Category: Speeches

Harriet Cross – 2025 Speech on Licences and Licensing

The speech made by Harriet Cross, the Conservative MP for Gordon and Buchan, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

I hope it will be apparent that all Members of the House strongly support this motion. Certainly those of us on the Opposition Benches welcome the opportunity for pubs and other licensed venues across the country to stay open late to commemorate VE day without incurring any cost to extend their licences.

As time passes and those with direct memories of this momentous day grow older, it is critical that we continue to commemorate and remember the experiences of those who sacrificed so much and who in so many cases gave everything for our nation and for others’ freedom. We must celebrate the fact that their sacrifice was not in vain, but led to a great achievement, and recognise the efforts and endurance that overcame immense struggle. I hope I speak for all Members when I say that we are incredibly honoured to represent those who served in world war two and their family, friends and loved ones who survive to this day.

VE day is rightly a day for us all to share in celebration. As Churchill said on 8 May 1945,

“My dear friends, this is your hour. This is not a victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory for the great British nation as a whole.”

It is only appropriate that we continue to reflect the evergreen truth and celebrate VE day as we should: unified as a country, proud of our history of determination and of sacrifice.

The motion to extend licensing hours appears exceptionally appropriate. Not only was a national holiday declared in Britain on 8 May 1945, but it is said that on that morning, Churchill—with his focus very much on the real priorities—gained assurances from the Ministry of Food that there would be sufficient beer available in the capital. Meanwhile, the Board of Trade announced that people could purchase red, white and blue bunting without using ration coupons. We share that same spirit today by approving this motion, which I hope will allow people to fully and memorably commemorate this truly historic day.

April 30, 2025
Diana Johnson – 2025 Speech on Licences and Licensing

The speeches made by Diana Johnson, the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

I beg to move,

That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.

Next week marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, which was of course a hugely significant and consequential moment in our country’s history. After more than five long years, during the first of which we stood alone, on 8 May 1945 Prime Minister Churchill proclaimed to cheering crowds in Whitehall, just a few hundred yards from this Chamber:

“This is your victory. It is the victory of the cause of freedom in every land.”

As the 75th anniversary commemorations involving public gatherings were, sadly, cancelled in 2020 due to the covid outbreak, the upcoming milestone is a precious chance to pay tribute to that greatest generation and hear the stories of those who lived through the war. At this point, I want to refer to my father, Eric Johnson, who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, and my mother, Ruth Johnson, who worked in munitions factories.

Many people will want to come together with friends and family to mark the occasion, and to raise a glass to those who fought for our freedoms—the soldiers, sailors and airmen from the United Kingdom and across the Commonwealth, as well as our allies in Europe, and also those who contributed to the war effort at home, including civilians working in the emergency services, transport, the home guard, the wardens and those working in factories and on the land. Twenty three Members of this House and 20 Members of the other place gave their lives in world war two, and I know that Mr Speaker is working to mark that. We should celebrate the role of this place and our wartime coalition in saving democracy beyond our shores from what Winston Churchill called

“the abyss of a new dark age”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]

Commemorative events will be held in many locations during the anniversary week, including: a military procession from Whitehall to Buckingham Palace; street parties across the country on the bank holiday; evensong at Manchester cathedral, followed by a celebratory ringing of bells; a celebratory picnic at Cardiff castle; a living history event at Sterling castle in Scotland; a series of commemoration events at Belfast city hall; and a service at Westminster Abbey, which will serve as both an act of shared remembrance and a celebration of the end of the war.

VE Day falls within the annual Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s War Graves Week, and the commission is marking the 80th anniversary of VE Day with the “For Evermore” tour, a mobile exhibition travelling the UK sharing stories of those who died in world war two. The commission is also holding a special VE Day concert on 2 May at the historic Coventry cathedral, which was rebuilt after being destroyed by bombing in 1940. A concert will also take place at Horse Guards Parade to mark the end of commemorations on 8 May.

As a Member of Parliament who represents Kingston upon Hull, a city that was routinely referred to anonymously in the second world war as a “north-east coastal town” despite bombing comparable to the east end of London, Hull’s celebrations for VE Day will be accompanied by a desire to see greater national recognition of the effects of the blitz on my city than we have had over the course of the past 80 years. Hull will have a memorial service at Hull cenotaph; the Hull History Centre will show free screenings of archive footage from VE Day in 1945 of the celebrations that took place in Hull; and in Cottingham there will be a 1940s music singalong at Cottingham civic hall.

It promises to be a special atmosphere in many communities and the order will allow people to celebrate for longer, should they so wish. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing hours order to allow licensed premises to open for specified, extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. By way of background, past occasions where the then Home Secretary has exercised this power to extend licensing hours have included: the King’s coronation; Her late Majesty the Queen’s platinum and diamond jubilee celebrations; the royal weddings in 2011 and 2018; and, most recently, the semi-final and final of the men’s UEFA European championship last year. The Government consider the 80th anniversary of VE Day to be an occasion of national significance and, as such, worthy of the proposed extension before the House today.

Turning to the practical details, the order makes provision to relax licensing arrangements in England and Wales, and allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Thursday the 8 May for a further two hours, from 11pm until 1am the following morning. A truncated consultation was conducted with key stakeholders who were supportive of the extension, and we take the view that the order will not bring about any significant crime and disorder due to the nature of the events. However, we recognise that there may be implications for police resourcing, and we will continue to work with stakeholders to mitigate any concerns around the impact.

As well as enabling celebrations, the extension has the added potential benefit of providing a welcome boost to the hospitality sector. I hope that Members across the House will agree that this order represents an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003.

To conclude, this extension reflects our commitment to remembering what was a truly momentous event—our finest hour—and to celebrating those who defended our country, liberated Europe and secured peace. With that, I commend this order to the House.

April 30, 2025
Richard Foord – 2025 Speech on UK-USA Trade Agreements

The speech made by Richard Foord, the Liberal Democrat MP for Honiton and Sidmouth, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any trade agreement between the UK and the USA which the Government proposes to implement; to prohibit the implementation of such an agreement without the approval by resolution of each House; to make provision for the amendment of such agreements by Parliament; and for connected purposes.

Let us cast our minds back four years to the spring of 2021. Liz Truss was the Secretary of State for International Trade. Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. The export of British goods to the EU had fallen sharply in January of that year, and the end of the Brexit transition period was nigh. The Government were in a hurry. Boris Johnson sat down for dinner with the Australian Prime Minister here in Westminster. After three hours of small talk, a little negotiation and plenty of Australian red wine, Johnson agreed to remove tariffs on over 99% of Australian products entering the UK, including beef. The Government knew that such a deal would harm the UK agriculture and food industries. The Government’s own analysis predicted that the deal could leave the UK agriculture and food sectors £278 million worse off.

The Australian high commissioner, who had been sitting at the table, moved quickly. Scribbling down Johnson’s generous pledge, he excused himself to go to the toilet and handed a note to an aide as he did so. Within minutes it was scanned, turned into a formal trade document, printed and slipped into an official-looking folder. The high commissioner then casually walked back into the dinner carrying the so-called deal. That was all it took to sell out the UK’s farmers: a wine-soaked dinner, a hastily scribbled note and a signature from a Prime Minister prepared to ignore the good advice of his own trade negotiators.

Without proper parliamentary scrutiny and a vote on any deal with the United States, we risk adding to the pressure on our already struggling farmers, stripping away safeguards on British citizens’ data and sidelining democratic scrutiny itself. Currently, parliamentary scrutiny of international treaties in the UK is woefully inadequate. The Government can negotiate and sign a treaty with another country—even one as significant as the US—using prerogative powers, without having to put it to a vote in Parliament. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, known as CRaG, signed treaties must be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days. Parliament can raise objections but it cannot propose amendments and there is no requirement for a vote. Recommendations born of scrutiny are advisory, and not in the least bit binding.

Evidence was provided to the International Agreements Committee in the other place last year. It showed just how outdated the UK’s treaty scrutiny system is, set against how trade arrangements have evolved and become more complicated. Modern trade deals now reach deep into domestic policy: they shape our food standards, our data rights and even the regulation of artificial intelligence. If Back-Bench MPs are shut out of the process, so too are the people we represent.

Parliamentary scrutiny was demonstrably weak in the wake of the UK’s trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. The International Trade Committee condemned the Government’s approach, saying that it had “undermined” scrutiny. The Johnson Government did this by triggering the 21-sitting-day statutory period before Committees had received evidence or completed reports on the trade deal. This meant that Parliament had little information with which to assess the agreements. When the Australia deal was signed, Labour—then in opposition—rightly demanded a parliamentary vote. Now in government, it would do well to heed its own previous calls for proper scrutiny.

In east and mid-Devon, farmers who I represent have been hit hard by the poorly negotiated trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which come on top of the planned changes to inheritance tax and the peremptory closure of the sustainable farming incentive. Even if a future UK-US trade deal upholds our food standards, west country farmers and others could still be undermined. The Government offer assurances about shutting out hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken, but concerns remain that the US could still flood the UK market with beef that is not hormone treated. The Government have assured us that there will be no compromise on environmental and animal welfare standards in the UK, but again, these assurances count for little if imports from overseas are not produced to the same environmental standards or with the same requirements for high animal welfare standards.

The UK is already too reliant on imported food. Imports made up around 40% of the UK’s food supply in 2023. UK food self-sufficiency has already fallen sharply, from 78% in 1984 to just 60% today. There are those who say that some sectors will always fall victim to trade negotiations, because the Government must balance the demands of various industries, but some of the factors currently being discussed by our trade negotiators are cross-cutting, and that includes matters of digital trade and data.

The US wants a digital-first deal. That would mean locking in rules that protect the interests of silicon valley, not the British public. It has already been speculated that the Government are considering reducing or scrapping the digital services tax, which would cut taxes for some of the wealthiest and most powerful American companies in the world at the expense of public service users in the UK. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasted that the tax raised £700 million in 2024-25—revenue that the Treasury can ill afford to forfeit at this time.

Vice President J. D. Vance alleged in a speech at the Munich security conference that

“old, entrenched interests”

are

“hiding behind ugly, Soviet-era words like ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation,’”.

That brand of free speech pays little heed to facts. Vance may be representing some not altogether transparent interests himself. The US is pushing to overcome data localisation. That could allow US-based tech firms to centralise their data operations in the United States and rule out data storage in the UK. If that came about, it would weaken the protection for British citizens’ data, making it difficult to enforce UK privacy laws.

Take as an example the contract that Palantir agreed with the NHS in 2023 to install its federated data system. If a US-UK trade deal restricted data localisation, it could allow NHS medical records to be exported to the US, handing Palantir the power to exploit the enormous commercial value of British citizens’ data. Although Palantir claims that it will only act as a processor of data, its business model is rooted in extracting value from data for commercial ends. With access to one of the world’s richest health datasets, Palantir could package insights and sell predictive analytic services to private healthcare providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies. Palantir’s co-founder Peter Thiel has called the NHS a system that “makes people sick”. He claims that freedom and democracy are no longer compatible. Parliament should have the means to ensure that Thiel’s understanding of freedom cannot bypass British democracy.

This is not just about trade; it is about trust. The Leader of the Opposition should know: the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) was the Secretary of State for International Trade in 2023 when the Australia and New Zealand trade deals came into effect. Farming paid the price last time, and it could happen again—our digital freedoms could pay the price, too.

My Bill is simple: it does not block a US deal or tie the Government’s hands; it requires that Parliament has a greater say. That is what democracy demands, and that is what the public expects.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Tim Farron, Calum Miller, Helen Morgan, Sarah Olney, Edward Morello and Richard Foord present the Bill.

Richard Foord accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 228).

April 30, 2025
Andrew Bowie – 2025 Speech on Energy Grid Resilience

The speech made by Andrew Bowie, the Shadow Energy Minister, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and echo his comments; of course, the Conservatives’ thoughts are with all those affected by the blackouts in Spain, Portugal and more widely.

The Minister rightly addresses concerns about the security of our grid in the context of the shutdown witnessed on the Iberian peninsula, and I am glad that he can confirm that he is carrying on implementing the recommendations from Exercise Mighty Oak, in which I was involved, on the action that would be required if such an event took place in GB. The primary responsibility of the Minister’s Department is to keep the lights on in this country. The images from Spain and Portugal are a sombre reminder of what happens when the grid fails. Extended blackouts are devastating, and it is a relief that power was restored to 99% of customers by 6 o’clock yesterday morning. The grid collapse in Iberia has demonstrated the fragility of the complex, interconnected systems that support modern life, and the very real impacts on human life of such a collapse.

It is the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the same thing does not happen in Great Britain, as the price for our economy and for communities across this country would be catastrophic. We cannot get away from the fact that this Government’s plans to rush ahead to build a grid that is entirely dependent on the wind and the sun in just five years’ time will make our electricity grid significantly less reliable.

The stability of our electricity grid depends on what is called inertia, which is the ability for the system to resist destabilising fluctuations in frequency. It is the reason our grid has been so secure and resilient over the decades the Minister references. This inertia is provided by turbines, like those found in nuclear, hydro or, crucially, gas power stations, but it is not provided by solar or wind farms. If the grid does not have enough inertia to resist sudden changes in frequency, it can become destabilised, and cascading grid failure can occur. That means blackouts. As the Spanish NESO said in its latest annual report, the closure of conventional generation plants, such as coal, gas and nuclear, has reduced the firm power and balancing capacities of its grid, as well as its strength and inertia. This has also happened here in Great Britain. Data from NESO shows that the inertia in our grid has been steadily decreasing over time, as gas and coal have come off the system, to be replaced by wind and solar. This comes with a hefty price tag, which is the problem with so much of the Labour Government’s approach to energy security. Their imposed targets are saddling the British people with mountains of extra costs, as the Government rush ahead towards a power system that depends on the weather, rather than on firm, reliable baseload.

Tens of billions of pounds are spent subsidising wind farms, expanding the grid, and providing back-up from reliable gas plants. The Government set their 2030 target, and now they are trying to work out how they can achieve it, but they refuse to be honest with the British people. They refuse to do an open and honest assessment of the costs and risks that come with this approach. It is no wonder that even Tony Blair has said that the present policy solutions are inadequate and doomed to fail.

The Conservatives believe in a system that delivers secure, affordable and clean energy for the UK. A cyber-attack has been ruled out by the Spanish Government as a cause of their grid collapse, but we know that the threat of interference from hostile states is constant. Will the Minister update the House on the action he is taking to protect the grid from hostile activity? When will he finally tell us which single Minister is responsible for the safety and security of our offshore energy infrastructure?

The lessons from the incident on the Iberian Peninsula are abundantly clear. We must retain inertia in our grid to keep it stable and resilient. Nuclear power provides vital baseload power generation, along with inertia, which would have helped to mitigate a cascading failure like the one earlier this week. Will the Minister give the nuclear industry the certainty that it is asking for, and commit to 24 GW of nuclear power, as the previous Government did? Will he ask NESO to provide this House with a full, transparent update on the role of inertia in our power system, on the consequences of declining inertia, on the impact that has on grid stability, and on the costs associated with it?

Finally, the Minister has said that Great Britain has never experienced a complete shutdown such as that seen on the continent. What assurances can he offer this House that work is being undertaken, so that NESO and the National Grid are prepared for a black start, if ever that is needed?

Michael Shanks

I shall start with the more serious of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and then, in reply to some of his other questions, I might gently remind him who was in office not that long ago. On a serious note, I agree entirely with him on his opening point: the first priority of my Department and the Government is to ensure our energy security. The past few days in Spain and Portugal have brought to light just how much of our day-to-day lives are dependent on a functioning electricity system, so he is right to make that point, and we are very aware of it.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise the work that the previous Government did on building the renewable system, and on introducing inertia into the system, because that all started a number of years ago. We have a resilient grid in this country, and it is important to continue to have that. That means building new grid infrastructure, which he and a number of his colleagues quite often oppose. It is important to build that grid infrastructure and to invest in it. We will continue to work with NESO and others to understand the full causes of this outage. I will not be drawn into speculation on what may have caused it, because clearly the first priority of the Spanish and Portuguese Governments has been restoring power, but they will carry out investigations to find out the cause, and we will implement any lessons from that.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman was right to reflect on Operation Mighty Oak, which was carried out under the previous Government. We have been taking forward those recommendations right across government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is looking at resilience across Government. These are all important points. However, I say gently that energy security is an absolute priority for this Government, which means building the energy infrastructure that this country needs, and not opposing it at every turn.

April 30, 2025
Michael Shanks – 2025 Statement on Energy Grid Resilience

The statement made by Michael Shanks, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the resilience of the UK’s energy grid in the context of the widespread power outages experienced across the Iberian peninsula over the past two days. My thoughts are with all those affected by the widespread disruption across that peninsula on Monday. I am glad to hear that power has now been fully restored across the region.

I want to reassure the House that Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network, and that the incident in Iberia has not impacted Great Britain. The Secretary of State has been in regular contact with the National Energy System Operator over the past two days, and it has provided reassurance that there is no increase in risk to our energy supplies or system stability from this incident.

My Department was informed on Monday 28 April by NESO that a power outage had occurred across the Iberian peninsula, affecting mainland Spain, Portugal, Andorra and areas of France. While all power was restored to the impacted areas yesterday, Tuesday 29 April, the disruption had cascading impacts on other sectors across the vast majority of Spain and Portugal. The cause of the outage is yet to be confirmed; it is likely to take some time for the Spanish network operator to carry out a thorough investigation to determine the exact cause of the failure. Various independent reviews have been commissioned by Spain, Portugal and the European Commission to understand the cause.

Although GB is not directly connected to Spain and Portugal’s grid, NESO is in close contact with European counterparts, and is offering support where needed. The Government are closely monitoring the situation and are in contact with the Spanish and Portuguese authorities to ensure the safety and wellbeing of any British nationals in the affected regions.

I turn to our grid’s resilience, and our preparedness in the context of recent events on the Iberian peninsula. An event similar in impact in Great Britain would be equivalent to a national power outage—a total loss of power across the whole of GB—which is listed on the national risk register as a high-impact but low-likelihood event. In its 75-year history, Great Britain’s national electricity transmission system has never experienced a complete shutdown, or anything on the scale of what has happened in Spain over the past few days.

Our electricity system is highly resilient. The National Energy System Operator continuously monitors the condition of the electricity system to ensure there are sufficient inertia and reserves in the system to manage large losses and prevent large-scale power outages. NESO has also introduced innovative new approaches to managing system stability, as well as advanced safety systems to help to prevent such events from happening in GB. The system is built, designed and operated to cope with the loss of key circuits or systems without causing customer impacts. There are multiple redundant alternative routes through which power can flow should a fault occur, minimising the risk of a single fault cascading across the entire system to cause a total or partial electricity system shutdown.

However, as a responsible Government, we prepare for all eventualities, no matter how unlikely. I would like to reassure the House that the Government work closely with industry to continually improve and maintain the resilience of energy infrastructure, networks and assets to reduce vulnerabilities. This work includes having robust emergency plans, summarised in the national emergency plan for downstream gas and electricity, and regularly exercising emergency plans with the energy industry and Ofgem. That includes an exercise carried out by the previous Government; we have been taking forward the recommendations from that exercise. This work is ongoing across Government to ensure we are as resilient as possible as a nation in all eventualities.

We have also empowered the independent National Energy System Operator to carry out resilience functions across the electricity and gas systems, and will continue to work with industry and regulators to improve and maintain the resilience of old, new and future energy infrastructure. Switching fossil-fuelled generation for home-grown clean energy from renewables, nuclear and other clean technologies is the route to long-term energy security. I will speak more broadly about the UK’s energy resilience in a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday.

To conclude, Great Britain has a resilient energy network, and we will ensure that that continues to be the case. I commend this statement to the House.

April 30, 2025
James Cartlidge – 2025 Speech on the UK Airstrike on a Houthi Military Facility

The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Shadow Defence Secretary, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for the briefing he extended to me and other parliamentarians earlier today. As far as His Majesty’s Opposition are concerned, the rationale for these actions has not changed since we undertook similar operations in government in the months leading up to the general election, with the support of the then Opposition. We agree that this action is effectively an act of self-defence on behalf of ourselves and our closest allies.

With the main target for RAF Typhoons being a Houthi drone factory, we should remember that drones were used by the Houthis to target our own naval ships, such as the attempted drone attack on HMS Diamond in January last year. While HMS Diamond was able to take effective action in response on that occasion, we know that this capability can be produced in very large numbers and that the threat remains a clear and present danger. Indeed, we understand that the US navy continues to be subject to Houthi aggression, including from drones. In our view, it is therefore entirely legitimate to support the defence of our close ally, the US, and to prevent future potential attacks on our own fleet and international shipping by attacking the Houthi drone threat at source.

The Houthis’ actions are not just a threat to ourselves and our allies; as the Secretary of State said, they are illegal and completely counter to international humanitarian priorities, given that their attacks have imperilled aid deliveries to the Yemeni people, while undermining a crucial shipping route for grain en route to some of the poorest people in the world. The Government therefore have our full support for this latest operation, and the Opposition are grateful to the brave and highly skilled personnel of the Royal Air Force who conducted the mission, including the Typhoon crews and those supporting the air-to-air refuelling mission. In particular, we welcome their safe return and the completion of what appears to be a successful operation in degrading Houthi drone capability.

The US has been undertaking its own self-defence against Houthi attacks, and we very much welcome the close working with US allies, as was the case when we were in government working with the previous Administration in the US. That underlines the continuity of our most important strategic military partnership, and it is right that we work as closely as possible with the US to address threats to freedom of navigation.

That being said, freedom of navigation is vital to the ships of many nations, not just the UK and the US. The whole world benefits from action taken to keep international shipping flowing, which supports the wider economy. Can the Secretary of State update us on what talks he has had with other allies, including NATO members, on providing direct military support against the Houthi threat in future? After all, it is not only a threat to many other nations, but involves other hostile states, notably Iran, with its long-running support not just for the Houthis, but for Hezbollah, Hamas and other armed groups in Iraq and elsewhere. How will the UK dock in to the approach being taken by the new US Administration towards Iran?

The Secretary of State referred to Russian involvement. Can he confirm reports that the Houthis have received targeting assistance with potential ballistic missile attacks from Russia? Does that not show why supporting Ukraine against Russia is about a much wider strategic picture that directly threatens the United Kingdom? He also referred to the use of our military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations, but soon it will not be ours. Does this kind of action not show why surrendering its sovereignty is so reckless?

Let me finally turn to the subject of the strategic defence review. It is very concerning that the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday:

“it is a strategic defence review that will need to be translated into a set of specific investment decisions in individual capabilities and projects. That will be work for later in the summer and into the autumn.”

The Secretary of State knows of the need for urgent procurement decisions relating directly to the Houthi threat in the Red sea, not least on upgrades to the Sea Viper system, which we believe must be accelerated. He also knows that procurement is largely on hold, awaiting the publication of the SDR. He promised to publish it in the spring; can he confirm that it will definitely be published in May—which is the last month of spring—and, most importantly, can he confirm that in May we will see the full details of all major individual procurement choices, so that the MOD can get on with them as a matter of the utmost urgency?

John Healey

I welcome the tone and content of the hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement. Labour backed the last Government’s strikes against the Houthis and, as he pointed out, the rationale then was the same as the rationale now. That was a useful contribution to this discussion. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the clear and present threat that the Houthis pose to all nations, including ours and our closest allies, is also the same.

When I was shadow Defence Secretary and responded to what was said by the last Government, I did so as the hon. Gentleman has responded today, because this is bigger than politics. It is about freedom of navigation, it is about regional stability, and it is about that most important security relationship that the United Kingdom has with the United States.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about specific capabilities. We are now able to plan to provide the best possible kit for our armed forces, because of the historic commitment that the Prime Minister made to the House in February to raise the level of defence spending to 2.5%—three years earlier than the date that was in the hon. Gentleman’s own unfunded plans—and then to raise it to 3% in the next Parliament. He asked about the capabilities on some of our naval ships. When I met the crew of HMS Diamond in the autumn, they demonstrated to me, and described to me in detail, just how exceptional their response to that multiple attack was, and just how effective the weaponry on the ship was at that time. We are upgrading those ships with a number of capabilities, including DragonFire. It was the hon. Gentleman who first talked about that, but we are installing it not on just one ship, as he proposed, but on four; we are installing it sooner than he planned; and we are funding it fully, which he had not done.

The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with other nations. The importance of regional stability, the Houthi threats and the freedom of navigation in the Red sea were discussed by Foreign Ministers at the G7, and have been discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers in the last month. The very carrier strike group whose deployment the hon. Gentleman welcomed last week is multinational by design. It is designed to exercise together but also, together, to reassert some of the basic principles that last night’s attacks were designed to support, such as the freedom of navigation of our seas.

April 30, 2025
John Healey – 2025 Statement on the UK Airstrike on a Houthi Military Facility

The statement made by John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

I wish to make a statement to update the House on the action we took last night against a Houthi military target. We did so in collective self-defence and to uphold the freedom of navigation, as Britain has always done.

Yesterday, UK forces conducted a joint operation with US allies against a Houthi military facility in Yemen. Our intelligence analysis identified a cluster of buildings 15 miles south of Sanaa used by the Houthis to manufacture drones of the type used to attack ships in the Red sea and in the gulf of Aden. Royal Air Force Typhoon FGR4s, with air refuelling support from RAF Voyager tankers, struck a number of those buildings with Paveway IV precision bombs last night. This action was limited, targeted and devised to minimise the risk to civilian life. Everyone involved in the UK operation has returned to base safely. On behalf of the House, I thank all members of our armed forces involved in this operation and pay tribute to them for their total professionalism and courage.

Yesterday’s operation was carried out alongside the US, our closest security ally. It was conducted in line with both the UN charter and the established UK policy of this Government and the last; you will remember, Mr Speaker, that when Labour was in opposition, it backed the Government when they conducted five separate strikes with the US against Houthi targets.

Yesterday’s attack aligns with four broad objectives. The first is to restore freedom of navigation in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden, the second is to degrade Houthi capability and prevent future attacks, the third is to reinforce regional security alongside allies and partners, and the fourth is to protect our economic security at home. First thing this morning, the Government briefed the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge); the Speakers of both Houses; the Liberal Democrats’ defence spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire); and the Chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I can now tell the House that our initial assessment is that the planned targets were all successfully hit, and we have seen no evidence of civilian casualties.

Since November 2023, the Houthis have been waging a campaign of aggression against international shipping in the Red sea. To date, there have been over 320 attacks; those attacks are illegal and deadly, and we totally condemn them. Maritime routes have been disrupted, sailors have been killed, and commercial ships have been hit and sunk. The Houthis have even targeted aid vessels destined for Yemen itself, as well as military vessels of our allies and partners. Both the Royal Navy and the US navy have been forced into action in the Red sea—last September, I met the crew of HMS Diamond, who shot down a ballistic missile and multiple drones in self-defence during their deployment in the Red sea.

Make no mistake: the Houthis act as an agent of instability across the region. They continue to receive both military and financial backing from Iran, and even Russia has attempted to support the Houthi operations. The aggression in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden is yet another example of how our adversaries are increasingly working together against our interests. As such, I want to be clear that this Government reject any Houthi claims that attacking ships in the Red sea is somehow supporting Gaza. The Houthis were targeting tankers and seizing ships well before the war in Gaza began, and their attacks since have targeted vessels of all nations, so hear me when I say that these attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people or the push for a lasting peace.

An estimated 12% of global trade and 30% of container traffic passes through the Red sea every year, but the Houthi threat has led to a drastic fall. Levels are down by 55% on what they were in November 2023; the majority of ships now take a 5,000-mile diversion around the Cape of Good Hope, adding a full fortnight to a journey between Asia and Europe and pushing up prices for the goods that British people and others rely on. This cannot continue.

In opposition, I argued that, for what is now 80 years,

“the lion’s share of the responsibility for protecting international freedom of navigation in the Red sea is being shouldered by the Americans, just as the US has been doing across the world”—[Official Report, 24 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 355.]

Since last month, the US has been conducting a sustained campaign, targeting the Houthis in Yemen to restore freedom of navigation. It moved two carriers into the region, and its recent strikes have destroyed multiple command and control centres, air defence systems, advanced weapons manufacturing sites and advanced weapons storage sites. The US military says that its operations have now degraded the effectiveness of the Houthi attack, reporting that ballistic missile launches have dropped by 69% and one-way drone attacks are down by 55%.

The US continues to be the UK’s closest security ally. It is stepping up in the Red sea, and we are alongside it. Yesterday’s joint operation builds on the broader support that we have provided to the US in the region in recent months. That includes air-to-air refuelling; the use of our important military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations; and RAF Typhoons to support the defence of the US carrier strike group, which has been coming under near-daily attack from Houthi missiles and drones.

This Government will always act in the interests of our national and economic security. The UK is stepping up and encouraging allies to do more to protect our common security, just as we are with the eight-month deployment of our carrier strike group to the Mediterranean and the Indo-Pacific, which started last week. The UK has a long and proud history of taking action to protect freedom of navigation. This illegal Houthi aggression does not just disrupt shipping and destabilise the region; it hits our economy here at home. That is why the Government took this decision. It is why the UK has taken this action to help protect freedom of navigation, reinforce regional stability and strengthen economic security for families across the country. We are determined that we will keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

April 30, 2025
Rachel Reeves – 2025 Speech at the Innovate Finance Global Summit

The speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Innovate Finance Global Summit held on 29 April 2025.

Thank you Janine, and good afternoon everyone.

It’s a pleasure to be here today to mark the 11th year of UK FinTech Week …

… brought together once again by Innovate Finance…

…who continue to champion tirelessly our FinTech sector.

As Chancellor, I’ve always said it’s my job to back the builders…

… back the wealth creators…

…and the job creators.

So my job is to back all of you in this room.

After all, it’s thanks to your work that the UK is a world leader in FinTech.

When I was working at the Bank of England 20 years ago…

…FinTech was in its infancy…

…an offshoot of financial services…

…and there was certainly no such thing as FinTech week.

But times have changed, the industry has changed.

Last year, the UK’s FinTech sector attracted $3.6 billion of investment – more than any other country bar the US.

Almost half of Europe’s FinTech unicorns are based here in Britain…

…and roughly a third of all UK unicorns are FinTechs – a higher share than anywhere else.

Companies like Allica Bank and Zilch, who were both recently named among the fastest growing companies in Europe by the Financial Times …

…Or Zopa, for whom 2024 marked another year of extraordinary economic growth.

Last week when I was in Washington for the IMF Spring Meetings…

… I spoke to industry, legislators, and policymakers…

…as well as US firms already operating here in the UK.

I set out our strengths as an open trading nation with trade links around the world…

…and as a nation that can provide political and financial stability and certainty to businesses…

…in an uncertain world.

The UK has a long history of breaking new ground in Financial Services.

We were the first country to develop uniform Open Banking standards…

…and we were one of the first countries to establish a system for near-instant digital payments with the Faster payments system in 2008.

In my Mansion House speech last year, I published the National Payments Vision…

… setting out the government’s ambition for seamless account-to-account payments…

…and demonstrating our commitment to a regulatory environment that cares about managing the burden we put on businesses.

Something that we will build in with the consolidation of the Payment Systems Regulator into the FCA.

The UK is Europe’s leading hub for investment…

…raising more equity capital than the next three European exchanges combined last year.

I am committed to building on these strong foundations…

…with an ambitious programme of reforms.

Last September I chose to extend the UK’s generous venture capital schemes…

… the Enterprise Investment Scheme and the Venture Capital Trust scheme…

…which – alongside the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme – offer generous tax reliefs…

…in return for investing in British business.

And we will soon publish the final Pension Investment Review, ahead of the introduction of the Pension Schemes Bill…

…where we will legislate to unlock up to £80 billion of investment into companies like yours…

start-up, scale-up, and fast growing businesses.

…delivering a major consolidation of the Defined Contribution market and the Local Government Pension Scheme…

…so that pension funds have sufficient scale to invest in growing industries like FinTech.

I am determined to make sure that the UK remains one of the best places in the world for FinTechs to start-up, scale-up and to list…

…benefitting from our stable and liquid markets.

Last July, the FCA implemented a fundamental rewrite of the UK’s Listing Rules, the biggest reforms in a generation.

These new rules now put the UK in line – or in many cases ahead – of other global markets in giving companies the flexibility to pursue their growth ambitions…

…backing their aspiration…

…and allowing them to raise large amounts of capital more easily.

And for those companies who want to remain private for longer, we are developing the new Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System – or PISCES…

…which we will legislate for next month.

This is a brand new type of stock exchange for trading private company shares…

…supporting private companies to scale and grow…

…and providing a steppingstone to IPO.

Finally, we’ve reformed the rules to allow greater investment research to be produced on UK listed companies…

…and reducing the burdens imposed on public companies through the UK’s Corporate Governance Code.

I want the UK to be a place where you can take risks…

…innovate and experiment…

…and find new ways to deliver for your customers.

When I met with senior leaders from across the FinTech sector last month…

…you told me about the importance of getting the balance of regulation right…

…especially on digital assets.

I agree.

While the UK will always be committed to high international standards…

…I am determined that our regulatory framework supports economic growth.

That’s why I’m delighted that we are today publishing draft legislation for the UK’s comprehensive regulatory regime for cryptoassets…

…engaging with all of you to ensure that the final legislation – planned for later this year – delivers for government and most importantly for the industry…

…and makes the UK a great place for digital asset companies to invest and innovate.

For the UK to be a world-leader in digital assets…

…international cooperation is vital.

Which is why I discussed continued U.S. and UK engagement with Secretary Bessent last week…

…including further dialogue at the upcoming UK-U.S. Financial Regulatory Working Group in June…

…to support the use and responsible growth of digital assets…

…maintaining the deep historic relationship between the world’s two largest financial centres through this period of significant technological change.

Regulation must support business, not hold it back.

Our regulators were among the first to embrace and develop sandboxes…

…including the Digital Securities Sandbox, where I’m delighted that we already have a broad range of firms all looking at different proposals for tokenising our financial markets.

Last November, I announced that this government will issue a Digital Gilt Instrument…

…an entirely new debt instrument…

…using distributed ledger technology…

this will enable us to experience first-hand the benefits of digital technologies in debt issuance.

And I know that there is appetite to go further.

Last week, Secretary Bessent and I also discussed how our officials could explore opportunities to support industry to innovate cross-border…

…in line with proposals put forward by US Securities and Exchange Commissioner Hester Peirce about a transatlantic sandbox for digital securities…

…potentially allowing greater digital collaboration between capital markets in New York and London.

I’ve talked about what we’ve already done, and some ideas for the future.

Financial services is one of the key growth-driving sectors in the UK’s modern industrial strategy…

….with FinTech as a priority growth opportunity…

…and I look forward to publishing the Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy at my upcoming Mansion House address…

…which I can today confirm will take place on the 15th July.

At Mansion House last year I set out my vision on economic growth…

…and the new approach required to build sustainable growth…

…on a platform of stability.

At Mansion House this year I’ll talk about how we can go further and faster in realising that growth.

By publishing the Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy…

…I will set out our strategy for the rest of this parliament and beyond…

…building on our strengths in areas including capital markets, insurance and asset management…

… supporting firms to innovate by ensuring they can access and develop the talent they need…

…and promoting the UK as a great place to do business globally.

Backing the builders in FinTech means improving outcomes for businesses and consumers…

…revolutionising how we invest and trade…

And driving growth and prosperity, here in the UK.

It’s incredible how far Fintech has come in the past decade…

And I’m enormously optimistic about the future.

From the huge growth of the sector that has already taken place…

…to the passion, drive and commitment I see from all of you to make FinTech a huge UK success story…

…it is clear that our job in government is to back you, back the builders, back the change makers all the way.

And I am ready to do just that.

Thank you very much.

April 30, 2025
Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

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

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

When I spoke in this House on 1 April, I set out the Government’s intention to introduce emergency legislation, because I believe that our justice system must be above all else fair, and that, standing before a judge, we are all equal, no matter the colour of our skin or the question of our faith. Given the existential nature of this matter for our justice system, I was clear that we would move at pace to change the law. The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill was introduced that same day. With Second Reading taking place just three weeks later, we are forging ahead with plans to legislate as quickly as possible.

Before I set out the contents of the Bill, it bears repeating how we came to be in the current situation and why expedited legislation is necessary. In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council put forward revised guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. I should note that during a statutory consultation they were welcomed by the last Conservative Government in no uncertain terms. The shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who was a Justice Minister at the time, should be able to furnish his colleagues with the details, but as he is absent today, I will do so.

Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether the guidelines proposed under the previous Government were the same as those with which she is dealing now, or did they differ—and if they differed, how did they differ?

Shabana Mahmood

They did not differ in any substantial way. All the guidelines, in so far as they concern issues relating to race, religion, culture or belief, are exactly the same as those to which the Justice Minister responded under the Conservative Administration. Hiding behind that, I am afraid, shows a failure to reckon with the Opposition’s own track record, which has become quite a hallmark of theirs in recent weeks and months.

These guidelines help judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence, providing guidance on the thresholds for disposals of this type. In the process of deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where they consider such a report to be unnecessary. The reports are used to give the courts more context of the offending behaviour in a given case, and set out any factors that should be considered as part of the sentencing process. As I said to the House on 1 April, generally speaking I am in favour of the use of pre-sentence reports, and in fact I have recently freed up capacity in the Probation Service precisely so that it has more time to produce reports of this type.

Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

The chairman of the Sentencing Council has argued that the sentence should be tailored to the offender, but my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the Secretary of State—think that the sentence should be tailored to the offence and its effect on the victim. That is what counts, not the background, circumstances, history or origins of the offender.

Shabana Mahmood

The purpose of the pre-sentence reports, used properly, is to provide the court with the full context of the offending behaviour. That enables the court to ensure that when it imposes a custodial sentence it will be successful and capable of being delivered in respect of that offender, or else a community sentence should be imposed instead. It is a useful mechanism that judges have at their disposal. We would expect it to be used in all cases except when the courts consider it unnecessary because they have all the information. Because I consider pre-sentence reports to be so important in giving the courts all the information that they need to pass the right sentence for the offender who is before them, I have specifically freed up capacity in the Probation Service so that it can do more work of this type. However, the updated guidelines specifically encourage judges to request them for some offenders and not others, stipulating circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. That is the bit that I am seeking to change.

Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

The right hon. Lady has just said something very important: namely, that she would normally expect a pre-sentence report to be given in all, or at least almost all, cases. I hope that is her position, because what seems unfair to me is that a pre-sentence report, which presumably enables people to present arguments in mitigation, should be available to some people who have been convicted of a crime but not to others. Surely it should be available either to everyone or to no one, because everyone’s individual circumstances deserve the same degree of consideration.

Shabana Mahmood

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, we fully support section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020—the sentencing code—which makes it clear that a court must obtain a pre-sentence report unless it considers it unnecessary to do so. That would be in cases where judges consider that they already have at their disposal the facts that will enable them to make a determination of the correct sentence for any particular offender. I think that the Sentencing Council got things right in the paragraph of the current guidelines that comes before the one that is the subject of the debate and the Bill, which states:

“PSRs are necessary in all cases that would benefit from an assessment of one or more of the following: the offender’s dangerousness and risk of harm, the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the offender’s personal circumstances and any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements.”

That covers all the areas in which we would normally consider PSRs to be necessary, and I would like them to be used more extensively. Indeed, I would like them to be the norm in all cases, because I think they offer important information to people who are passing sentence—unless, of course, it is unnecessary because judges have already been furnished with all the details, having heard the whole of the case that has been taking place before them.

Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)

The Lord Chancellor has just given us, very helpfully, the list of matters that might be relevantly considered in a pre-sentence report. As she has said, however, one of the items on that list is “personal circumstances”, and that is what the Bill will remove from the Sentencing Council’s discretion. May I ask her why she has not used in the Bill the language that is included in the explanatory notes? Paragraph 8 states that the Bill will

“prevent differential treatment… It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort”.

That strikes me as a much narrower exclusion, and perhaps one better targeted at the problem that the Lord Chancellor has, in my view, rightly identified.

Shabana Mahmood

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. That is why we have offered the additional context in the explanatory notes. Personal characteristics and personal circumstances have, over the years, been elided in different court judgments, and the different definitions of the two have sometimes slipped. I wanted to make it clear in the Bill that we are constraining the Sentencing Council’s ability to create guidance for PSRs in relation to personal characteristics. We refer in the Bill to race, religion, culture and belief, specifically to ensure that the Sentencing Council understands that we are targeting this part of the offending section of the imposition guideline. It will then have its own interpretation of how personal circumstances and personal characteristics should apply. I would expect this to be analogous to protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, in terms of the way in which the courts are likely to approach the question of what a personal characteristic is for the purpose of the Bill.

However, I wanted to make the intention behind the Bill very clear to the Sentencing Council, and to everyone else. It is tightly focused on the offending section of the imposition guideline and leaves the wider question of personal circumstances untouched. As I will explain later in my speech, there is helpful Court of Appeal guidance on circumstances and on other occasions on which a PSR should normally be required, and nothing in the Bill will affect the Court of Appeal precedents that have already been set.

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)

Is the Lord Chancellor aware that the Sentencing Council guidelines, and indeed the Bill, turn on issues that some of us have campaigned on for decades? I think that there would be concern if the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary.

Shabana Mahmood

It certainly does not undermine the independence of the judiciary. There is a long tradition of campaigners, including my right hon. Friend, who have a lengthy track record of campaigning on issues relating to disparities within the criminal justice system and, indeed, across wider society. In so far as those disparities relate to the criminal justice system, my strong view is that they are matters of policy.

Parliament is the proper place for that policy to be debated, and Parliament is the proper place for us to agree on what is the best mechanism to deal with those problems. It is not within the purview of the Sentencing Council, because this is a matter of policy. Judges apply the laws that are passed by this House; that is their correct and proper function. I will always uphold their independence in that regard and will never interfere with it, but this turns on a matter of policy. It is right for the Government of the day to seek a policy response to this issue, and it is right for it to be debated and, ultimately, legislated for in the House.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I thank the Lord Chancellor for opening the debate, and for her answers to the questions so far. I think every one of us believes that the foundational principle that justice is blind must be adhered to in every way, but we live in an age of ever-changing political correctness, which, regardless of whether we like it or not, invades Parliament and our lives.

I am very much in favour of what the Lord Chancellor has said about race and faith. As a person of faith, I want to make sure that race and faith can never be mitigating or aggravating factors when it comes to justice. Given the lives that we live, the world that we live in, and all the things that impact on us daily and in this House as MPs, can the Lord Chancellor confirm that faith, justice and religion will always be preserved in the way that they should be?

Shabana Mahmood

For me, one of the most moving parts of the parliamentary day is when the day starts with prayers. Those are Christian prayers, and I am of the Muslim faith, but I always find it moving to be part of them and to hear them. They remind us that we all belong to a country with a long heritage, which is steeped in faith. The source code for much of the law of England and Wales is the Bible. The hon. Gentleman makes some broader points on the issue of faith and how important it is, and I suspect that he and I have a lot in common in that regard. There must never be differential treatment before the law of our land, and before any court, on the basis of faith.

Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)

I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s point about parliamentary sovereignty and that fact that policy must be determined by this place. I think many Members from across the House will have been quite shocked by the response of the Sentencing Council to her letter when she asked it to consider the guidelines again. Does she agree that if this place continues to butt heads with the Sentencing Council over guidelines like these, maybe the best thing to do is abolish the Sentencing Council?

Shabana Mahmood

I have had constructive conversations with the Sentencing Council, and I have made it very clear that I do not really do personal. I certainly would not do it in relation to the judiciary, whose independence I uphold and whose security I am ultimately responsible for. I take those responsibilities very seriously. I swore an oath on my holy book, and that means a huge amount to me. There is a clear difference here about where the line is drawn between matters of policy and matters that are correctly within the purview of the judiciary, which is how the law should be applied in the cases that they hear. I am simply making it very clear that this is policy and is for this place to determine, but as I will come to later in my speech, this situation has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. That is why I am reviewing the wider roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and will legislate in upcoming legislation if necessary. I will now make more progress with my speech and give way to other colleagues later if people wish to intervene again.

The updated guidelines specifically encouraged judges to request pre-sentence reports for some offenders and not for others, stipulating the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. This included cases involving offenders from ethnic, cultural or faith minorities. In other words, a pre-sentence report would normally be considered necessary for a black offender or a Muslim one, but not necessarily if an offender is Christian or white, and we must be clear about what that means. By singling out one group over another, all may be equal but some are more equal than others. We must also be honest about the impact that this could have. Equipped with more information about one offender than another, the court may be less likely to send that offender to prison. I therefore consider the guidance to be a clear example of differential treatment. As such, it risks undermining public confidence in a justice system that is built on the idea of equality before the law.

Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)

Given that the Sentencing Council refused the Lord Chancellor’s first invitation to rewrite its guidance, is she confident that the limited nature of this Bill is sufficient? Would she not be wiser to take a broader power to ensure that in future all sentencing guidance has an affirmative vote in this place?

Shabana Mahmood

It is right that, moving at pace, I have sought to have a targeted Bill that deals with this particular imposition guideline. I have made it very clear that I am conducting a wider review of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council. If we need to legislate further—maybe in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, although other mechanisms are also potentially available—I will do so. I am not ruling out further legislation—in fact, it is very much on the table—but it is right that we are moving quickly in order to deal with the problems that could be caused by the guidelines coming into force, and that I have taken targeted action in this short but focused Bill.

As I told the House a few weeks ago, I had several discussions with the Sentencing Council in the time leading up to 1 April, when the updated guidelines were due to come into force. I reiterate my gratitude to the council’s chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for engaging with me on this issue and for ultimately making the right call by pausing the guidelines while Parliament has its say. I should say again that I have no doubt whatsoever about the noble intentions behind the proposed changes, because I understand the problem that the Sentencing Council was attempting to address. Racial inequalities exist in our justice system and are evident in the sentencing disparities between offenders from different backgrounds, but as the Sentencing Council acknowledges, the reasons for this are unclear. Addressing inequalities in the justice system is something that this Government take very seriously, and we are determined to increase confidence in its outcomes, which is why we are working with the judiciary to make the system more representative of the public it serves.

I have also commissioned a review of the data that my Department holds on disparities in the justice system in order to better understand the drivers of the problem, but although I agree with the Sentencing Council’s diagnosis, I believe it has prescribed the wrong cure. Going ahead with the new guidelines would have been an extraordinary step to take. It would have been extraordinary because of what it puts at risk: the very foundations of our justice system, which was built on equality before the law. The unintended consequences would have been considerable, because the idea that we improve things for people in this country who look like me by telling the public that we will be given favourable treatment is not just wrong, but dangerous. We are all safer in this country when everyone knows we are treated the same. If we sacrifice that, even in pursuit of a noble ideal such as equality, we risk bringing the whole edifice crashing to the ground.

I know there are disagreements in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue, not least between the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, who opposes the guidelines, and the shadow Transport Secretary, whose support for them I have noted already—though I suppose that does assume that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice really is who he shows himself to be today. I must admit that I have begun to question whether his principles are set or really of no fixed abode. After all, he did pose as a Cameroon centrist for so many years, and only recently became his party’s populist flag bearer. It is enough to make me wonder whether he is, in fact, a Marxist—but one of the Groucho variety. “These are my principles,” he says, and if you do not like them, he has others.

Regardless of our positions on this question of policy, one thing is clear: this is a question of policy. How the state addresses an issue that is systemic, complex and of unclear origin is a question of what the law should be, not how the law should be applied. Let me be clear about that distinction: Parliament sets the laws and the judiciary determine how they are applied, and they must be defended as they do so. I will always defend judicial independence, and as I said earlier, I swore an oath to do so when I became the Lord Chancellor. Given the shadow Lord Chancellor’s recent diatribes, including just hours ago in this place, he may want to acquaint himself with that oath, if he intends ever succeeding me in this position, although I am assuming that it is my job he wants, not that of the Leader of the Opposition.

James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)

I think the Lord Chancellor just said that the approach to the guidelines taken by the Sentencing Council puts the foundation of the justice system at risk. Given that, how can she have confidence in a Sentencing Council that takes such an approach?

Shabana Mahmood

I have engaged constructively with the Sentencing Council and will continue to do so, and I am in the process of legislating to prevent this imposition guideline from ever coming into force. It has currently been paused, and I think that was the right step for the Sentencing Council to take. I am conducting a wider review of the roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and it is right that I take a bit more time to think carefully about that, about what we may or may not want it to do, and about how we may right the democratic deficit that has been uncovered. I think my approach to the Sentencing Council is very clear from the action I am taking.

Sir Julian Lewis

I do not think anyone is questioning the firm action the Lord Chancellor is taking. The point my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made is: why should it be necessary for her to take that action? Surely, if the Sentencing Council cannot see the distinction she makes between its proper role and Parliament’s proper role, it is not fit to do the job.

Shabana Mahmood

The Sentencing Council might argue, rightly, that given the guideline was welcomed by the former Government, it probably thought it was on safer ground than I consider it to be. However, there is clearly a confusion, a change in practice, or a development in ways I disagree with about the proper line between what is practice or the application of the law and what is properly in the realm of policy. That is what I am absolutely not going to give any ground on and that I will be setting right.

Sir John Hayes

The right hon. Lady is right about the moving process or trend that she has described, but the trouble is that it is part of a bigger problem, is it not? It is the problem of judicial activism, and it is not new. For some time, judicial activists have sought to do exactly what she has said, and it is they, not people in this House, who endanger the separation of powers.

Shabana Mahmood

However, it is always up to the people in this House, if they feel that a law is being applied in ways that were not intended, to put that law right. I am afraid the right hon. Member’s comment is a rather damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative Government, with 14 years of sitting back and allowing other people to do the policy work that Ministers in the previous Government perhaps did not have the time or inclination to do themselves.

I do not think that judges, in applying the law, are doing anything wrong; they are doing their job. They are public servants, and they do their job independently. It is right that we have an independent judiciary in this country. We are very lucky to have a judiciary that is world class and highly regarded. One of the reasons why so many businesses from all over the world want to do business in this country is that they know they can trust our courts system and the independence of our judges. I think it is incumbent on the whole of this House to defend the independence of the judiciary, because that independence was hard won. It is one of our absolute USPs as a rule of law jurisdiction in this country, and none of us must ever do anything that puts it at risk.

If there are issues about the way in which the law is applied—if Parliament or Ministers ever consider that it has strayed too far from the original intention—we can always legislate, and I am doing just that today. I hope this is an example that others, if they have issues in their areas, may consider taking as well. It is a question of policy, and that should be decided and debated here in this place, in this House, and the public must be able to hold us to account for the decisions we take, rewarding or punishing us at the ballot box as they see fit. This is the domain of government, politics and Parliament, and today we reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.

Dr Caroline Johnson

The right hon. Lady is making a point about the wider justice system and the importance of equality before the law. What has she done to assure herself and the House that, in all aspects of her Department’s work, people are being treated equally under the law—whether in relation to parole, how they are treated in prison, bail conditions and so on?

Shabana Mahmood

I have ordered a wider review of all guidance across all the MOJ’s work in so far as it relates to equality before the law to make sure that the problems we have uncovered here are not replicated elsewhere. There is the issue of bail guidance, which was discussed in the House earlier. I have already ordered a review, and that guidance is being redrafted as we speak. That particular guidance has been something like 20 years in the making—it has been added to over many years—so the redraft has to be careful and we must make sure it does not have any unintended consequences. However, we are cracking on with that work at pace, and I will make sure that, by the time I am done, we can all be absolutely clear that this sweep towards allowing potential differential treatment is sorted out once and for all.

Dr Johnson rose—

Shabana Mahmood

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.

That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.

Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.

It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, for example those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.

Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.

As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.

The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.

April 25, 2025
Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2025 Speech at the Conference on Baltic Studies in Europe

The speech made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Minister for European Union Relations, at the University of Cambridge on 24 April 2025. This version was supplied by the civil service, so the political content has been removed.

Introduction

It’s a pleasure to be here with you all. Before I begin, I would like to thank the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies for hosting this important conference.

I would also like to thank my friend Charles Clarke, not only for the invitation to speak here today.

[political content removed]

As part of that career, his time as Home Secretary, he had to deal daily with the implications of a complex and dangerous world, encapsulated by the heinous 7/7 attacks.

While the nature of the threats our country faces have evolved since then – we know that the threats to our security, our economy and way of life are as pronounced now as they have been at any time in post war history.

And these challenges do not just face the UK – or any one of our allies – alone; we face them, together. Therefore, it is crucial to ask how we can leverage our longstanding international relationships – and build upon them – to face these challenges together.

The United Kingdom and the Baltic States enjoy an alliance built on shared values, on open trade, on a strategic, robust approach to defence.

We respect one another, and it is through this respect that we work alongside each other – whether directly or through international organisations – to the benefit of our societies.

Our citizens not only celebrate freedoms, but also realise that they are hard won and must be defended.

I believe that – through the UK’s mission to go beyond the status quo with the European Union and grow our strategic alliance with our biggest trading partner – we could build on our relationship even further, to make us more prosperous, safer and better defended.

I should clarify that – in the spirit of this broad alliance – while I will mainly be talking about Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, I will also be touching on the Baltic Sea States, the other countries that share the same icy waters, including Sweden, Poland and Finland, which I understand follows the remit of this centre.

Relationship with the Baltics

Just over a month ago, the Times journalist Oliver Moody gave a talk at this university – at the Centre for Geopolitics – about his book ‘Baltic: The Future of Europe’.

He spoke about the remarkable journey that the Baltic Sea States have taken over the last century: not just armed conflict, but the push and pull between independence, occupation and independence again.

Reflecting on where we are now, he said: “This is the most coherent that north-eastern Europe has ever been. You have the Nordic and Baltic States working on a more equal footing than ever before, you have Poland starting to look north, and Germany is getting more involved”. He capped his remarks off by saying that this teamwork would have delighted the former Prime Minister of Estonia – Jaan Tonisson – who campaigned for a Scandinavian Superstate in 1917. Moody said that this cooperation is nothing short of “Jaan Tonisson’s dream, on steroids”.

That claim is probably for the experts in this room to take a view on, but what is clear is the sheer depth of the shared objectives, opportunities and challenges.

When you consider the history of these countries, this state of play is all the more remarkable. After all, to study the 20th Century developments of the Baltic States is to study world history. I am proud to say that, in many ways, the United Kingdom has been a positive part of that history, especially with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

When the British public were rejoicing throughout the UK on Armistice Day in 1918, the Royal Navy had no time to rest, as they started their campaign in the Baltic. They were playing their part to establish an independent Estonia and Latvia, providing weapons, ammunition and much-needed support, where over 100 naval servicemen bravely lost their lives for Baltic independence. In May 2022, the UK and Lithuania agreed a Joint Declaration to mark 100 years of bilateral relations, but it also looked towards the future. It outlined an agreement to boost defence and security collaboration, build closer trade ties, and promote people-to-people links.

We already start from a strong place, as the UK is a home to many Baltic people – well over 350,000 of them.

We host Latvia’s largest diaspora, as well as Lithuania’s and Estonian’s largest European diaspora. Our trading relationship is positive, which accounts for over £6bn in goods and services – up from last year. Who would have thought, from just over thirty years of Estonian independence, that there would be an Estonian bank running offices in London, Manchester and Leeds, or an Estonian defence company setting up a production facility for air defence missiles in Wales.

I greatly admire the spirit, the fortitude and the determination of the Baltic States; they have known what it is to lose their freedom, their independence and – as a result – are embracing its benefits. The Baltic tech sector – for example – has one of the strongest and most innovative ecosystems within Europe, a fact elegantly demonstrated at this year’s Oscars, when a wholly digitally designed film from Latvia won the Best Animated Feature, against long-established studios like the US’s Pixar and the UK’s Aardman Animations.

Many Baltic firms are key investors in the UK, and have excelled in areas where others have stumbled, because they have had a clear focus on innovation and progress.

Indeed, I have deeply appreciated my time with the Baltic Sea States. Last year, in Opposition, I visited Estonia – to meet with various leaders who are working tirelessly to defend their homeland. I was struck not only by the scale of the Russian threat their face – especially in areas like cyber-warfare – but also by their determination to rise to that challenge.

Also, during a visit to Stockholm, I went to the SAAB Headquarters – who recently announced that they will be supplying the Latvian Government with a short-range ground-based air defence system. We spoke openly about the importance of cross-Europe defence, and they were very grateful for the UK’s renewed focus on European defence, and the Prime Minister’s leadership.

Ukraine

This historic collaboration – these well-defined relationships – only adds to our collective strength when we consider countering the complex situation, facing the world reshaped by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Of course, to many of the Baltic Sea States, Russian aggression is nothing new. Indeed, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are ardent supporters of the Ukrainian fighters seeking to overcome this illegal Russian invasion. And they have shown this support in many ways – including as key hosts for Ukrainian refugees. According to the U.S. think tank The Wilson Centre, Estonia has hosted approximately 40,000 Ukrainian refugees, Latvia has around 50,000, and Lithuania has issued more than 50,000 visas. A record of support that the UK also shares, and I am proud of the role my own constituency is playing in hosting Ukrainian families.

In stepping up to defend the freedoms the UK and Baltic nations enjoy we recognise the hard-won sovereignty and dignity which the Baltic States have worked so hard to secure.

I know from my own personal experience from meeting those defence officials – many with frontline experience on their border with Russia and Ukraine – that the threat they feel is not theoretical, it is existential. The defence of the Baltic Sea is – unquestionably – as important now as ever. That is why NATO takes this issue so seriously, launching the ‘Baltic Sentry’ mission to increase surveillance of ships crossing those cold waters.

The UK also takes the security of the Nordic and Baltic states incredibly seriously. It’s why we were so supportive of NATO expansion for Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – and others – in 2004. As the then UK Prime Minister – and Charles’s former boss – Tony Blair, said these invitations meant “a significant contribution to European security, and secures the place of the new Allies in the Euro-Atlantic community”.

It’s also why we formed – with our Baltic counterparts and Nordic countries – the Joint Expeditionary Force, set up in 2018. To ensure our commitment to European security and international stability remains strong.

It was only in November last year that we demonstrated the effectiveness of this Force with ‘Exercise Joint Protector’. More than 300 personnel were deployed to Liepāja in Latvia, and worked with staff in the UK. This – and the many other exercises the Force has undertaken – shows just how ready we and our partners are to respond to crises in the Baltic and Nordic regions.

Keir visited British troops serving with NATO in December 2023 in Estonia. There is an incredibly powerful image of him on that trip – standing with our brave troops. Showing how committed he is to supporting the vital work they do, working with NATO allies to keep this continent safe.

[Political content removed]

The UK and Euro-Atlantic Security

Here in the UK, we have been unequivocal about the need to bolster security across the European continent. We must look at how we safeguard each other – through our alliances; NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force and through direct country-to-country connections too.

We need to work better together on key issues facing our continent’s security. I mean everything – from how we improve our defence capabilities to ensuring we have the technological edge in conflict, how we finance these improvements, to how we bolster our industrial capacity across the continent. The Prime Minister will make this point on the world stage at the Joint Expeditionary Force Summit in Oslo next month, and NATO’s Hague Summit in June.

Much of this work is underway. You may have seen His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visit British troops in Estonia last month, who – under Operation Cabrit – are providing a deterrent to Russian aggression, bolstering NATO’s presence in Europe.

At the centre of this is our absolute commitment to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. The Prime Minister has been clear that for this plan to succeed, it must have strong US backing – and he is working closely with President Trump on this. I know other leaders – including those in the Baltics – have joined the chorus demanding that Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any talks.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. Indeed, it was a point the Prime Minister made absolutely clear at the ‘Leading the Future’ Summit hosted here in the UK. There, he convened the ‘Coalition of the Willing’, building on our efforts to put pressure on Putin, keep military aid flowing to Ukraine and strengthen sanctions on the Russian war machine. This was followed by the announcement from the Defence Secretary of an additional £450m to Ukraine, which will fund hundreds of thousands of new drones, anti-tanks mines and supplies to make necessary repairs to military vehicles.

This work is of vital importance. When Europe is under threat, then the Europeans have to – and are – stepping up on defence and security.

We are living through a generational moment in the history of our continent. This is a point I made at a recent Baltic Breakfast event where I welcomed the further expansion of NATO to include Finland and Sweden. With both these countries, we are building on our defence and security relationship – whether it’s the strategic partnership we share with Sweden or the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Finland on civil nuclear, strengthening our energy security.

The UK knows we have a responsibility to help secure the continent and that, even though we have left the EU, we would never turn our back on our allies in Europe. That’s why we have committed to reaching 2.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2027, with an ambition to achieve 3% in the next parliament. In practice, that means spending over £13 billion more on defence every year from 2027. This is the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, and it will safeguard our collective security and fund the capabilities, technology and industrial capacity needed to keep the UK and our allies safe for generations to come.

It has been good to see other European nations doing the same, especially across the Baltic States. Lithuania continues to set the standard within NATO. Your desire to increase defence spending to 5% or even 6% GDP is admirable. Latvia now spends 3.45% of its GDP on defence, and is investing heavily in areas, such as air and coastal defence. And Estonia is aspiring to increase defence spending to 5% of its GDP.

Given the political context, it is of vital importance for European countries to take on responsibility for their own security. As one of Europe’s leading NATO powers, it is essential that the UK and the EU work together to strengthen European security. We have substantial shared interests and objectives and, crucially, we both have the means and influence to effect change on a global stage.

But we cannot shy away from the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. Europe faces war on the continent, as well as an urgent need to ramp up our collective defence capabilities, and we have already seen a step-change in European cooperation.

At the same time the UK and EU are facing global economic challenges. These are shared problems which require a collective response, with mutual interests.

And I believe a firm alliance between the UK and the EU is undeniably a part of that – and mutually beneficial. We need to put an end to ideology and build a new strengthened partnership with Europe.

Now, Charles, I promise not to make a point of mentioning you throughout my lecture, but I wanted to touch on something from the recent past.

After he left Government, Charles became the Visiting Professor at the University of East Anglia for their School of Political, Social and International Studies, where – during a series of lectures – he posited the idea of the ‘Too Difficult Box’, the place where important political decisions get put when things got too complicated to solve.

As he explained in a lecture eleven years ago at the University of South Wales – just south of my constituency of Torfaen – plenty of short-term challenges face politicians when they are trying to solve the long-term problems this country faces, which means decisions get delayed, politicians don’t feel empowered or convinced enough to act, the ‘Too Difficult Box’ fills up.

I think everyone in this room can recognise at least one important national decision that has been left to grow dust in the ‘Too Difficult Box’.

Which is why this Government has chosen to behave differently towards our national interests. Indeed, it is precisely the difficulty of our challenges which urges us to act. The ‘Plan for Change’ recognises the complex world we live in and redefines the way that Central Government responds to the problems of the day, to work across-Departments to tackle some of the most challenging problems we face – whether it’s breaking down the barriers to opportunity, making the UK a clean energy superpower, or building an NHS that is fit for the future.

At the heart of all of this work are what we call our ‘Strong Foundations’, which are economic stability, secure borders and national security. To me, these priorities are inseparable; you cannot have one without the other two.

I also believe that our relationship with the European Union has an important role in these foundations, we must find pragmatic solutions that work in the national interest.

The kind of pragmatic approach that Charles promoted with the ‘Too Difficult Box’ is exactly the kind of approach we must take when redefining our relationship with the EU, as we move towards a strengthened partnership with our biggest trading partner.

So far, by my count, we have seen over seventy different direct engagements between UK Ministers and their EU counterparts.

This work was exemplified by the meeting the Prime Minister had with the President of the European Commission last October, a meeting where both agreed to put our relationship on a more solid, stable footing. They agreed to work together on some of the most pressing global challenges including economic headwinds, geopolitical competition, irregular migration, climate change and energy prices. In December, the Chancellor attended a meeting of the EU finance ministers – the first time a British Chancellor has been invited to the Eurogroup since Brexit. And I have been having regular meetings with my counterpart Maroš Šefčovič to maintain forward momentum on our shared agendas.

However, I want to be clear: we fully respect the choice made by the British public to leave the European Union, that was clear in our manifesto. As were the clear red lines we set out, around the Customs Union, the Single Market and Freedom of Movement.

We are also demonstrating our role as good faith actors through the implementation of the Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the Windsor Framework.

But I also believe that this global moment requires us to go further. It is an opportunity to build our partnership – where our continental security is paramount, where our collective safety is guaranteed, where our respective economies flourish together. It is in our mutual self interest.

The Three Pillars

I mentioned that the defining structure of our future relationship with the European Union has three important pillars – prosperity, safety and security.

On prosperity, we must boost growth and living standards, by creating export and investment opportunities for UK business and reducing barriers to trade with our biggest trading partners.

Already we have started work on this. We have said that we will seek to negotiate a Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement – which is one of the clear barriers to trade across the continent, and it was particularly pleasing to see a number of UK businesses writing in last weekend’s Financial Times supporting this plan.

Let me turn to safety. Now, of all audiences, I don’t need to explain the importance of a strong and secure border, but we must do all we can to strengthen our continental collective ability to tackle organised crime and criminality, working together on irregular migration. We see – every day – the threats across our continent from criminals with no respect for international borders. From terrorism, to vile people smuggling gangs and drug smugglers – the threat to our communities is real. If we want to protect our respective borders and keep our citizens safe, then we need to work together.

Already, we have made important progress on this work. Within the first few weeks of coming into power, the Prime Minister stated that border security would be at the very heart of our plans to reset our relationship with the European Union. We have committed to deepening our partnerships with Europol and its European Migrant Smuggling Centre. But I believe that we can go further in this work. We need to find ways to better coordinate law enforcement. We must do all we can to strengthen the tools available to aid our collective ability to tackle organised crime, which will only lead to more secure borders.

We recognise that the Baltic states have faced a unique challenge when it comes to irregular migration, Russian led instrumentalisation of migration is an appalling use of human beings for political gain.

I saw the nature of this myself on a recent visit to the Polish / Belarussian border. We absolutely condemn states instrumentalising human beings and putting them in danger, and support efforts to combat this issue at the EU’s external border. Whilst the UK may face different migration challenges, there are clear commonalities – underlining the imperative of working together on the shared priority of securing our borders.

Which brings me on to the final point, security. I have made clear throughout this lecture that we must respond to the collective security challenge that we all face. An ambitious UK-EU security and defence relationship must be a part of this.

All of us in the UK Government appreciate the steps that the EU is taking on this, and we welcome their recent Defence White Paper, which recognises the UK as an “essential European ally”. But we should also recognise the importance of the Baltic Sea States within that Paper.

As Oliver Moody pointed out in his talk, the significance and the symbolism of that paper cannot be overlooked. He said: “It was presented by an Estonian high representative, a Lithuanian defence commissioner, with a great deal of input from a Latvian economics commissioner, a Polish budget commissioner, a Finnish vice-president of the commission for technological sovereignty and security, all in tandem under the leadership of a German president of the European Commission […] this would have been completely unimaginable in the 1990s.”

He’s right to point out the importance of this unity, both in the Baltic region and across our continent.

We have made it clear to our EU partners that we are ready to negotiate a Security & Defence Partnership with the EU. We believe it should build on the EU’s existing partnership agreements with other third countries, while recognising the unique nature of our security relationship. It will complement NATO and our NATO First approach, while boosting our bilateral cooperation with European partners.

But we want to go further, trying to create new ways to ramp up our defence industrial capacity, financing and capability development.

UK-EU Summit

All of these points I have mentioned will no doubt be crucial discussion points when the UK welcomes European Union leaders to the first UK-EU Leaders’ Summit on 19th May.

The Prime Minister will host the President of the European Council, António Costa, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

The Summit will provide an opportunity to make further progress on our shared priorities and we shall set out further details in due course. What I can tell you now is that this will be the first of regular UK-EU summits, which we committed to when the Prime Minister met the President of the European Commission in October last year. We expect these to take place annually, in addition to regular engagements at Ministerial level, recognising that new agreements will take time to agree.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear to me that the future of Europe – whether that’s innovative businesses or the most resilient of responses to Russian aggression – has a home in the Baltic.

The UK wants to be an important part of that future, and we are working hard – right across the Government – to change our relationship with the EU for the mutual benefit of all European states.

We are living through a time of generational challenge to our very way of life. I know that in the face of this, an alliance – across our continent, in pursuit of freedom – will be vital.

So, I thank all of you here for your interest in this vital area, I thank Charles for the invitation to address this group – and I look forward to working with many of you to deliver a secure and prosperous future for our people.

April 25, 2025