UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Chris Bryant – 2025 Speech at the Connected Futures Festival

    Chris Bryant – 2025 Speech at the Connected Futures Festival

    The speech made by Chris Bryant, the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, on 26 March 2025.

    Hello. My name is Chris Bryant and I’m the telecoms minister. I’m really sorry I can’t be with you. Well, I’m here with you virtually, which I suppose is particularly important for the kind of connectivity that we’re talking about. But I’m afraid that, as you’re meeting, I will be in Parliament for the spring statement, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be talking about economic growth and how we get the economy to really springboard into the future.

    I suppose that’s the key part of what I want to say today, which is that connectivity is a vital part of making sure that the UK economy grows, that everybody gets a chance to participate in our economic future, and that we embrace the technological changes that can make so many differences to people’s lives, whether in the delivery of public services or in the delivery of all the services that we rely on, whether it’s ordering a pizza, parking your car, or engaging with our local GP and seeing our latest test results.

    I know that the geopolitical picture looks uncertain at the moment, and many parts of our lives, of course, are uncertain. Sometimes, trying to predict the future is difficult. That’s one of the reasons that, whereas we’ve always talked about “future telecoms” in the past, we’re changing the terminology to something which I think suits much better the situation that we face today. And that’s why instead of referring to “future telecoms”, we’re now going to be referring to “advanced connectivity technologies”, because advanced optics and satellite communications aren’t the ghosts of telecoms futures anymore, but actually telecoms present – let’s face it! Last year, Aston University transmitted data 4.5 million times faster than the average home broadband connection. We have started to send data through visible light. And Vodafone made the first video call via space last year. I’m an MP for a constituency in South Wales in The Valleys, and so I was very happy to see that that call took place from a remote Welsh mountain. The death of “notspots” may just about be in sight for us all!

    The breakthroughs we are seeing mean that the UK could once again be a leader in connectivity over the next ten years, and I’m absolutely determined that we take forward those opportunities.

    But before I take you into the future, let’s just pause briefly in the present. As we shape the next generation of connectivity, we must remember that some people in this country haven’t yet got this generation of technological connectivity. There’s 1.6 million people in the UK who live largely offline. We have to factor them into our future, and our ambition is to have gigabit-capable broadband in every home and in every business, and higher quality 5G to all populated areas by 2030. Through the Digital Inclusion Action Plan, which we’ve recently launched, we’ll make sure people also have the devices and skills to be part of a digital future. We want to tackle digital exclusion so that we can take the whole of our country with us. So, deploying the best technology we have today and taking a leading role in shaping the technologies of tomorrow is vital to our economic success.

    We will shape them, obviously, with global allies – but we will be guided by three central ideas. First of all, do they bring connectivity to everyone, everywhere, whatever your circumstances? Secondly, do they have security and resilience built in from the start? And thirdly, are they built sustainably, so that better connectivity gets us closer to net zero and not further away? These are all equally important, fundamental principles and ideas behind what we’re trying to achieve in this area.

    The UK has the potential to be at the forefront as we develop these technologies. For a start, we build on research from some of the best universities in the world, and the JOINER research and innovation platform gives them a unique test network to prepare for 6G. British firms are getting connectivity to places it hasn’t gone before, like trains, offshore wind farms and space. BT, who nearly two centuries ago set up the world’s first nationwide communications network, are now leading the way with Toshiba in trials of quantum secure comms. And global companies like Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung have all chosen to do R&D work here in this country, in the United Kingdom.

    We will shape them, obviously, with global allies – but we will be guided by three central ideas. First of all, do they bring connectivity to everyone, everywhere, whatever your circumstances? Secondly, do they have security and resilience built in from the start? And thirdly, are they built sustainably, so better connectivity gets us closer to net zero and not further away? These are all equally important, fundamental principles and ideas behind what we’re trying to achieve in this area.

    The UK has the potential to be at the forefront as we develop these technologies. For a start, we build on research from some of the best universities in the world, and the JOINER research and innovation platform gives them a unique test network to prepare for 6G. British firms are getting connectivity to places it hasn’t gone before, like trains, offshore wind farms and space. BT, who nearly two centuries ago set up the world’s first nationwide communications network, are now leading the way with Toshiba in trials of quantum secure comms. And global companies like Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung have all chosen to do R&D work here in this country, in the United Kingdom.

    We can and should go further, though, making the UK a global leader in advanced connectivity. And that’s where the government and industry really must work hand-in-hand. We will strengthen our supply chains – that’s really important. Today we will publish the government’s response to the report from the Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council, outlining how we will support a thriving ecosystem of suppliers for our networks. I’m immensely grateful to all those who took part in the Council’s work.

    We will back your growth in this sector. Advanced connectivity will be one of the growth markets in our Industrial Strategy within the digital and technology sector. That means the backing across Whitehall to help you succeed. As a sign of that commitment, today I can announce that we will invest nearly £60 million over the next year, 2025 to 2026, to support UK leadership in R&D so that more of the technology providing the world’s critical connectivity is developed here in the UK.

    If we get this right, then ten years down the line we will be able to say that this technology has made people’s daily lives better, put more money in people’s pockets and helps to keep the UK and our allies safe in a turbulent world. That’s a connected future we can only build together.

    Thank you and I hope you have a good conference today.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2025 Speech at the Community Security Trust

    Yvette Cooper – 2025 Speech at the Community Security Trust

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, in London on 26 March 2025.

    Thank you, Sir Lloyd for those kind words, good evening everyone.

    And let me start by thanking everyone involved in CST for the remarkable, tireless and crucial work you have done not just this year, but day-in, day-out for the past 3 decades to keep our Jewish communities safe and secure. The work CST does makes the difference every single day between confidence and fear, between safety and danger, between life and death, and we owe you all a huge debt of thanks.

    For the research and analysis they undertake to expose the scourge of antisemitism. The critical security they provide for hundreds of Jewish communal buildings and events every year. The fact that every week, thousands of British Jews go to school, or to synagogue, more confident in the knowledge that CST are providing protection and support.

    And I particularly want to thank all the volunteers keeping us safe here tonight.

    It is a real honour for me to be here as Home Secretary and I want to talk tonight about why CST plays such a remarkable and important role not just in the security of Jewish families and communities across Britain, but also in the security of our entire nation. And why defending our national security – the first and foremost task of any government – means defending the security and safety of Britain’s Jews.

    But there is no way to pay tribute to this extraordinary organisation, without first paying tribute to its extraordinary founder and chairman, Sir Gerald Ronson. Gerald you have been the most formidable champion for CST and for the wider Jewish community, but also whose philanthropic work on causes from protecting children to older care has had such a profoundly positive impact on society.

    Since I came to Parliament in 1997, I have watched Gerald build CST into the pioneering and world-leading organisation that it is today. So Gerald thank you for being such an astonishing advocate – because without your determination and dedication, CST would not be what it is today.

    And on a personal note, Gerald and Gail, let me thank you for being such good friends to Ed and I over these last 25 years.

    Ed and I have come many times to CST dinners through the years in different roles. I think the first time we came was before 2010 government ministers, as shadow ministers. More recently for me as Home Affairs Select Committee Chair and for Ed as co-chair of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation. But we come not because of our jobs but because of what tonight is about – strongly supporting Britain’s Jewish communities and strongly supporting the remarkable work of CST.

    Many of you have asked where Ed is tonight. He does send his apologies tonight – and this is a sentence I never thought I would hear myself say, certainly not 10 years ago – he is in Hong Kong with George Osborne recording a special edition of their podcast. Such is the life of the former politician turned dancer turned glamorous media star.

    Although I did have a moment at a recent reception like this, when I introduced myself to a table of guests and started talking about my husband co-chairing the work on the memorial. Only for one of the older guests to nod wisely and tell her friends: “I knew I recognised her from somewhere – she’s married to Eric Pickles!”.

    But I do want to commend the work that the Holocaust Memorial Foundation is doing – chaired by Ed and Eric and backed by so many of you – to ensure that the Memorial and Learning Centre are built according to plan, next to the Palace of Westminster and the seat of our democracy, to ensure that future generations of young people in our country will learn about the evil of antisemitism and the horror of where it leads.

    This government will continue the work of our predecessors ensuring that the Holocaust Memorial is built for future generations. Just as we will continue our steadfast support for the CST and for the security of Jewish communities across the UK.

    And just as the Prime Minister was unrelenting in his mission to root out the stain of antisemitism from the Labour Party after that truly shameful period in our party’s history. Now in government, we will be equally unrelenting in our crackdown on those who spread the poison of antisemitism on our streets or online.

    We may have disagreed with the previous government on many things. And we may have inherited difficult decisions on the economy and spending. But when it comes to our support for CST and keeping our communities safe, there will be absolute continuity and certainty.

    I have spoken to 2 of my predecessors here tonight, Grant Schapps and James Cleverly here tonight and we have committed to maintaining the multi-year funding for CST that Rishi Sunak announced here last year. And why we will always seek to build the broadest cross-party consensus on public protection, so that no matter who has the keys to number 10 Downing Street, our Jewish communities know that the government is on their side.

    And I know that for the community this has been another extremely difficult year. In the short months I have been in the Home Office, I and other ministers in my department have met with many of you – just as we did many times when we were on the opposition benches.

    With the CST, the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Union of Jewish Students and many more. We’ve talked about the 3,500 incidents of anti-Jewish hate that were recorded by CST last year.

    The second highest total ever reported in a single calendar year. Threats to kill sent to synagogues. Individuals spat on or assaulted in the street. Graffiti daubed on religious sites. Antisemitic bullying in schools.

    And we’ve talked not just about the disgraceful crimes and the action needed, but about the real impact they have – for you and your families.

    I have heard some of your personal experiences of what recent years have felt like. Holding your child’s hand that bit more tightly on the way to school, the extra worry about your teenagers away at university. And the sickening jolt in the stomach from the antisemitic hatred posted online, waved on placards, worn on t-shirts, or shouted openly in the streets.

    It is those painful, personal experiences that lie behind the figures.

    And make no mistake – these horrific incidents are a stain on our society that simply will not be tolerated. Not now and not ever. Because there is no place for antisemitism in Britain.

    We all know that fear has grown since the barbaric terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023. The single deadliest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust. And the past 16 months have seen intense anguish. The living nightmare of hostages and their families. The appalling devastation and destruction we have seen in Gaza.

    The ceasefire deal agreed in January provided a glimmer of hope. I know the joy every one of us in this room will have felt seeing Emily Damari reunited with her mother Mandy, and the relief of so many hostage families, as well as the desperately needed aid flowed back into Gaza.

    But the breakdown of the ceasefire and resumption of airstrikes has devastating consequences – both for the remaining hostage families and for innocent civilians in Gaza, as this cycle of suffering continues.

    That’s why the Foreign Secretary has been clear that all parties must re-engage with negotiations, because diplomacy, not more bloodshed, is how we will achieve security for Israelis and for Palestinians. And that’s why the UK government will continue to strive for a return to a path of peace and the goal of a two-state solution.

    But as Home Secretary, I am clear that we must never allow conflict happening elsewhere to lead to greater tension or hatred here on our streets, and we will never allow antisemites to use this or any conflict as an opportunity or as an excuse to spread poisonous hatred against our Jewish community here at home.

    But let me be clear what zero tolerance means, because I know how wary you are of warm words that mean nothing in practice. Zero tolerance means that we cannot and will not accept people being abused, attacked or threatened because of who they are or what they believe.

    It means where antisemitic hate crimes are committed – whether in a local community, on a national protest or on the internet – we will back the police in the action they need to take. Arrests, charges and convictions. Whenever and wherever it takes place. But zero-tolerance also means ensuring that Jewish people in this country can take part in communal life free from intimidation and fear.

    Just as all communities are entitled to that right, but particularly when they attend their place of worship. Whether it’s going to synagogue for a Shabbat service; for a bar or bat mitzvah; for a wedding; to celebrate a festival or for any other community event. We know how sacred and special those moments are in the week, in the month and in the year for the family.

    And there is no shying away from the fact that over the last 18 months – for congregants of Central Synagogue, Western Marble Arch and Westminster – those sacred and special moments have been hugely disrupted by protest activity.

    On too many occasions, Shabbat services have been cancelled and people have stayed at home – worried to travel and attend shul as they normally would. We always say, and I say it again, so nobody is in any doubt. Protest and freedom of expression are cornerstones of our democracy, and of course that must always be protected.

    People have made use of that right to peaceful protest through generations, and they will do so for many more to come. But the right to protest is not the right to intimidate.

    And the right to protest must always be balanced against the freedom for everybody else to go about their daily lives. The police already have powers to place conditions on protests. And just as we supported officers last summer taking every possible action to defend mosques from appalling attacks violent disorder on Britain’s streets.

    I have strongly supported action taken by the Metropolitan Police in recent weeks and months to divert protest routes away from synagogues on Saturday mornings. But I know how hard the community has had to fight for those conditions – each and every time. And I have listened to your calls for change.

    So tonight I can announce that we will legislate in the Crime and Policing Bill currently going through Parliament to strengthen the law. And to give the police an explicit new power to prevent intimidating protests outside places of worship. To give the police total clarity – that where a protest has an intimidating effect, such that it prevents people from accessing or attending their place of worship – the full range of public order conditions will be available for the police to use.

    Because the right to protest must not undermine a person’s right to worship. And everybody has a right to live in freedom from fear.

    We will also never stand for the desecration of memorials and gravestones, or the vandalism and graffiti inflicted on synagogues, schools, shops and community centres. These are not minor acts of criminal damage, they are hateful acts of antisemitism and they will continue to be punished as such.

    And we will make a further amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill.

    We have carried over from the previous government an important new proposal to make it a criminal offence to climb the most significant memorials in our country, such as the Cenotaph, with a maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment and a £1,000 fine. So I can tell you tonight that I plan to extend the proposed list of protected memorials to include the new Holocaust Memorial in Westminster, to demonstrate our commitment to ensure it is valued as a place of reflection and respect.

    And I don’t need to tell this audience why that matters so much. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

    And I had the enormous privilege of attending the special service at the Guildhall on Holocaust Memorial Day, to hear first-hand from those who witnessed those unimaginable horrors and still tell their stories.

    When you hear the testimony of survivors – they so often start with a description of a happy childhood. Going to the park, enjoying school, playing with friends. The joy of being children – free from worry and from fear.

    And they describe how quickly things changed. How almost overnight – peace became war; communities became ghettos; life became death.

    There are only a couple of generations separating those brave survivors from our children today. So when students feel compelled to remove their kippahs or their star of David necklaces, when organisations like CST say their workload has doubled, I understand why – for this community – freedom feels so fragile and safety does not feel guaranteed.

    But that is why understanding the history of antisemitism and where it can lead is so important. Not just for us to talk about tonight, but right across government and public services, and right across society.

    And certainly, for us in the Home Office where our core responsibility is to keep the country and communities safe.

    So I have agreed with the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, that we will roll out antisemitism awareness training across the Home Office, and when Home Office staff seek to visit Auschwitz or other concentration camps with the Holocaust Educational Trust, March of the Living, and other organisations, that will not count towards their annual leave, because we will treat that experience as a crucial part and asset for their employment.

    I want to thank the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Anne Frank Trust and other brilliant organisations for the work they do to educate new generations about the horrors of the past, just as we thank the CST for its work to challenge antisemitism and keep our communities safe today.

    But there must be no doubt. CST’s work and the work of the police and the government is not just about public safety, it is about our national security.

    Because in the last few years we have seen the threats to UK national security change and become more complex.

    Not just here, but across the world, we face a series of rapidly evolving and overlapping threats, from terrorism to malign state actors.

    Just as we are updating our counter terrorism response to deal with the greatest threat from Islamist extremism, followed by far right extremism, including reforming Prevent and our counter terror laws.

    And we are also upgrading our response to state threats here on our shores. As our Security Minister, Dan Jarvis set out in the House of Commons earlier this month, it is no secret that there is a long-standing pattern of the Iranian intelligence services targeting Jewish and Israeli people across the world.

    And we are not prepared to stand for the increasingly brazen Iranian activity on British shores in recent years, with our security services thwarting an increasing number of direct plots.

    This month we have announced that the whole of the Iranian State – including Iran’s intelligence services, like the IRGC – will be placed on to the enhanced tier of our new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. This is a critical disruptive tool that will mean those who are being directed by Iran to conduct activities in the UK must register that activity, whatever it is, or face 5 years in prison.

    And we will not hesitate to go further when we need to – to protect our communities and protect our communities and democracy from the malign influence of the Iranian state.

    And this government will continue to work in lockstep with the police, the security services, our partners overseas, we work too with partners in this country. And I speak on behalf of both the government and law enforcement when I say how important a partner CST is in that work.

    Be it the response to different extremist ideologies or the interaction with state threats, CST’s work identifies how antisemitism is the poison that pollutes so many of our wider national security challenges.

    And no one should be in any doubt about the unparalleled professionalism and extraordinary expertise with which Mark Gardner and all the teams and volunteers carry it out. The information and intelligence-sharing with police forces and government, which has contributed to the arrests and convictions of the removal of so many individuals intent on causing harm.

    And the SAFE programme, through which CST shares expertise with other minority groups who want to keep their communities safe and secure – building the bonds and bridges across different faiths that help to keep our society as a whole cohesive and strong.

    Through all of this work, CST play a pivotal role not just in securing the safety of the Jewish community but our country as a whole.

    And for that, again, to Sir Gerald, to Mark, to Sir Lloyd and everyone at CST, I want to say a heartfelt and enduring thank you. In a few short weeks, I know many people here will be gathering with family and friends to mark Passover. Gathering around the Seder (say-der) table to recount the story of the Jews’ liberation from Egypt.

    A story of hardship, of resilience and ultimately one of freedom. These are undoubtedly difficult and unstable times, we keep sight of the light in the darkness. And the light of the Jewish community continues to shine so brightly in our country.

    Just look at the thousands of volunteers who work with CST every day.

    The synagogues who, throughout the winter, have hosted homeless shelters or drop-in centres for refugees.

    The life-saving humanitarian work of World Jewish Relief in Ukraine and across the world.  The brilliance of Mitzvah Day, inspiring thousands of people to contribute to their communities. The fantastic and essential work of Jewish Women’s Aid, who support survivors of domestic abuse.

    And all of the other countless ways that our Jewish communities enrich and enhance communal life here in Britain.

    As Home Secretary, I know that security and safety are the bedrock on which all of these other opportunities in our lives are built.

    A Jewish community that feels secure means a Jewish community that can flourish. And a successful, vibrant, confident Jewish community means a better future for Britain.

    Thank you very much.

  • Keir Starmer – 2025 Comments After the Coalition of the Willing Meeting in Paris

    Keir Starmer – 2025 Comments After the Coalition of the Willing Meeting in Paris

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 27 March 2025.

    It is now over two weeks since Ukraine agreed to an immediate 30-day ceasefire.

    That offer is still unanswered. It is over a week since Putin agreed to an energy and infrastructure ceasefire.

    Since then, Russia has hit energy infrastructure in cities across Ukraine.

    They’ve increased their bombardment.

    Firing over 1,000 long range drones at the country.

    Hitting homes, schools and hospitals, with widespread civilian casualties.

    One drone killed a mother, father and their daughter – an innocent family.

    Then, this week we saw the agreement on a ceasefire in the Black Sea.

    I welcomed this as a vital first step forward.

    But within a few minutes of the announcement,

    Russia set out new conditions and delays.

    Now President Trump has rightly called them out for dragging their feet.

    And we agreed here in Paris today that it’s clear the Russians are filibustering.

    They are playing games and playing for time.

    It is a classic from the Putin playbook.

    But we can’t let them drag this out while they continue prosecuting their illegal invasion.

    Instead, we should be setting a deadline of delivering real progress.

    And we should hold them to that deadline.

    So here in Paris we agreed that we must go further now to support the peace process. Support Ukraine and increase the pressure on Russia to get serious.

    That means – first – stepping up the military pressure.

    So the Defence Secretary will chair the next Ukraine Defence Contact Group on 11 April, to marshal more military aid and keep Ukraine in the fight.

    Because peace comes through strength.

    That was one of the main messages reasserted today and emphasised today all-round the table.

    Second, it means increasing the economic pressure on Russia – accelerating new, tougher sanctions, bearing down on Russia’s energy revenues – and working together to make this pressure count.

    We also discussed how we can support the implementation of a full or partial ceasefire, when it is in place, and how we can build efforts towards negotiations on a just and lasting peace.

    That remains our shared goal. And that is what the Coalition of the Willing is designed to support.

    The political will from partners here today was clear.

    And this week in London we hosted over 200 military planners from 30 countries. Coming forward with contributions on everything from logistics and command and control, to deployments on land, air and sea.

    That work continues at pace.

    We will be ready to operationalise a peace deal whatever its precise shape turns out to be.

    And we will work together to ensure Ukraine’s security so it can defend and deter against future attacks.

    This is Europe mobilising together behind the peace process on a scale we haven’t seen for decades.

    Backed by partners from around the world, we are determined to deliver a just and lasting peace.

    Because we know it is vital for Ukraine and Europe as a whole and I am clear that it is vital for Britain.

  • Keir Starmer – 2025 Statement on Talks in Saudi Arabia

    Keir Starmer – 2025 Statement on Talks in Saudi Arabia

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 12 March 2025.

    I warmly welcome the agreement today in Jeddah and congratulate President Trump and President Zelenskyy for this remarkable breakthrough.

    This is an important moment for peace in Ukraine and we now all need to redouble our efforts to get to a lasting and secure peace as soon as possible.

    As both American and Ukrainian delegations have said, the ball is now in the Russian court. Russia must now agree to a ceasefire and an end to the fighting too.

    I will be convening leaders this Saturday to discuss next steps. We are ready to help bring an end to this war in a just and permanent way that allows Ukraine to enjoy its freedom.

  • Torsten Bell – 2025 Speech at the Pension and Lifetime Savings Association Conference

    Torsten Bell – 2025 Speech at the Pension and Lifetime Savings Association Conference

    The speech made by Torsten Bell, the Minister for Pensions, in Edinburgh on 11 March 2025.

    Thank you to the PLSA for the invitation to speak…

    …and for bringing us all to Edinburgh…

    …the city my first boss in politics, Alistair Darling, represented and loved.

    It is always a pleasure to come…

    …well almost always.

    Because it can trigger traumatic flashbacks.

    One stands out.

    Of a pre-dawn drive across from Glasgow back in 2014…

    …to accompany Alistair to the Andrew Marr show on the Sunday just days before the referendum.

    It’s not a great distance, nor is the traffic bad at 5am…

    ….but it felt like an eternity given the weight of events.

    Events that could have had seismic repercussions for the whole UK…

    …and for this city’s pensions, and financial services, industry.

    Whenever I hear partisans of Manchester and Birmingham compete over which is the UK’s second city…

    …I gently remind them that, when it comes to productivity, there’s no contest: it’s Edinburgh.

    I was also here last August for a rather more light-hearted kind of trauma.

    I was due to speak at the brilliant book festival…

    …and had plenty of time spare ahead of a 7pm event.

    Or at least I would have done, if it actually had a 7pm start…

    I was ambling under the castle when my team rang.

    There had been a mix-up and the event started at 6.

    It was 5.45.

    This was an event on a big, serious, topic: the UK’s economic stagnation.

    But rather than pondering that I now had a rather more practical question…

    …how fast can a newly elected MP walk, or run, up the hills of this city while retaining a shred of dignity in transit and upon arrival.

    Quite fast it turns out is the answer…

    …although opinions differ on much dignity was retained.

    This is all a long way of saying particularly thank you to the PLSA for organising today…

    …and sparing us any short notice changes to the schedule.

    So we can give pensions the unflustered attention it deserves.

    Today I want to step back to focus on the big picture…

    …of where our priorities must be as our defined contribution saving landscape matures…

    …and defined benefit schemes see their funding positions changed materially.

    On the former my big argument is we have to pay more attention to returns for savers…

    …rather than just to costs, or savings rates – important as both those are.

    Celebrating the success of auto-enrolment can no longer be a substitute for answering the harder question:

    What does the best landscape for those savings to be managed in look like?

    Both to maximise returns for savers…

    …and to ensure those savers live in a country that is investing and growing again after a long decade of economic stagnation

    Now, our view is that scale does matter.

    We want fewer, bigger, better pension schemes.

    That is already the direction of travel – for a whole host of reasons.

    We are merely providing extra wind into the consolidation processes’ sails.

    Of course, some smaller schemes deliver great value for money.

    But for the market as a whole, and savers on average, consolidation is desirable.

    Larger schemes are better placed to invest in more productive asset classes.

    This is a diversification as important as that of geography, which rightly gets so much attention.

    Scale also helps reduce costs – and increases bargaining power.

    That both can help provide the headroom for building investment capability…

    …or just better returns for members.

    Around the world we also see that scale matters for the nature of ownership.

    Only large pension schemes can provide active, engaged ownership…

    … of the kind that presses management not just on short term returns today but on whether they can deliver over the long term.

    Now, scale of course is an enabler of change, and it is very far from a silver bullet.

    One part of interlocking reforms.

    Including reforms to focus more on value, and less narrowly on cost or price.

    I’m grateful for the support there has been for the proposed value for money framework.

    It will help focus minds.

    Employers including any in the room today will have no excuse for ignoring what matters most to their employees.

    But we also need to focus on value in debates and, to be frank, in sales pitches.

    Now why do I focus on enabling productive investment?

    Because we do so little of it.

    DC pension funds allocate 3% to infrastructure and 0.5% to private equity.

    That compares to an 11% infrastructure allocation in Canada, and 5% to private equity in Australia.

    Every percentage point counts, or part of a percentage point matter when this investment can deliver not only returns for savers…

    …but also contribute to economic growth.

    and if you want a simple summary of the government’s economic strategy this is it:

    It’s time for Britain to start investing in its future again.

    Again, this shift to investing in a wider range of assets is again one we are encouraging rather than instigating.

    Many of you have told me about changes you are already delivering…

    …building new capacities or partnering with others.

    I want to acknowledge the work going on across the industry to realise this shift.

    And from learning from parts of the industry that have been doing this for decades.

    I particularly want to welcome the ambition to go further through voluntary commitments.

    This work is ongoing, under the leadership of the PLSA, City of London and the ABI…

    I want to thank them all for it…

    … I look forward to seeing the results in the coming weeks…

    …and will weigh them heavily as we finalise the Investment Review that Zoe talked about.

    Now everyone in this room, given you’ve signed up and I suspect will be here for three days, loves talking about pensions.

    But we all know, higher investment is about far more than pension reform.

    That’s why we encourage you to focus on how the overall strategy, how the pensions reform sit within that wider argument.

    It also requires a supply of investable propositions, not just the existence of capital.

    Across the board we are working to grow that pipeline and to make it more visible.

    In June we will set out our 10-year infrastructure strategy.

    The British Growth Partnership is there to help bring VC investment opportunities to pension funds.

    Our work with local and regional government will highlight investable propositions right across geographies.

    Investment propositions will also need to be visible in another sense…

    …they actually need to get built.

    We have already got back in the habit of swiftly granting permissions for the likes of solar farms and reservoirs.

    Permissions which previously policy makers seem to have decided Britain could do without.

    And today we’ve introduced the Planning Bill to make sure we do get homes and infrastructure built.

    If we’re going to invest once again…

    …we have to make it possible to build it once again.

    Now in many ways, elements of our approach build on the success of the Local Government Pension Scheme.

    At £400bn it is not just one of the world’s largest schemes in the world…

    …but one of the fastest growing, projected to reach £1 trillion by 2040.

    Now given that, we must reflect on what is working well, and what more we can do.

    One clear objective is reducing fragmentation.

    Minimum standards for asset pooling are an important step…

    …and again there is lots of progress underway.

    Thank you to those who have prepared pool transition proposals, all of which we have now received.

    A great deal of time and energy has clearly gone into them.

    We put the onus on the LGPS to come forward with creative and collaborative plans.

    And we are now considering if the proposals have met that ask.

    You have all asked for clarity as quickly as possible and I’m delighted to be meeting each and every pool in the coming weeks.

    And because it is important that concrete progress is made…

    …I am today confirming that we will plan to stick to the timeline of March 2026.

    The pooling project began 10 years ago.

    By this time next year, our world class LGPS will be made up of large pools of professionally managed capital…

    …accountable to Authorities via robust governance structures…

    …and delivering for members and their communities.

    On the Investment Review more generally, it will be finalised in the coming weeks.

    The final report will be all the better for the consultation responses we have received.

    It – and the wider changes promised in the Kings Speech – will form the basis of the Pensions Bill…

    …which I aim to introduce before the summer recess.

    That Bill brings me to the £1.2 trillion in DB schemes and the incredibly important role these schemes have to play.

    We know that the market is already innovating.

    Hence our commitment to legislate for a permanent regime for Superfunds.

    Today’s £160bn of surplus is a good ‘problem’ to have.

    Infinitely preferable to the previous problem: perma-deficits.

    Surplus flexibilities will allow more well-funded DB schemes to release resources back to business and scheme members.

    Where it is safe to do so.

    And where trustees agree.

    They are best placed to determine, in consultation with employers, the appropriate use of any surplus in their scheme.

    As an aside, some may want to examine the position of members with non-indexed pre-1997 accruals when considering the use of any surplus.

    I look forward to sharing more details with you in the response to our Options for DB schemes consultation this Spring.

    And we are considering proposals to allow the Pension Protection Fund greater flexibility to reduce the levy it collects from pension schemes, when it is not required.

    I recognise this can all sound like…. a lot.

    Especially given wider changes – dashboards and the rest.

    There are limits on any organisations ability to deliver.

    I take those constraints very seriously.

    Not everything that could be legislated for will be legislated for in the forthcoming Bill for exactly that reason.

    And we owe it to you to provide a clear roadmap of how these changes fit together.

    Now I want to end on the big picture, before my talk of capacity constraints exhausts your capacity to feign interest.

    It’s helpful to consider how “the pension problem” has changed.

    Not over recent months which is too often the focus but recent decades.

    Now here’s an overly simplistic view, but still a useful one, is as follows.

    The 1990s pension problem was this:

    How do we run pension schemes, and regulate them, to cope with the danger that some employers go bust – leaving employees without the pensions they were promised?

    That is a problem regulation, and more recently a good dose of luck, helped answer.

    The problem of the 2000s was different:

    How do we deal with the disaster that swathes of people no longer build up any pension savings, never mind any firm pension promises?

    Again, policy provided an answer in the form of automatic enrolment.

    In both cases solutions were found and that should give us confidence for our own challenges today.

    But in both cases we took too long to find them.

    Innovation in face of a chronic problem, rather than a crisis is not easy….

    …for policy makers, or anyone else working in this area

    What is today’s problem?

    The consensus is just to say adequacy, due to insufficient savings.

    I agree, the levels of contribution is an issue but I’d put the problem slightly differently.

    Today’s problem is how do we deliver higher returns for savers, so they can have a decent standard of living in retirement without asking any more than is necessary of their standard of living in the here and now.

    Or asking them to become a pensions expert – which is your job.

    Getting absolutely the best value for savers is the priority to any wider debate on savings levels.

    That’s why phase 1 of the pensions review on the landscape, and the pensions Bill that will help reduce costs in the system and put decumulation on a firmer footing, must come before phase 2 on adequacy.

    The damage done by poor returns – including during decumulation – maybe feels less binary and catastrophic than the risk of Maxwell style broken promises…

    …but it’s a mistake to underestimate its impact on savers, which can in some cases be just as great.

    So that is today’s exam question.

    We are making good progress.

    And I look forward to answering it…

    …with all of you over the months and years to come.

    Thank you very much.

  • Andrew George – 2025 Speech on Fishing Quota Negotiations

    Andrew George – 2025 Speech on Fishing Quota Negotiations

    The speech made by Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 26 March 2025.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I come at this debate as someone who is not entirely new to fisheries debates, after having been involved in them in the early days of my parliamentary career in 1997 and on a number of occasions since. On how the fishing industry is perceived by the political process, I have always found that there seems to be an inverse relationship between politicians’ desire not to interfere with the fishing industry and the inevitability that politics has to interfere in order to help establish and sustain an industry that is so important to this country. Indeed, there is a further inverse relationship in the sense that the industries that work in and are exposed to the raw power of nature seem to have a higher degree of regulation and administrative burden that is disproportionate to their sense of freedom from office-based activity.

    It is interesting that the political parties that always seem keen to use the fishing industry as the poster boys for their campaigns and send flotillas up the Thames do not seem terribly interested in discussing the detail when it comes to the hard miles.

    Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Although he did not name the individuals concerned, did he consider the fact that they might have other fish to fry?

    Andrew George

    We could spend all morning exchanging fishing industry puns, but I think it would be better to get back down to the nitty-gritty of trying to advance policy for the benefit of the fishing industry.

    The Minister will appreciate what goes on in my constituency, which he visited last summer when he came to Newlyn, Sennen and other areas around Cornwall to look at the activities within the industry. That was very much appreciated and he clearly has a very sincere interest in the industry. Although he is not personally responsible for what he has inherited, he has a significant task on his hands in helping the industry find a way forward. That is what I hope we can encourage him to do today, because the issue for us—I am speaking on behalf of the industry, which I have spoken to on numerous occasions—is how last year’s quota negotiations are impacting on the prospects for the industry this year.

    Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)

    I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate in a light-hearted way—initially, at least—which is a contrast to some of the previous discussions. Is he concerned about reports that our French allies are seeking to link fishing quotas to other matters, such as access to the €150 billion defence budget? Does he agree that the Government should clarify their position on this, and will he perhaps ask the Minister to do so this morning?

    Andrew George

    I am sure that the Minister heard that intervention. It does trouble me. If we go back to 1974, when Edward Heath was involved in the negotiation of our entry into the EU, and to subsequent negotiations, the fishing industry has often been used as a pawn—a bargaining chip. It would be a great pity if that happened again. I know that fishing Ministers do not usually sit around the Cabinet table, but I hope the Minister will use his influence to make sure the message is heard loud and clear within the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister that the fishing industry is not a bargaining chip that can be handled in that manner.

    Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

    My hon. Friend has spoken about political intervention. Fishery quota negotiations are difficult and nuanced at the best of times and understanding the granular detail of advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, for example, is never straightforward. It always goes badly wrong when we bring in other considerations. Does he agree that both our national security and our fishing industry deserve better treatment than the sort the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) just outlined, if indeed what is reported is true?

    Andrew George

    If we are to establish a sustainable fishing industry that is fair to UK fishermen, it is important that the industry is reviewed on its merits and on the basis of science, not on political horse-trading with other countries. I strongly accept that point.

    Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)

    Given the debate we are having and the risk that our fishing communities could be used as a bargaining chip, does the hon. Member agree that, as the Government have said, food security is national security, and we cannot have our fishing communities and fishing stocks traded against defence in any way?

    Andrew George

    These negotiations are difficult at the best of times. We need to make sure these decisions are made on the basis of merit. Of course, we wish to re-establish UK fishing entitlement out to the 12 mile limit and to ensure that foreign vessels are not able to use their historic entitlements to fish within the 6 to 12 mile zone. Relative stability within the common fisheries policy left the UK, particularly in the western approaches, with a significantly poorer deal in comparison with many European countries, and that is the basis of a great deal of disquiet within the industry.

    John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)

    The hon. Member is being generous with his time. I am fortunate to represent the fishing fleet off the Berwickshire coast, which is relatively small but very active, together with the fish processing industry. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation produced a very helpful briefing note ahead of today’s debate. One of the points it makes is that, since the UK left the EU in 2020, the UK and Scotland’s opportunities have increased greatly, and those opportunities would not have been there had we remained in the EU. Does the hon. Member agree with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation?

    Andrew George

    No, I disagree. I think that overall, the impact on the fishing industry has been a net negative, certainly for people in my own region, who depend substantially on the export of fish to other European countries. In the past, the majority of the fish landed in Newlyn, which is a very substantial port in my constituency—at least 80%—went to France, Spain and other European countries. The impact that that and other things, including veterinary inspections, vivier export requirements and licences, have had on the industry has been significantly detrimental, so I do not accept that. That is a conversation that I would be very happy to have with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, but by no means can one say that Brexit has been a great success, because that is certainly not the case.

    The fishermen in my area do not feel that they have been well treated as a result of those negotiations. As a passionate remainer, I was prepared to accept that on the face of it, there was a potential benefit. There should have been—fishing was the only industry in which it was possible to make an argument that there could be a potential benefit as a result of Brexit—but that has not happened, so I reject the basis of that intervention and the point made.

    I hope that in time, the Minister will look at the opportunities, rather than taking the sort of stop-start approach that I am going to refer to today—I will get to that point after all the interventions. I hope he will look instead at a medium and longer-term setting of quotas, with rolling multi-annual quotas, perhaps of up to five years. That should be the Government’s objective, and they should work with scientists so that the industry can see a way forward, rather than having to adjust its business plans at very short notice, which is the case at present.

    I will be adding a few small points about the small-scale, low-impact fishing industry; indeed, I come to this debate as someone with a limited amount of experience within the industry itself. When I was younger, our family had a boat at Mullion, in the south of the constituency, which used to supplement our income from the smallholding that we had. It was very low-impact, outboard motor and oar-based fishing activity that involved the setting of lobster and crab pots—very little of it was mechanised; it was all pulled by hand—and mackerel hand lining. It was low-impact fishing that we could only undertake during the summer months because of the storms that came into the coast in Mullion over the winter period. I have that experience, and many members of my family are engaged in the industry.

    The Cornish fishing fleet has a value to the Cornish economy of £174 million, and 8,000 people are employed in the industry, so I particularly wanted to address the impact of the 2025 quota settlement on choke species. It is going to have a detrimental impact on the significant amount of fishing that takes place around the western approaches. The headline impact is that on pollack, which is very much bycatch fishing only. Boats under 10 metres are allowed just 75 kg per month. We have to remember that this is an ultra-mixed fishery, so even though those fishermen target other species, such as hake, it is hard for them not to catch pollack. Because pollack is healthier than the science seems to indicate, fishermen end up catching a lot more of it and, under the regulations, are obliged to land it.

    When the long-term ban was announced last year, the previous Government provided financial support for only one year, and the Minister and the new Government have not announced any other compensation for those affected by the pollack ban. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has anything to say about that. The industry asked for management measures for the recreational industry. At present, there is no management in place for the recreation fleet. The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation estimates that up to 50% of the total pollack catch around our waters is taken by the recreational angling industry.

    The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice for pollack is currently being benchmarked, as the Minister knows, and that formal review of the available science will lead to new advice in June. The House and I would be interested to know what power and influence the Minister has in that regard before June and over any decisions taken after June when the benchmarking process has been completed. Will he commit to introducing new management of the pollack stock on or before the completion of the benchmarking process? The industry cannot wait until next January.

    There are similar problems with Dover sole. Our fleet is targeting megrims and monkfish, but Dover sole are known to be abundant in many areas. In areas VIIe, VIIf and VIIg, Dover sole are relatively abundant, and therefore the total allowable catch for those areas is relatively good, but data is lacking for areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk, which has led to a much lower total allowable catch as a precaution. For example, each boat can catch 400 kg of Dover sole per month in area VIIe, but in VIIh it is limited to just 30 kg per month. Because of the catches that have been experienced, that is a significant diminution in the activity that the industry can pursue.

    In 2023-24, the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation fleet worked with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to collect genetic samples of sole in VIIe and VIIh areas to provide evidence of the genetic links between the two stocks. Unsurprisingly, they saw that Dover sole swim between those areas. If that is proven and accepted, there will be greater confidence in setting fishing opportunities for the fleet to target monkfish and megrim in those other areas. I hope the Minister will prioritise the review of the scientific evidence at the UK-EU Specialised Committee on Fisheries, with a view to making a joint request to ICES to amend the total allowable catch for Dover sole in that area.

    Similarly, the industry is working with scientists, CEFAS and environmentalist non-governmental organisations to aid the recovery of the stock of spurdog—a slender shark found in our waters—by providing bycatch and discard data. The spurdog fishery reopened in 2023 with a 1 metre maximum landing size as a precautionary management measure. Spurdog is a non-target species in a mixed fishery, so its increasing abundance is leading to increased unavoidable bycatch, forcing vessels to discard fish over 1 metre in length. In December the written record agreed that that rule should be reviewed in 2024 and 2025, but so far no meaningful adjustment has been made. Will the Minister promise to follow through on the commitment to review the 1 metre rule and work with the industry to develop more sustainable management measures?

    There has been a dramatic recovery of bluefin tuna in our waters over recent decades. In the past, the Atlantic bluefin tuna saw drastic cuts in catch limits, and a crackdown on illegal and unreported catches across its whole range. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas has taken that action over the last 20 years to reach a tipping point. Over the last decade the recovery has benefited that fishery, and has reached the shores of Cornwall, where sightings of bluefin tuna have increased by a factor of 60 since just a decade ago. The total allowable catch set by the International Commission is over 40,000 tonnes, more than half of which is allocated to the EU. In 2021 the UK received 50 tonnes of quota, initially for bycatch. In 2025, the UK quota is 66 tonnes, with 45 tonnes for commercial hook-and-line vessels.

    Sixteen tonnes, almost a quarter of the entire quota, is set aside for accidental mortality from recreational catch-and-release permits. Tuna are vulnerable to unintended mortality due to the long fights they often endure with anglers, so mandatory training and strict handling procedures have been applied to some vessels, and 1,700 tuna have been released with minimal mortality. But in 2024 recreational catch-and-release permits were introduced, with a voluntary code of conduct and training. Will the Minister join a roundtable meeting of MPs, fishers and scientists to look at how the UK tuna industry can be managed more sustainably?

    I will not detain the House for much longer, but there are other issues that I know the Minister is aware of, and which I have spoken to him about—particularly the impact of regulations on the small-scale fishing industry: day boats, under 7 metres, that fish around our coast and take less than 1% of the annual catch. Last summer I met Jof Hicks on the island of St Agnes in the Isles of Scilly. Over the last five years, he has gone out of his way to develop a fishery that has the lowest possible impact because there is no plastic or fuel involved: he uses sail and oar, and he makes his own crab pots entirely from natural materials—growing his own withies and tamarisk to make the pots. He is sustaining a living from that. Admittedly, some of the restaurants on the Isles of Scilly are able to provide him with relatively healthy prices for his produce, but he is nevertheless demonstrating that it can work. However, he complained to me that all the same regulations that apply to supertrawlers apply to him with his home-made boat and locally made lobster and crab pots. I urge the Minister to have a close look at that, perhaps with me. I am not arguing that this is the future for the fishing industry, or that we can feed the nation by this method, but it can make a measurable difference and provide an alternative way of catching fish in areas such as mine, and no doubt in other places. We could forge a different approach. If we could take unnecessary burdens from the shoulders of people such as Jof Hicks, that would be enormously appreciated.

    I will bring my remarks to a close, because many others wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions raised. I believe that politicians and the fishing industry are all pushing in the same direction—towards a sustainable industry based on the best available science—but we need to ensure that the regulations that are informed by that science do not create unintended consequences that have a detrimental impact on fish stocks and the fishing industry.

    Things have changed. The culture has changed, and the industry is much more engaged with a science-based approach than perhaps it was when I first engaged in these debates nearly 30 years ago. I hope that we will continue with openness and dialogue, and that we will push for efficiency in the way we update the regulations this year. The pressures on the fisheries I mentioned earlier, which are being affected by choke stocks such as pollack and Dover sole, need to be addressed before the end of the year.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2025 Speech at the Aurora Forum

    Stephen Doughty – 2025 Speech at the Aurora Forum

    The speech made by Stephen Doughty, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, on 11 March 2025.

    Well thank you very much, David.

    In the genuine spirit of bipartisanship, David was an absolutely excellent Minister for Europe, albeit from a different political philosophy.

    And I certainly look to his example in trying to do this role today in very difficult and challenging times.

    And really it is genuinely an honour to host you all here in this beautiful venue.

    And thanks to Aurora Forum and Wilton Park and everybody else here at Goodwood who’s helped put this together.

    And all the sponsors, all the different governments who participate, and we come here very much as friends and likeminded counterparts in some very, very challenging times.

    And indeed Goodwood House itself has witnessed many centuries of history, and we’re obviously here at a pivotal moment not only for Ukraine but for the security of our Continent and indeed the whole world.

    I’ve just come from another conference down the road at Wilton Park with Ukrainian friends and colleagues, with Ministers, members of the Rada and others, talking about Ukraine’s economic resilience and economic recovery needs and all our shared commitments on that.

    But obviously to be able to move to that more hopeful future, we need to ensure Ukraine’s security and sovereignty now.

    And that is a moment in which we stand united in a desire for a strong, just and a lasting peace.

    Determined to contain Putin’s reckless actions and continue to put pressure on the Kremlin, while stepping up to ensure that Ukraine has the support, including the military support, that it needs.

    And I was in Kyiv just about ten days ago under yet another bombardment in the night of drones and missiles.

    I visited Bucha, which many of you will know saw some of the worst atrocities that we have seen in Europe in decades.

    And to see, yet again, drones having attacked that small town that’s endured so much suffering just hours before I arrived killing civilians, a journalist and others just shows us the stark reality of what Ukrainians are facing every single day.

    But their strength and resilience is absolute, as it has been throughout this conflict.

    We also have to be looking very closely at how we invest in our own defences – which is why the UK has announced our own biggest sustained increase in spending since the Cold War.

    And that we need to pull together as Europe to drive urgent action, but also working with the United States and our other partners across the Atlantic and Ukraine to make progress.

    We all know that that is vital for our Continent’s future security.

    On a more personal note, support for Ukraine is a cause that I care deeply about.

    It’s one that’s personal to me, there are many ties between Ukraine and my own home area of South Wales. My own city was twinned with Luhansk.

    It was a Welshman that helped found one of the cities in the Donbas, Donetsk, and we even of course have a Sebastopol in the South Wales valleys harking back to the Crimean war when Welsh troops fought in a different era.

    And it’s also one I have a personal connection to. In my own time I taught English in Lviv many years ago and I’ve had many friends and counterparts from Ukraine over the years.

    And each time I have been back since this barbaric, unprovoked conflict began, I have witnessed again that courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people.

    This morning before joining with all of you I spoke with the Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister, Stefanishyna, and reiterated the United Kingdom’s unwavering support.

    And this afternoon, we are going to discuss our collective support in detail at our Ministerial roundtable, and it’s great to welcome fellow ministers, many of whom I’ve had the pleasure of working with over recent weeks and months, and I hope that  will become a regular feature of Aurora.

    Not that we’re just coming together, discussing very important issues, sharing perspectives but we’re also agreeing joint plans of action.

    And we all hope for positive steps forward at the talks in the next few days. We’re going to do all that we can to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for lasting peace, and the ability to deter and defend against future aggression.

    And in that endeavour, and indeed in the wider European security endeavour, it has never been more important for the UK and our Nordic-Baltic partners to work together.

    We have a lot of shared experience, a lot of likeminded approaches, and we act as a bedrock and a base for wider European security.

    It is a huge honour to be the UK minister responsible for relations with this part of the world, one I know well.

    I have many deep Nordic-Baltic connections in my own family and my own history. I’ve worked in Denmark, my brother studied in Norway, and I was taught Finnish folk music by one of our own participants here today when I was a 16-year-old in Canada which is a very unique and deep connection!

    I’ve had the pleasure to visit nearly every country in the Nordic-Baltic region before coming into office and since. I haven’t yet been to Latvia, the Faroes or Greenland but it won’t be long before I do, I’m sure.

    And you know, it is very clear, we see the reality, we see the threat from Russia, we see the threat to European security, we know the history.

    Putin’s war, his imperialist ambitions, are close at hand.

    We recognise that, we recognise the very serious threats to all of you, your border is our border, and your security is our security. And that’s why we stand with you as the United Kingdom.

    And I have seen for myself that new iron curtain between Lithuania and Belarus – and I’ve met the border force who are resolutely monitoring the security of our NATO border there.

    I’ve had the privilege to join British Royal Marines training with their Norwegian counterparts in Northern Norway.

    I’ve conducted a tour in NATO’s Northern flank with the Norwegian Coast Guard with Maria and her colleagues recently.

    And I also was, I think, the first British Minister in ten years to attend the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavik, where I thought it was very important to show our shared ambitions to work alongside you all in the Arctic region and indeed in the Polar regions more generally, not only for the science and peacefulness of those regions but also their security against hostile threats.

    And of course, my colleague the Foreign Secretary travelled to this region on his first trip in the job, to Sweden.

    We feel your sense of threat. We hear your concerns. And that’s why we’re stepping up our collective partnerships with all of you in this room, across Europe and beyond for the sake of our security, and to better face global challenges.

    That includes seeking an ambitious new security pact, a new partnership, with the EU to strengthen co-operation on defence, security, energy, climate and much more.

    But, of course, this goes far beyond the EU and encompasses our ironclad commitment to NATO and indeed the Joint Expeditionary Force, the JEF, which the UK is proud to lead.

    And the Prime Minister was glad to attend the JEF leaders’ summit in Tallinn a few months ago, discussing further measures to support Ukraine.

    He and the Defence Secretary have made a point of visiting and thanking British military personnel – indeed your military personnel – deployed in the region in recent months. Because together with our allies we stand ready to defend NATO’s eastern flank and to uphold European stability.

    And, as I speak, our JEF nations are working side-by-side to combat the risk of sabotage, of hybrid activity, in the Baltic and indeed to monitor the Russian shadow fleet, which we all know does so much damage.

    And we are working together to constrain the activities with not only economic implications but wider maritime security implications.

    We’re also intensifying our efforts together to counter Russian hybrid threats, including sabotage, cyber attacks, disinformation.

    And the Maritime Capability Coalition, led by the UK and Norway, is transforming the Ukrainian navy.

    Those are just a few short examples of the UK promise to step up and put our money, our boots and our actions where our mouths are on European security, and of course we will discuss that in more detail during this forum.

    But of course, there is much more to our relationships than security and defence, vital as those are.

    Our economic and trade ties and the strong links between our citizens and our cultures are all part of the rich mix that strengthens our bonds.

    It is the UK government’s number one mission to advance economic growth to build a more secure and prosperous future for citizens here.

    And in this, we hugely value our links with our Nordic-Baltic partners.

    Our trading relationships with the eight countries here today are worth more than 95 billion pounds a year and rising.

    And there is huge appetite to invest and work in mutual collaborations in each other’s economies.

    Take the UK’s ambitious new Green Industrial Partnership with Norway as just one example.

    By combining our world-leading capabilities on clean energy to drive economic growth we have the potential to create thousands of new skilled jobs in both of our countries.

    This is an important part of the UK’s plan to secure home-grown energy and put us on track to make Britain a green and clean energy superpower by 2030.

    And, of course, together our countries are also at the forefront of innovations – indeed, the UK and many of the countries in this room regularly feature on lists of the most innovative nations on earth. And we are particularly proud to co-host NATO’s Diana initiative with Estonia.

    Our collective experience in AI, quantum technologies, drone technology and innovation will be crucial in protecting our societies and developing new capabilities in the future.

    And the countries, businesses and academics in this room count themselves, rightly so, as world leaders. We’re delighted that you are all here.

    I could speak at length about wider partnerships on everything from climate finance to digital government. But I know we are all keen to get down to business, to get down to discussions, so I hope this forum will be an important moment to galvanise those efforts. At ministerial level, between those in think tanks, the academic space, between businesses and the other partners in this room.

    We’ve all got to continue to learn from each other, urgently, and to work together, urgently, as we write the next chapter in our partnerships as strong supporters of Ukraine, strong defenders of European security.

    Standing together to defend our security and values at this critical moment, and, fundamentally, to advance the causes of prosperity and peace.

    Thank you very much.

  • Daisy Cooper – 2025 Response to the Spring Statement

    Daisy Cooper – 2025 Response to the Spring Statement

    The speech made by Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrat Spokesperson on the Economy, in the House of Commons on 26 March 2025.

    The people of this country are crying out for change, but they feel they are just getting more of the same. Of course, it was the Conservative party that wrecked the public finances, but we are eight months into the new Government and people are left wondering, “Where is the change that was promised?” The Chancellor says that the world is changing, so why will she not change course with it? The Chancellor said she wanted a dash for growth, but with her national insurance jobs tax she shot herself in the foot before she even crossed the start line.

    After the Government’s disastrous Budget, the Government had the chance today to change direction, fix our finances, kick-start growth and deliver a small business Budget. The Government could have scrapped the jobs tax, which will hammer our high streets, and instead ask the big banks, social media giants and online gambling companies to pay their fair share instead. The Government could have changed their approach to trade, launching talks to boost growth through a new trading deal with our European neighbours. Instead, the Government have made the wrong decisions to cut public services, hit disabled people and inflict more pain on our small businesses and high streets. In doing so, they have delivered no change and almost no growth at all.

    After years of Conservative mismanagement, people can see just how broken our public services are. They cannot see a GP, they cannot see a dentist, they are fighting for an education plan and, they are picking up the pieces of a broken social care system. Everything is broken. Nothing works. That is why people are impatient for the change they were promised.

    We have to bring the welfare bill down and support more people into work. That is right for people and our economy, but cutting support for someone who needs help getting dressed and washed in the morning is not just wrong; it does absolutely nothing to support that person into work. If anything, it does the exact opposite. It will also have knock-on impacts for the entitlements of their family carers, too. Will the Chancellor come clean about this? If the Government are serious about cutting welfare spending, they must get serious about fixing health and social care. Will the Chancellor speed up the social care review and ensure that it concludes no later than the end of this year?

    In the Chancellor’s quest to slim down the civil service, I wonder why she has not looked at the mountain of red tape created by the previous Government’s terrible trade deal with Europe. A whopping 2 billion extra pieces of paper have had to be completed by businesses since Brexit, enough to wrap around the world 15 times. If we manage to cut the red tape, we can give British businesses a tailwind, deliver far more growth than is currently predicted, increase the fiscal headroom to deal with global headwinds, and free up precious time and money in our civil service. That would be real change.

    Business was promised change too. Today’s statement should have been a small business Budget. We Liberal Democrats have repeatedly raised the alarm about the impending damage of the national insurance jobs tax, bigger business rates bills and changes to reliefs for family farms and family businesses. Those changes will be a hammer blow to small and family businesses, leaving communities facing the prospect of an epidemic of boarded-up shopfronts. They will be a hammer blow to community health and care providers who stop our NHS from falling over. This is not the change that was promised. Instead, I say again that the Chancellor should look again at much fairer ways to raise the tax revenue our public services desperately need by reforming capital gains tax more fairly and asking the big banks, the social media giants and the online gambling companies to pay their fair share.

    I know the Chancellor must contend with President Trump’s trade war, which is causing global economic turmoil, but our response to Trump’s bullying cannot be to cower in the corner and just hope that he is nice to us. We cannot sit on our hands while British steel is hit with Trump’s tariffs. We Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Chancellor’s move to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, but instead of cutting the aid budget, which abandons the world’s poor and damages our soft power, she should be covering the cost by raising the digital services tax, handing the tab to Elon Musk and Trump’s other billionaire backers. At the very least, can the Chancellor categorically rule out any reduction in the tech tax in an attempt to appease the White House, especially when disabled people in Britain face eye-watering cuts?

    To conclude, I have a series of questions. Will the Chancellor recognise that cutting public services that are already stretched is a false economy? Will she accept that trying to bring down the welfare bill without fixing health and social care is a road to nowhere? Will she listen to the warnings of small and family businesses that her jobs tax will do more harm than good? Will she look at the fairer ways of raising revenue that we Liberal Democrats have put forward? And will she take the bold action we need to grow our economy by rebuilding our broken trading relationship with Europe? The public were promised change. Where on earth is it?

    Rachel Reeves

    The hon. Lady says, “Where is the change?” Let me tell her: more money into our NHS, with 2 million additional appointments and waiting lists falling five months in a row; rolling out breakfast clubs in primary schools from April this year; increasing defence spending to protect us in a more uncertain world; additional support for carers, the living wage up, the Employment Rights Bill and so much more. That is the difference we have made in nine months, and we have only just got started.

    The hon. Lady talks about trade. We believe in free trade. We are an open trading economy and we benefit from trade links around the world, including with our single biggest trading partner, the United States of America. It is right that we work with our allies in the United States to ensure that that free and open trade continues. That is in our national interest and this Government will always act in our national interest. At the same time, there will, as the hon. Lady knows, be a summit between the UK and the EU in May, where we will look to re-set our relationship, so we can see more free trade and the better flow of trade, especially for our smaller businesses to be able to export around Europe.

    The hon. Lady talks about welfare. She has not admitted that there is a single problem in the welfare system as it exists today. I am not willing, and this party is not willing, to write off one in eight young people who are not in education, employment or training. It is why, for example, we announced this week, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, an additional 60,000 training places to train people up in the construction industries of the future, and a £1 billion package of personalised targeted support because there are many disabled people—the hon. Lady knows this—who are desperate to work but are not getting the support and were denied support by the previous Government. That is why we have said there will be additional support for the most sick and disabled, and that personal support for getting people back into work. That is the right approach, so that we have protections for those who need it, work for those who can, and a sustainable system that is here for generations into the future.

    I want to take on the hon. Lady’s main point. She wants all the money for public services, but she does not want to raise the taxes to pay for them. At the moment, we spend £105 billion a year in interest on Government debt. It seems that she would just like more of that debt. She says that people cannot see a GP or a dentist. How does she and the Opposition parties think that we pay for those things? They cannot object to the tax increases and support the money we have invested in our public services. To say otherwise, I am afraid, is fairytales and the magic money tree—it just does not add up. The difference on the Labour Benches is that we will put money into our public services, explain where it comes from, and ensure that the public finances are on a firm footing. That is the difference between our party and the Opposition parties.

  • Meg Hillier – 2025 Response to the Spring Statement

    Meg Hillier – 2025 Response to the Spring Statement

    The response made by Meg Hillier, the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, in the House of Commons on 26 March 2025.

    My right hon. Friend inherited a very difficult challenge when she became Chancellor of the Exchequer last July, and she is absolutely right that the books need to balance. This is not other people’s money we are spending, but taxpayers’ money—our constituents’ hard-earned money—and she is right to be tough as Chancellor. We look forward to quizzing her at the Treasury Committee next week, and I am sure she is looking forward to it just as much.

    The Chancellor announced an extra £2 billion a year in capital spending, and she talked about extra defence spending. Could she give some more detail about where she hopes that extra £2 billion a year will go?

    Rachel Reeves

    I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I do indeed look forward to attending the Treasury Committee next week. I was pleased to serve on the Treasury Committee in the past, and it is a pleasure to give evidence to it.

    We will set out in the spending review—my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will set out in the spending review—the allocation of the additional capital money. However, I was able to announce today the £2.2 billion for defence from next year, as well as the £2 billion as a downpayment to build the affordable and social housing that we need. Those are two examples of the priorities of this Government to get Britain building and to secure our national security.

  • Mel Stride – 2025 Response to the Spring Statement

    Mel Stride – 2025 Response to the Spring Statement

    The statement made by Mel Stride, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 26 March 2025.

    At the last Budget, the right hon. Lady said that she would bring stability to the public finances, but this statement, more appropriately referred to as an emergency Budget, has brought her to a cold—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Rightly, I wanted to hear the Chancellor, and I now want to hear the shadow Chancellor. [Interruption.] I do not need any help.

    Mel Stride

    This emergency Budget has brought the right hon. Lady to a cold hard reckoning. She has become fond recently of talking about the world having changed, and indeed it has. This country was growing at the fastest rate in the G7 only about a year ago. Just as the OECD, the Bank of England and other forecasters—including, we learn today, the OBR—have stated, growth has been halved for this year. It has been cut in two as a consequence of the decisions and the choices that the right hon. Lady has made on her watch. Inflation was down to 2%—bang on target—under a Conservative Government on the very day of the last general election. We are now told that this year we will be running at twice the level as was forecast under us in 2024. That will mean prices bearing down on households and on businesses right across the country, because of her choices.

    The OBR also says that unemployment will be rising this year, next year and the year after. In fact, across the forecast period it will not decline at all. So much for the right hon. Lady’s back to work plans. We have already seen what it means when it comes to controlling borrowing under this Chancellor. She has come forward now with a plan to squeeze spending later on in the forecast period, and she has of course told the OBR that these are the elements of spending restraint to which she will stick, but what do the markets think? Given her track record, and the fact that she has failed to control spending and borrowing to date, what does the right hon. Lady think the markets will make of her latest promises?

    Of course, the right hon. Lady says that none of this is her fault. It is the war in Ukraine, it is President Trump; it is tariffs; it is President Putin; it is the Conservatives; it is her legacy; it is anyone but her. What the British people know, however, is that this is a consequence of her choices. She is the architect of her own misfortune. It was the right hon. Lady who talked down the economy so that business surveys and confidence crashed through the floor. It was the right hon. Lady who confected the £22 billion black hole, a smokescreen that was only ever there to cover up for the fact that she and the Prime Minister reneged on their promises to the British people during the last general election, and a black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility itself—ironically, at the Government’s behest—has said it will not legitimise. She chose to be reckless with a sliver of headroom against her fiddled targets. She borrowed and spent and taxed as if it were the 1970s. Little wonder that the Chancellor has tanked the economy, little wonder that we have an emergency Budget, all because of her choices.

    The Chancellor likes to tour the television studios and tell everyone that they should be thankful that she will not be ramping up taxes in this emergency Budget as she did before, but that will be cold comfort to the millions up and down the country who are waiting in fear and trepidation for the start of the new tax year, buckling under the burden of tax that will rise to the highest tax burden—on her watch—in the history of our country. May I ask the right hon. Lady whether, when she replies, she will give that much-needed reassurance, particularly to businesses, that she will not be ramping up taxes still further in the autumn? Even a basic economist knows that if you tax something, you get less of it. You do not need to have worked at the Bank of England for 10 years to know that.

    So what did the Chancellor tax? She taxed jobs and wealth creation. She has destroyed livelihoods. Businesses have been clobbered, big and small—small companies, the backbone of our economy—and enterprise has been crushed on the altar of her ineptitude. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has told us that a third of the businesses affected will shed labour, with Morrisons losing 200 jobs, Tesco 400, and Sainsbury’s 3,000. No wonder the Federation of Small Businesses has said that outside the pandemic, business confidence has been left at its lowest level on record. However, it is not just businesses. It is charities, it is GPs, it is pharmacies, it is those who transport children with special educational needs, and it is hospices caring for the sick and the dying. In this House, the Labour party had the opportunity, yesterday and last week, to stop that, but they voted our amendments down, and we will never let their constituents forget it.

    If you ramp up taxes, Mr Speaker, and if you ramp up borrowing and spending without any commensurate improvement in productivity, it leads to growing inflation, and inflation has been increasing on this Government’s watch. It means that interest rates stay higher for longer. The Chancellor has just trumpeted the fact that there have been three interest rate cuts since the Labour party came to office. She knows full well that there would have been more than that had she managed—[Interruption.] She knows full well that interest rates are higher for longer because of the choices that she made. This has led to servicing costs for our national debt running at twice the defence budget, and today we have learnt from the OBR that debt interest is to increase still further—and none of this money will be spent on public services. It will be going down the drain.

    The real black hole is not the one that the Chancellor invented; it is the one that the Chancellor created. Is not the central problem that this Chancellor is a gambler? Even with her fiddled fiscal targets, she left way too little headroom. Is not the truth that while the right hon. Lady said of the last Budget that it was a

    “once-in-a-parliament reset”,

    she rolled the dice on a wafer-thin margin, and she lost? Reckless, with her fingers crossed, she fiddled the targets and she missed them. [Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I am not sure about the language being used. I think there are better and more constructive words that the shadow Chancellor would prefer to use in future.

    Mel Stride

    May I just point out that all the Chancellor’s fiscal headroom disappeared, not just some of it? In fact, she went underwater to the tune of £4.1 billion. Reeling from one fiscal event to the next is not a way to run the public finances, and breaking your fiscal rules to the extent that the right hon. Lady has in just six months is a public humiliation.

    May I now focus briefly on defence spending? We on this side of the House welcome the fact that the Government will reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027, as we pressed them to do, and we note the stepping stone along the way that the right hon. Lady has just announced, but we should go further than that. The 3% target should be brought forward to this Parliament. So may I ask the right hon. Lady: given the geopolitical tensions that she has raised, what provision she has made in her headroom, in her fiscal plans, for increasing defence spending more quickly in this Parliament, if that proves necessary? May I also ask her this: would she scrap the absurd Chagos deal, and put that money behind our armed forces?

    The economy is in a perilous state, but there was a different way. There were different choices on taxing and spending and borrowing, and on productivity, and on welfare. Let me just say a few words about welfare. It was the privilege of my life to serve as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and when it came to welfare reform, with that privilege came a deep responsibility: the responsibility for welfare reform to be properly thought through, with a very clear plan—[Interruption]—I know that Labour Members do not like it, because it is an alien idea to their party—so that we could be fair to the taxpayer, but equally fair to the many people up and down the country, some of whom are highly vulnerable. That was an approach, on our watch, that led to £5 million of savings across the forecast period, and 450,000 fewer people going on to long-term sickness and disability benefits as a direct consequence.

    We would have gone further—much further—and we set out a clear plan in our manifesto to do exactly that, but those in the party opposite rushed their changes. They had no plan. There was not a single mention of the personal independence payment in the Labour party manifesto, and when they got into office, the Labour Government pussyfooted around and dithered. Why? Because it is deeply divisive within their rank and file. Then suddenly, when the Chancellor decided that she had run out of money, out went the word to find some savings in welfare, to scrabble around, to yank every lever possible.

    Then there was the spectacle, frankly, of what the OBR has said about the simply shambolic changes that were announced only last week by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have gone from incompetence to chaos. There have been more changes to this policy than there were at the last minute to the right hon. Lady’s LinkedIn profile. The result is the worst of all worlds: a wholly inadequate level of savings on welfare, with welfare costs spiralling ever higher, and changes that are likely to harm many vulnerable people. May I ask the right hon. Lady: when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions came to the House last week with these changes, she did not provide an impact assessment, but was this because the OBR had not signed off the numbers, was it because the Department did not have enough time to produce one, or was it only provided today, as many of us suspect, because this was thought to be a good time to bury bad news?

    The forecast for growth is down, the forecasts for borrowing costs and inflation are up, and business confidence has been smashed into a million pieces. This Chancellor is constantly trying to blame forces beyond her control. The right response is not to duck responsibility, but to build a resilient economy. The right hon. Lady would have us believe that that is what she is doing, but how can we believe this Chancellor? How can we trust this Chancellor? She is the Chancellor who said she would not increase borrowing, but she did. She said she would not change her fiscal rules, but she did. She said she would not put up national insurance, but she did. She said she would not cut the winter fuel payment, but she did. She said she would not tax farmers, but she did, and she said she would not move to more than one fiscal event a year, and she just has. Now we are all paying the price of her broken promises. Today’s numbers confirm it. We are poorer and we are weaker. To govern is to choose, and this Chancellor has made all the wrong choices.

    Rachel Reeves

    I know that the shadow Chancellor has not been in his role for very long, but at least he is not misquoting Shakespeare today. If this was a Budget, it would be the Leader of the Opposition responding. I am glad that she is still in her place, but I know she will want to get back to her office for a lunchtime steak soon.

    The right hon. Gentleman talks about Budgets. Let me remind the Conservative party that the only emergency Budget we have seen in recent years was in response to their party’s disastrous mini-Budget—a mini-Budget that crashed the economy, sent mortgage bills spiralling and left a £22 billion black hole in our nation’s finances. Conservative Members may have forgotten about the damage that they did to our country, but the British people never will.

    As always, the shadow Chancellor talked a lot, but he did not offer a single alternative. He says he opposes our tax rises, but he cannot tell us whether he would cut the NHS to reverse them. He says he wants economic growth, but Conservative Members abstained on the very planning reforms that the OBR has said will kick-start growth. Mr Speaker, you do not change the country by abstaining or by sitting on the fence; you change the country by leading and by taking action, and that is what this Government are doing. The shadow Chancellor says he wants businesses to trade, but he does not want us to talk to the second largest economy in the world or, indeed, our biggest trading partners in the European Union. He simply is not serious. Four months into the job, and he has got no clue.

    The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about growth, but he does not say anything about the fact that the OBR has upgraded growth next year and every single year after. He talks about pensioners, but he forgets that it is his party’s policy to scrap the triple lock, which we are protecting and which will mean the state pension rising next month by over £400. He talks about wages, but he forgets the fact that we are boosting wages by boosting the national living wage from next month. The shadow Chancellor says nothing about living standards or this morning’s fall in inflation, because the last Parliament was the worst on record, and the OBR has today revised up its forecast for family finances. Working people are always better off with Labour.

    The right hon. Gentleman is learning something, because at least this time he has asked a couple of questions, so let me respond to them. He asked what the markets should make of this. What the markets should see is that, when I have been tested with a deterioration in the headroom, we have restored that headroom in full. That is one of the choices that I made. He says that it is a sliver of a headroom. Well, it is 50% more headroom than I inherited from the Conservative party. When I was left with a sliver of headroom, I rebuilt it after the last Government eroded it. That is the difference that we have made. While they left the public finances and the public services in a mess, we wiped the slate clean, which means that we have the flexibility now to increase defence spending, as the leader of the Labour party has done. The Conservatives had 14 years to increase defence spending, and now they lately come to the party.

    The shadow Chancellor mentions welfare reform and his time at the Department for Work and Pensions. What a legacy: one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, and 1,000 people a day going on to personal independence payments. The OBR says today that welfare spending as a share of GDP will now start falling—a far cry from what we had under the Conservative party. The shadow Chancellor speaks about employment. The OBR says that employment will increase, that wages will increase and that living standards will increase. What a change, after 14 years of the Conservative party.

    The world is changing, and no one can be in any doubt about it, but the Conservative party is stuck in the past—divided, out of touch and carping from the sidelines. Conservative Members have no plan: no plan to kick-start growth, no plan to fix our public services and no plan to keep our country safe. The only plan for change they are working on is a plan to change their party leader, and we cannot blame them for that.

    If the Opposition have no plan, let me remind them about ours. The minimum wage up, real wages up, house building up, NHS investment up, investment in our schools up, investment in our roads up, defence spending up—and every single one of those policies is opposed by the party opposite. They are opposed by the Conservatives, opposed by Reform, opposed by the SNP, opposed by the Liberal Democrats and opposed by the Greens. It is the anti-growth coalition in action. They are the blockers. We are the builders—securing Britain’s future, protecting working people and delivering change.