have agreed today with the EU.

    Trade deals are much talked about.

    People tried for a long time to get a trade deal with India, and it didn’t happen for eight years. We came along and did that deal with India.

    People tried and talked about a deal with the US, we came along and did that deal with the US.

    Nobody believed we could do a better deal with the EU, and we’ve just done a better deal with the EU.

    I always said, I’m not particularly keen on the performance side of politics. I think it’s the delivery that matters.

    And this has happened because of the serious, pragmatic way that we’ve gone around our negotiations, and when I met Ursula and Antonio at the beginning of the exercise, we committed to each other that we wouldn’t do it by megaphone diplomacy.

    We would do the hard yards of real diplomacy and negotiation, and that’s the base on which we got this deal today.

    And so, in the space of just under two weeks, three trade deals.

    That tells you something about serious pragmatism.

    It tells you something about our commitment to growth, but it also tells you something about the country, because others only want to do trade deals with businesses and economies that they want to tie themselves to going forward.

    It reflects the strength of all those that are represented here and many, many others, because we have dramatically improved our trading ties with the largest economy in the world, the US, the fastest growing economy in the world, India, and the largest trading bloc in the world, the EU.

    And that is, as I say, a vote of confidence in this country.

    We’re living in a different world. It’s a different era, and notwithstanding that instability, that uncertainty, the decisions that we’ve taken to stabilize the economy and lead the way internationally have made Britain a place that people want to do business with once again.

    And I’m really proud to be leading a government and a country where others are telling me that they’re very pleased to see the UK back leading on the world stage, whether it’s defense and security, whether it’s trade or the economy or many of the other global issues that face us.

    And to underline that Britain is a place where people want to do business. Once again,  I’m delighted that we’re announcing major new European investments into Britain today.

    Rheinmetall investing £60 million in Telford.

    Knauf Insulation…

    Investing £170 million in North Wales.

    And NewCold investing £235 million in Corby.

    Together, creating hundreds of new jobs across the UK.

    We also have news today of great British companies – like Octopus energy – expanding in Europe.

    So I want to say a huge thank you to everyone here…

    For backing Britain.

    And let’s just take a closer look at the deal we’ve struck today.

    It gives us unprecedented access to the EU market –

    The best of any country outside the EU or EFTA.

    All while sticking to our red lines.

    It’s good for bills, good for jobs, good for borders…

    Good for businesses large and small.

    By 2040 it will increase Britain’s GDP by around £9 billion.

    Our SPS agreement will make food and agriculture trade cheaper and easier…

    Cutting admin costs that can reach thousands for a single lorry…

    Opening up EU markets for British food exporters…

    Lifting the de facto ban on British burgers, bangers and shellfish…

    And bringing down prices for British consumers.

    Our new Defence and Security Partnership…

    Will strengthen our security…

    And open the door to working with the EU’s new defence fund –

    Boosting Britain’s defence industry.

    By increasing our co-operation on emissions trading…

    We’re saving UK businesses…

    From having to pay £800 million in EU carbon taxes.

    By increasing cooperation on energy…

    We’re bringing down bills over the long term,

    And boosting our renewables industry in the North Sea.

    The deal also protects our steel exports from new EU tariffs,

    Saving the industry £25 million each year.

    And it puts the fishing industry on a stable footing…

    Protecting our access, rights and fishing areas…

    With no increase in the amount that EU vessels can catch in our waters.

    And our fishing industry will also benefit from that new SPS agreement, slashing costs and red tape.

    So this a new deal for a new era…

    One that will bring huge benefits to the British people.

    And by the way –

    For business travellers – and tourists –

    We confirmed today…

    That you’ll be able be able to use e-Gates in Europe –

    Ending those huge queues at passport control.

    That really is something to celebrate!

    You know, when I became Prime Minister…

    Almost a year ago…

    I said I would deliver in the national interest.

    And I think we’ve shown today, once again –

    That I meant it.

    So thank for you for your support –

    Now let’s build on this progress…

    Let’s keep showing that Britain is open for business…

    And working with all our partners –

    To deliver for the British people.

    Thank you all.

  • Keir Starmer – 2025 Remarks at Press Conference with EU leaders

    Keir Starmer – 2025 Remarks at Press Conference with EU leaders

    The remarks made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 19 May 2025.

    Ladies and gentlemen – Britain is back on the world stage.

    Working with our partners. Doing deals that will grow our economy and putting more money in the pockets of working people.

    In the last two weeks alone, we’ve delivered trade deals with India and the US. That means: jobs saved, jobs created, more growth and a huge vote of confidence in this country.

    It shows that – as global instability is rising, the decisions we have taken to stabilise the economy and lead the way internationally have made Britain a place where people want to do business once again.

    And from that position of strength – today we have struck this landmark deal with the EU – a new partnership between an independent Britain and our allies in Europe.

    This is the first UK-EU summit, that marks a new stage in our relationship. And this deal, is a win-win. It delivers what the British public voted for last year.

    It gives us unprecedented access to the EU market – the best of any country outside the EU or EFTA.

    All while sticking to our red lines in our manifesto about. Not rejoining the single market, no rejoining the customs union and no return to freedom of movement.

    This deal is good for both sides – and let me set out why it is good for Britain. We’ve struck an SPS deal to make food and agriculture trade with the EU cheaper and easier.

    Slashing red tape and bureaucracy. That will mean lower food prices at the checkout.

    More choice on our supermarket shelves – and more money in people’s pockets.

    It will boost British exporters because, once again after a long absence, we’ll be able to sell great British burgers, shellfish and other products into the EU.

    We’ve also struck a new Defence and Security Partnership to strengthen our cooperation and strengthen our security – which is vital in this dangerous new era.

    And it will open the door to working with the EU’s new defence fund – providing new opportunities for our defence industry, supporting British jobs and livelihoods.

    We are also increasing our co-operation on emissions trading. Saving UK businesses from having to pay £800 million in EU carbon taxes. Once again: supporting British businesses, backing British jobs.

    Next, we are increasing our cooperation on energy to drive down bills in the long term.

    The agreement negotiated by the last government left us with more disconnected with our closest neighbours despite being physically connected to the European grid by our undersea cables.

    Today’s deal will see us work to bring these systems together again – benefitting bill payers and boosting our renewables industry in the North Sea.

    Today’s deal is also good for British steel, protecting our steel exports from new EU tariffs. Saving the industry £25 million each year. Another example of this government backing our steel sector to the hilt.

    We’ve reached a deal today on fish, protecting our access, rights and fishing areas with no increase in the amount that EU vessels can catch in British waters.

    Our fishing industry will also benefit from the new SPS agreement which slashes costs and red tape for our exports into the European market. And we already sell 70% of our seafood into that market so it’s really significant. It is also opening the gates to sending shellfish back into the EU.

    And I can announce today that we’re investing £360 million into our fishing industry – to help them take advantage of this deal.

    We have acted today to strengthen our borders. The previous deal left a huge gap in our ability to work together to tackle illegal migration.

    So this deal closes that gap so that we can work across the migration routes to end the migration crisis and smash the criminal gangs.

    We are boosting our cooperation on law enforcement. Combating terrorism and serious organised crime with better sharing of intelligence and data – including facial imaging, for the first time.

    Today’s deal will also help British holidaymakers as we are confirming that they will able to use e-Gates when they travel to Europe – ending those huge queues at passport control.

    And I call on all EU members states to help make this a reality without delay.

    Finally – we have agreed today cooperate on a youth experience scheme to allow our young people to travel and work freely in Europe. And I’m clear – this will come with all the appropriate time-limits, caps and visa requirements.

    So – it’s a long list – and it just shows how much we have achieved here today – real benefits for the British people.

    Because, it’s time to look forward. It’s time to move on from the stale old debates and political fights to focus on delivering common sense, practical solutions which get the best for the British people.

    We’re ready to work with all our partners.

    If it means we can improve people’s lives here at home.

    And that’s what this deal is all about: facing out to the world once again in the great tradition of this nation. Building the relationships we choose, with the partners we choose and closing deals in the national interest.