UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Stephen Timms – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Living Crisis

    Stephen Timms – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Living Crisis

    The speech made by Stephen Timms, the Labour MP for East Ham, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2022.

    I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who chairs the Treasury Committee. I agree with much of what he said.

    Cost of living rises affect everybody. The Work and Pensions Committee focuses on families with the lowest incomes who depend on social security. The prospects for them at the moment are bleak. The Committee argued—unanimously, cross-party—against the removal of the £20 a week uplift in universal credit last October. The Government went ahead anyway and cut the main benefit rate to the lowest real-terms level for more than 30 years. As a proportion of average earnings, it is lower now than when Lloyd George introduced unemployment benefit in 1911. Benefits are at a historically low level and no Minister can justify that—we have asked.

    We now have a massive cost of living surge. Citizens Advice reports that a single unemployed person spent 15% of their benefit on energy bills two years ago. It is now 25% and it will be 50%—just on energy—when the cap goes up again in October. How can people pay their other bills, which are also going up? National Energy Action told the Select Committee that, after last month’s energy price rises, 6.5 million UK households are in fuel poverty. It is a disaster for families with long-term health problems; being cold at home makes respiratory and circulatory problems much worse.

    The Gracious Speech provided no help at all to people dependent on benefits. At the Liaison Committee, I asked the Prime Minister why the spring statement did nothing. His answer was that

    “we want to support people into work wherever possible”,

    but a large number of people cannot work and they have to survive too. Surely, the Government must now respond to the immense pressure on those families.

    Mike Brewer of the Resolution Foundation pointed out to our Committee the obvious problem with benefits going up by 3.1%, as they did last month, when inflation is 8% and rising. He proposed revisiting uprating, immediately for universal credit, as the Chancellor confirmed that he could and as he did at the beginning of the pandemic, and in October for those benefits needing longer—there are some of those, as he has pointed out to the House. That must surely now be done.

    Universal credit was raised by £20 a week before, so the Chancellor should do it again. I agree with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, who has just reaffirmed the case for an interim uprating, about which he pressed the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee. The Prime Minister said that he would look at it. It is urgent.

    Crisis highlighted that local housing allowance rates have been frozen for two years in a row. Average rents went up by 8.3% just in the last three months of last year. Families on the breadline face an average £372 deficit between the local housing allowance and the cheapest rents in their area. In research just published, Lloyds Bank Foundation reports that 44% of universal credit recipients are having money deducted, averaging £78 a month—nearly a fifth of what single over-25s can claim. Deductions are for advance repayments, old tax credit overpayments, energy or rent arrears. The foundation says that that is

    “driving impoverishment and further debt, particularly hitting the most vulnerable.”

    We need major changes, especially to the five-week wait for a first regular universal credit payment, which forces people to take out an advance.

    Pensioner poverty is now surging. We know that, in 2019-20, 850,000 families entitled to pension credit did not claim it. We need real vigour behind raising take-up. The Department for Work and Pensions should have a take-up target for pension credit and a plan to deliver it. In 2010-11, the DWP trialled automatic payments of pension credit, and it should do that again.

    The least well-off in our society need urgent help. As Sir John Major said yesterday:

    “Everyone needs to believe that The State cares about them”,

    too. There is no time to lose.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2022 Comments on Government Voting Against Windfall Tax

    Rachel Reeves – 2022 Comments on Government Voting Against Windfall Tax

    The comments made by Rachel Reeves on Twitter on 17 May 2022.

    Tonight, every Conservative MP who voted against a windfall tax on oil and gas producer profits, has sent a clear message. They will not put working people first, and they have no answer on the cost of living crisis.

  • Mel Stride – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Living Crisis

    Mel Stride – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Living Crisis

    The speech made by Mel Stride, the Conservative MP for Central Devon, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2022.

    I rise to very much welcome this debate, which addresses one of the great challenges of our time: the cost of living. Right at the centre of that lies the rate of inflation, which many Members have referenced in the debate so far, and that responsibility is with the Bank of England. In very recent times, the Bank has come in for a good deal of criticism for apparently not having got on top of that rate of inflation. It is currently above 7% and will rise to 10% in the autumn, before falling back again next year. That is well detached from its target of 2%, so the question arises: is the Bank of England culpable for having missed that target to that extent? I want to speak—partially, at least—in defence of the Bank of England, which is one of the most important independent institutions in our country, and to make the following observations.

    First, as the Chancellor has already pointed out, the level of inflation across the world is elevated. There are some exceptions to that, but most leading economies are facing very high levels of inflation. In fact, the United States, Spain and Germany have higher rates of inflation than we do in the United Kingdom, and our rate is broadly similar to that across the eurozone.

    My second point is about what one can expect from monetary policy under the current circumstances. The main drivers of inflation are a war in Ukraine; surging energy prices; surging food prices; some of the effects of the unlocking of the economy and its rapid growth, and supply chain bottlenecks that developed as a consequence; and then what played out in the labour market as the economy opened up. Very few of those factors are amenable to being controlled through interest rates and monetary policy. Of course, it takes time for monetary policy to take effect. If interest rates are put up, it typically takes about a year or more, through the transmission mechanism, to have an effect on demand and to start to bear down on inflation.

    For about 80% of the rise in inflation above the 2% target, therefore, we should not hold the Bank of England particularly culpable. The notions of those people—some of whom are on my side of the House—who have called into question the independence of the Bank of England as a consequence of high inflation are misplaced. We should firmly defend the Bank of England in that respect.

    There is one area, the other perhaps 20% of the growth in inflation, which relates to what has happened in the labour market, where the Bank is at least partially culpable, because it was slow to establish the fact that the market was getting overheated. What appeared to be isolated areas, such as among HGV drivers and other pools of labour in the labour market, soon spilled over into a more general price increase across labour. The danger now is that we will have a wage-price spiral in which wages chase prices and, in turn, drive up wages further. There is a real danger that we are in a position where future expectations of inflation have become substantially de-anchored from that 2%, which will be a challenge in the medium and longer term.

    Overall, however, it is extremely important that we have confidence in the Bank of England, imperfect though it is, and even though it is presiding over a situation in which there are high levels of price increases.

    Stephen Timms

    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the independence of the Bank of England. At the Liaison Committee in March, he suggested to the Prime Minister that there should be a one-off uprating of benefits, given that inflation is much higher than the 3.1% by which uprating was applied. I agree with him about that and I wonder whether he stands by that suggestion.

    Mel Stride

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I do indeed stand by that. I still believe that it is possible, in a relatively fiscally neutral manner, which would not require a fiscal loosening across the period of the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, to smooth the way in which benefits are indexed. It seems particularly regrettable that benefits such as universal credit are tagged to a 3.1% increase, which goes back to what inflation was in September, given that we are now facing 8%, 9% or 10%-plus inflation. There is the possibility of smoothing that out, so that on the way up it becomes less painful for people, and some of it will be taken back as it all comes out in the wash for everyone down the line. I am happy to continue to work with him with that in mind.

    That brings me to other fiscal measures that can be taken to ease things for our struggling constituents. We have heard about a windfall tax in great detail today, which I would support. Although I would not be as partisan as the way in which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made his case earlier at the Dispatch Box, I think the arguments that he has put forward are largely sensible. I am pleased that in turn the Chancellor has indicated that the door is at least partially open, albeit caveated on the investment performance of the companies concerned.

    Unlike the Opposition, I think that it is important to look at the size of the civil service and to have an ambition to get it back to its size in about 2016 before a number of these different crises struck and we had to gear up the numbers involved. If we were to do that, it would be possible to save a total of £3.5 billion a year, which would be a useful amount to have.

    I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have completely run out of time. I had much to say, as I know many other hon. Members will.

  • Alan Brown – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Living Crisis

    Alan Brown – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Living Crisis

    The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2022.

    I would like to say it is a pleasure to follow the Chancellor, but we have just heard 16 minutes of platitudes and no new ideas. He said that Opposition Members are causing people more worry. What is causing people more worry is not having enough money in their pockets to pay their bills. It is nothing to do with what we say here; it is what they see in reality.

    The Chancellor mentioned yet again his £9 billion support package for energy bills, but he did not say that only a third of that is money from the Treasury that will not be clawed back. Two thirds of that £9 billion will be added to our energy bills and recovered through our bills, so he is making bills higher for some while providing crumbs of support to the most vulnerable. He mentioned growing the economy while ducking the fact that, after the past five years, the economy had already started to contract in March. Then, for good measure, we heard some bluster about Labour’s past record, as if to hide the issues. What that tells us is that Westminster has not been working for a very long time.

    It is a dereliction of his duty as Chancellor to have no new measures and no new finances associated with the Queen’s Speech to address the Tory cost of living crisis. The stark reality is that the longer nothing is done, the more people will plunge into fuel and food poverty. The April 2022 price cap is 75% higher than just a year ago. National Energy Action estimates that up to 6.5 million households could now go into fuel poverty. That underlines why more action is needed by the Chancellor. The October increase coming could see up to 40% of households becoming fuel-poor. National Energy Action previously estimated that about 10,000 premature deaths a year arise from fuel poverty. How many more premature deaths are likely to occur with these increasing fuel costs? They have such an impact that people die early through fuel poverty. How can any Minister who claims to have compassion stand by and do nothing? Even the British Chambers of Commerce has asked for an emergency Budget. Companies such as Scottish Power are calling for £1,000 of support for energy bills, and yet the Chancellor has insisted that taking measures now would be silly. Why is he so out of touch with reality when even businesses are telling us what is required?

    Looking back to April 2020 and the onset of the covid crisis, the Government increased universal credit by £1,040 to help people to live, but back then home energy bills were 75% cheaper and petrol was 50% cheaper, and we are now dealing with food inflation and with general inflation rising to 10%. If that £20 a week uplift was required for people to live two years ago, surely the Chancellor must recognise that he needs to reinstate that uplift and do so quickly. Even Asda chairman and Tory peer Stuart Rose backs reinstating the £20 per week uplift to universal credit, so it really is time for the Chancellor to listen. People on universal credit are more likely to be on prepayment meters and are therefore further penalised with a higher energy tariff. Those people will be forced to self-disconnect this winter, as they simply will not have the funds to put in the meter. They do not have a dilemma about whether to turn the heating on; they do not have the choice.

    Yesterday I was at a meeting with Ewan McCall of the Wise Group. He and others within the Wise Group deal with people who are on the frontline of fuel poverty. A survey of nearly 300 people in Glasgow found that 24% were self-disconnecting or rationing their heating. There are really heartrending individual stories behind this: people reliant on candles and using hot water bottles, reduced to living in misery. The Wise Group, like others, provides fantastic help with turnaround, but it can only do so much. Other groups such as the Trussell Trust, which does fantastic work with food banks, have confirmed that ever more people are reliant on their services.

    Rather than action, we have had the bizarre admission from the BEIS Secretary that his Department’s nuclear power policy will increase our energy bills. It is economic madness—and, unfortunately, madness cheered on and encouraged by Labour. It should come as no surprise that new nuclear will add to our bills. With an upper estimate of £63 billion for the capital and finance costs for one new nuclear power station, it is crazy to proceed when the costs of renewable energy are ever falling. So-called small modular reactors are neither small nor cheap, at circa £2 billion per new station. Rolls-Royce does not want a contract for just one small modular reactor; it wants a contract for 12 to 15. The Government should be focusing on providing cheaper dispatchable energy and agreeing a minimum electricity price for the proposed pumped storage hydro scheme at Coire Glas and the proposed extension at Cruachan Dam. Those can be delivered much quicker and at a fraction of the costs of nuclear. Indeed, the £1.7 billion that the Chancellor has used to buy a stake in Sizewell C would pay for Coire Glas to be built outright.

    One obvious way to reduce bills and emissions is to increase energy efficiency measures massively. The Scottish Government rightly treat that as a national infrastructure programme and spend four times more on it per capita than the UK Government. The Green Alliance estimates that retrofitting 11 million homes will reduce peak heat demand by 40%. Shamefully, instead of showing increased ambition, the UK Government have not even brought forward the regulations for ECO4, yet the programme was supposed to have started on 1 April and is part of the £9 billion package the Chancellor keeps bragging about.

    This Government are trapping more children in poverty who are therefore destined to have fewer opportunities and to be less likely to have positive outcomes in life. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that there are currently 4 million children in poverty and says that the legacy of this Queen’s Speech will be even more children going into poverty. Yet at a stroke, overnight, the Chancellor could lift 250,000 children out of poverty by scrapping the two-child limit for universal credit. When he knows that he has at his disposal the power to take 250,000 children out of poverty overnight, why does he not act and scrap the cap? Why are Tory Back Benchers not calling for the two-child limit to be scrapped altogether? Instead we hear demands for tax cuts which the Chancellor has promised are coming, but which will disproportionately help the richest and not the poor.

    Another decision taken by this Government is not to uprate benefits even close to the rate of inflation. That is a conscious decision, and as others have said, blaming the IT system is a piece of nonsense. The Chancellor is hiding behind weak excuses. There is something far wrong if the Government’s IT system is so poor that they cannot press a button to provide a percentage uplift.

    We have heard one new policy announcement, which is making 91,000 civil servants redundant during this crisis. It beggars belief that the Government use the slogan “Making work pay” while wanting to sack 91,000 people. Unfortunately, many who are working know that work does not pay. The number of people who are in work and in poverty is increasing, and no amount of bluster will change that statistic. The Government could help by making the minimum wage equivalent to the real living wage. At a stroke, that would take more people out of poverty, and it would not cost the Government any money, so why do they not do that?

    There is talk about balancing the books, and another cohort on whom the Government have balanced the books is pensioners. Scrapping the triple lock is costing pensioners more than £500 a year during this crisis. If inflation is running at 10% when the next uprating assessment is undertaken for pensions, will the Chancellor stand by the pledge to reinstate the triple lock? Will he actually increase pensions by 10%, if that is what inflation is telling us? It would be good if he could confirm that. Okay, he is just staring into space.

    The topic of pensions takes me to the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and the millions of women still awaiting compensation. The recent Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report has highlighted and confirmed that there was clear “maladministration” in how the Department for Work and Pensions delivered—or failed to deliver—the news of the increased pension age for millions of women. Some form of compensation would not only be at least a nod towards justice, but put money in people’s pockets at this time of need.

    I met two representatives from Ayrshire WASPI on Friday, and they highlighted that fair compensation in Ayrshire will be about £150 million for 15,000 women. That money would then be spent locally on services and goods in a real form of levelling up. Even then, much of that money would return to the Government in various taxes. Sadly, by the end of this calendar year, more than 220,000 women across the UK will have died waiting for justice in the seven years since the WASPI Campaign began. Thousands more women will die waiting unless the DWP and the Treasury sit down with campaigners to agree fair, fast compensation. I put it to those on the Front Bench: how acceptable is it just to sit back and let people die, instead of providing them with justice and the compensation they deserve?

    Returning to the issue of the Treasury and how to pay for support, we agree with Labour on the principle of a windfall tax. However, it should not just be a cash raid on the North sea; rather, it should be a wider pandemic profit levy. Tax Justice UK has identified that just six companies made an excess profit of £16 billion in the financial year 2020-21. A 10% additional levy on them would realise £1.6 billion for the Treasury. A much wider pandemic profit levy of 10% across the board would raise even more money.

    The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said that companies should not profit from circumstance and from just being there. On that principle, he should agree that a pandemic profit levy makes more sense, because that would affect companies that benefited from the covid situation just by virtue of being there. That levy would also target the companies that made excessive profits from personal protective equipment contracts awarded to them directly by the Government.

    There is no doubt that things have moved with the oil and gas sector. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the chief executive of BP has said that investment would not be at risk. If we look at the reality of it, Shell and BP combined are on course to reach £40 billion in profit this year, so there must be some loose change there for the taking. It is interesting that the Tesco chairman wants a windfall tax on oil and gas, so I am sure he would also welcome a windfall tax on Tesco and other companies that benefited during the pandemic.

    David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)

    I genuinely thank the hon. Member for giving way. It is two or three short months since I welcomed his stance against Labour’s calls for a windfall tax, but putting that aside, he quoted Bernard Looney, the chief executive of BP. Is he aware that, as well as saying that currently committed investments would not be at risk from a windfall tax, Bernard Looney has also said that future investments could be?

    Alan Brown

    At the end of the day, there is so much excess profit here that something needs to be done. We need to have a serious conversation about it. Interestingly, in front of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the chief executive of Centrica spoke about the record profits it is making and about how it pays much more tax in Norway than here. He confirmed that a tax regime can be balanced and that he is quite happy paying more if it is a stable regime. We could have a serious debate about a tax regime that realises more money for the Treasury, especially in this time of need.

    That takes us to the Treasury. The Chancellor has generated his own windfall. As our energy bills have nearly doubled, so has the VAT intake to the Treasury. As petrol prices have soared, so have the VAT returns to the Treasury. Indeed, the duty cut he was bragging about is actually a loan paid for by the extra VAT that was already getting raked in. As we have heard, there is now a real risk that that duty cut is being gouged out by greedy petrol companies and not being passed on to consumers. That is another thing on which the Chancellor needs to get a grip. Oil and gas revenues have increased by £3.5 billion in the past couple of years, and I have a funny feeling that in the autumn statement, the Chancellor will predict even greater income from oil and gas revenues. That income alone should be getting recirculated and used to support people.

    The Scottish Government are doing what they can to mitigate the crisis, but we cannot make decisions a normal country can make. The Scottish Government introduced the game-changing child payment and doubled it to £20 a week, and it will increase to £25 a week later this year. That could lift 50,000 children out of relative poverty, but it cannot have the positive impact it otherwise would have had due to Tory cuts. That also demonstrates the lack of real options for Scotland within the current constitutional settlement. We cannot make decisions a normal country can make. It is not in our gift to change VAT on energy bills. Whatever the views are on a windfall tax, we cannot do that. We do not have control over fuel duty or VAT either. We have limited borrowing powers. We are locked into bad decisions by the UK Government on the race for nuclear—encouraged by Labour—on money on nuclear weapons, and on being taken out of the EU, and we are short-changed in funding from the UK Government in relation to that.

    As a country, we are energy-rich, yet we have citizens living in fuel poverty. We have exported oil and gas for years, but we do not even have an oil and gas fund. It is time for a different direction. We have had 315 years of the so-called most successful Union ever, yet we have a Government whose slogan is “level up” and “we know best”. If the Union is so successful, we should not need a slogan about levelling up. It is time for independence and time we made decisions for ourselves.

  • Guy Opperman – 2022 Speech on Child Maintenance Arrears

    Guy Opperman – 2022 Speech on Child Maintenance Arrears

    The speech made by Guy Opperman, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2022.

    What an honour and a privilege it is to speak in this very important debate, which relates to every single constituency in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) should be congratulated on raising a really important issue that has great relevance up and down the land, and every constituency Member will benefit from the fact that he has brought forward this issue in an Adjournment debate. I congratulate him doubly because, as I understand it, this is his first ever Adjournment debate. Obviously, no Member can have an Adjournment debate, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, without being blessed by an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I know has supporters in the Gallery and, frankly, across the House of Commons.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    It is not an absolute rule.

    Guy Opperman

    It is not, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is an honour for my hon. Friend to be blessed by such an intervention.

    My hon. Friend knows, because we have discussed this before, that I am not the Minister with direct responsibility for this issue in the Department for Work and Pensions; that is the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott. I have already informed the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who has a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, that another Minister will be responding to that debate. As she knows, I have long booked that day off—I have a birthday—so the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), will be responding to her debate on Thursday.

    I want to deal with a number of key points at the outset. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich asks whether there can be a meeting very shortly between him and the Minister concerned. I have spoken to the noble Baroness tonight, and she has assured me that on Monday or Tuesday, subject to the demands of his diary and hers, they will meet either in the House of Lords or in the Department for Work and Pensions to take this matter forward.

    We should not forget that the purpose of the Child Maintenance Service is to facilitate the payment of child maintenance from one separated parent to another when the parents are unable to reach agreement on how to care for their children following separation, but the interests of the child are at the heart of this policy. The key issue my hon. Friend raises today—this is a perfectly legitimate point that any Member would genuinely want to grasp—is the desire to get the best outcome for the child, namely the payment of the sums to support the child. There is also a desire, as he rightly outlined, to punish the parent who is not participating in the payment. However, the public policy point that always has to be grappled with is that it is very important that the punishment of the offending parent does not impact on their ability to make the payment for the child, because the most important thing is that the child is supported. There are balances to be struck, and that is the really difficult issue that the Child Maintenance Service has to grapple with at every single stage.

    Jim Shannon

    The Minister is absolutely right about the importance of the child, but the system sometimes falls down, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) mentioned. One of the ways it falls down is in consistency in the officers who look after each case; they often change. Is there any way that that could be looked at, so that each case is looked after by one officer, rather than three, four, five or six?

    Guy Opperman

    The hon. Gentleman has forestalled one of the issues that I was going to raise. I remember the debate secured by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on 21 January 2021, in which there was discussion of how the CMS was managing during covid. It was a struggle, to be perfectly blunt; all such services were struggling to provide assistance during the pandemic, and there were complications. I would like to think that all colleagues accept that the Child Maintenance Service has improved as covid has disappeared, as people have been able to return to work, and as consistency has returned because people are no longer getting ill, having to shield and having all the problems that follow.

    The hon. Member for Strangford raised the issue of numbers. There are approximately 4,000 staff working for the Child Maintenance Service in the United Kingdom. That is a lot of people who are addressing this problem on an ongoing basis. I take the criticism, and the constructive criticism, about consistency in dealing with a case. In every MP’s office up and down the country—whether on this issue, on passports, on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or on any public services—there are desires and hopes for consistency, so that people can build up a relationship with a particular individual. Clearly individuals working in the public sector are free to move on to other things, but the criticism is legitimately made, and I take it on board; I am certain that the noble Baroness does, too.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about collections in his outstanding speech. Collections are increasing. The criticism can be made that they are not increasing enough, but despite the difficulties of the pandemic, CMS collections have continued to increase; they rose by 8% between 2018 to 2021, and in 2021 some 71% of paying parents who used the collect and pay service were complaint.

    In the quarter ending December 2021, a total of £46.6 million was paid through the collect and pay service; in addition, £210 million was due to be paid through direct pay arrangements. As a result of child maintenance payments, between 2018-19 and 2020-21—the most recent period for which there are statistics—the households of some 140,000 children were taken out of the category of low-income households. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford and emphasises the desperate importance of this issue. It is particularly relevant in a cost of living crisis. Those payments are made both through family-based arrangements and the CMS.

    The main point of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich was about enforcement, and I turn to that now. When a parent fails to support their child and fails to fulfil their financial responsibilities, a number of options cut in. If arrears have begun to accrue, the CMS aims to take immediate action to re-establish compliance. For example, £3 million was collected between October and December 2021 through CMS civil enforcement action.

    There are other enforcement powers, too. If a non-compliant paying parent is employed, the service will first attempt to deduct the maintenance and any arrears directly from their earnings. That is done by a deductions from earnings order or request; employers are obliged by law to take that action. This represents a quick and efficient way of going directly to the source of income to obtain the money. We learn these lessons from those who are the best at this: the taxman, who basically goes to earnings directly and ensures that they get immediate recovery.

    Marion Fellows

    That works in the civilian world, but not always with certain military people. There are real issues with chasing them for child payments.

    Guy Opperman

    I will reveal the product of a conversation I had earlier with the hon. Lady. I take note of her point, and if she gives me details of specific examples, particularly if there are regiments where this is a problem, I and the Department will be most interested to know about them. Of course, it would be best if we could respond to them before her important Westminster Hall debate on Thursday.

    Where earnings cannot be accessed directly and there is a solely-held bank account—an absent father or mother has a bank account in their name—deductions can be taken directly from that account, and administrative methods can then be used to take control of goods, passports and other things on an ongoing basis.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about sanctions. We clearly use them only as a last resort, but a paying parent found guilty in court of wilful refusal to pay, or of culpable neglect in relation to payment of arrears, may be prevented from holding or obtaining a driving licence for up to two years, or alternatively may be committed to prison. As I indicated, we have also got the power to disqualify non-compliant parents from having a passport. Those are pretty serious penalties, but I take the point that that is not a direct penalty for the offending behaviour.

    Dr Mullan

    The important point is that those powers tend to be at the end of an extensive, long-winded process, but people get very good at dropping in and out of it and, as a result, are no worse off. They can play the game all the way to the end and then say, “Okay, fine. I’ve got some money that I’ll give you.” They give money for a couple of months and then drop back out. They are no worse off as a result—they have not paid an extra penny in maintenance or served any punishment. It is about tackling that wider behaviour. That is not to say that the powers are not used effectively on occasion—as the Minister said, the deduction orders work well for some people—but a contingent of people are playing the system and not getting punished for it.

    Guy Opperman

    My hon. Friend makes a totally fair point. As always, a way forward is to take up specific examples with the CMS and Ministers directly, and I urge him to go to the Minister next week with those specific examples so that she and the director of the Child Maintenance Service can be challenged on why a particular individual is not being pursued in a particular way. Although there is the public policy thing, I keep coming back to how, ultimately, one is trying to encourage payments to be made. That is the difficult bit that one must address.

    I want to touch briefly on sanctions, because these are pretty major powers. Between January 2020 and December 2021, the CMS initiated almost 6,000 sanctions against paying parents, so there are not one or two examples but thousands. While the majority of those do not involve the courts as compliance is achieved, between 2020 and 2021, £3.5 million of child maintenance was collected from paying parents undergoing sanctions actions. The trigger of a sanction producing payment does work, albeit I accept that in individual examples there are not sufficient amounts. I mentioned prison sentences, and in that period there were 249 prison sentences and a multitude of driving licence suspensions.

    I come finally to curfews. My hon. Friend raised a number of points in respect of the curfew policy, and it is very much the case that we are proceeding with that. He was right to raise it with the Secretary of State, and she agrees with it. We are required by law to consult on it, and I want to give him the specific dates and how he, his constituents and fellow colleagues in the House can get involved. First, he—and his constituents through him—can feed into the consultation process prior to it happening. A public consultation on the power is intended to run from 13 June to 22 July, with the aim of its being published on 12 October. The order will then be commenced, subject to the approval of Parliament—it must pass through this place. He therefore has two windows: the first to influence the consultation before 13 June; and, secondly, he, his constituents and other colleagues can feed into the consultation in the normal way. [Interruption.] I need to face the front of the House. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I meant no discourtesy to you—I was attempting not to be discourteous to my hon. Friend—and I accept the implied criticism.

    It is very important that representations are made in that way, and that there is the opportunity for my hon. Friend’s constituents to ensure that the extra power is a strong enforcement power and that there are more options, so that they can use the right lever to obtain compliance. The existing sanctions clearly disrupt a paying person’s earnings and that is the key conflict with the desire to get money to the children. The benefit of the power is that it is likely to disrupt a paying person’s lifestyle, rather than their earning capacity. Given that curfew orders will not affect employment or the ability to earn, we feel that that is the right way forward.

    I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I hope that I have addressed some of the points he considers important. I want to finish on one key outside point. We are in very difficult times with the pandemic having ended, but more particularly with international breakdown and the war in Ukraine. The Government’s priorities are: growing the economy to address the cost of living; making streets safer; funding the NHS; and providing the leadership we need in challenging times. One of those bits of leadership, unquestionably, is ensuring that the Child Maintenance Service, particularly in challenging times, is genuinely performing to the best of its possible ability, getting the best outcomes for individual children and the constituents who we all serve. This reform and the work we are taking forward, I hope, will get that outcome.

  • Kieran Mullan – 2022 Speech on Child Maintenance Arrears

    Kieran Mullan – 2022 Speech on Child Maintenance Arrears

    The speech made by Kieran Mullan, the Conservative MP for Crewe and Nantwich, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2022.

    I am grateful to have this opportunity to talk about this incredibly important issue. While the topic is very broad, my speech is very focused.

    I am seeking to encourage the Government to move forward rapidly and robustly with proposals for home detention for people who do not pay child maintenance—something I have concentrated on campaigning for in my short time in the House. When discussing this issue, we are talking about the most important building block in our society: the need for parents take responsibility for their own children. The overwhelming majority of parents do exactly that. Whether together or separated, they take care of their financial responsibilities. My parents are divorced, and that had no bearing whatsoever on both of them continuing to look after me and my siblings. But sadly, not every parent does.

    As a Conservative, I am of course wary of the state’s unnecessary involvement in family life. It is disheartening that the Government have to be involved in this issue at all, and whatever failings I might go on to talk about, the people who most deserve our frustration, unlike campaigners who put all their effort and energy into blaming the Government for everything, are the people not living up to their responsibilities. Unsurprisingly, that sort of campaign does not get brand endorsements and social media favour.

    One thing we all agree on in this place is that part of the role of the state is to penalise the worst kinds of behaviour when that behaviour is beyond the pale. We do that most commonly in criminal law, but we also have civil law. In both, we right wrongs and punish people who behave in a way that the rest of society has decided we will not accept. Let me be clear: people who do not contribute to the upkeep of their own children when they could are the lowest of the low, but there is absolutely no system of punishment for that. Do we really think that, as unacceptable as it is, graffitiing a wall or vandalising a park bench is a graver offence than having children and refusing to contribute to their upkeep? I think the latter is one of the most deplorable things someone can do, but absolutely nothing is done to punish people for it—nothing. We fine people who do not send their children to school. We punish that, but not failing to support them.

    In a completely perverse contrast, if someone has the much more onerous responsibility of having primary custody of their children and they neglect them, they are punished. What kind of contrast is that? What kind of message does that send?

    For all the tough talk about sanctions, which I expect the Minister will cover, all they are aimed at is recovering moneys owed to children. How is that narrow approach working? Certainly there has been some improvement, as described by a recent National Audit Office report. The Department collected a record £54 million in the quarter ending September 2021. The percentage of paying parents contributing more than 90% of ongoing maintenance due in a quarter increased from under one third in March 2016 to around half in September 2021.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. Child maintenance arrears are a massive issue in my constituency, as they are in his. Does he not agree that with the cost of living crisis, single-parent families are under more pressure? There are 20,000 children in Northern Ireland alone whose cases are with the Child Maintenance Service’s advisers, and they deserve an up-to-date, functional service to ensure that payments are adequate, correct and timely.

    Dr Mullan

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. My focus today is on the need to change regulations, but I accept the wider concern about the functioning and efficiency of the agency. I will go on to talk about his point about the cost of living crisis. Figures suggest that 16% of children who are not in receipt of maintenance payments would be lifted out of poverty if they were, and that shows the level of concern we are trying to address.

    We have seen some improvements. The NAO found that the internal processes for moving towards enforcing compliance were better, but the bigger picture is not positive. Of separated families who have a Government-mediated arrangement in place, the NAO found that only one in three see it paid in full, so two in three are not getting the payments in full to which they are entitled. Sometimes, the sums people are expected to pay are incredibly small. At the end of September 2021, total cumulative arrears under the current child maintenance scheme were £436 million. That amount is increasing at roughly £1 million a week, and the total will hit £1 billion by 2031. That is a huge amount of money that is not being paid by non-residential parents, and we have a responsibility to hold to account and punish individuals who behave in this deplorable manner.

    Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the children who suffer most? The way that the Child Maintenance Service is writing off arrears means that these children will be permanently disadvantaged, with no more holidays and no more of the things that most children would take for granted.

    Dr Mullan

    The hon. Member pre-empts the exact point I was going to go on to make, which is that between December 2018 and March 2021, the predecessor agency wrote off about £2.6 billion of owed maintenance. That is the Government stepping in and legally excusing a parent of their responsibilities to their child. Whether or not it is realistic to recover it, morally I am not sure the Government should be doing that in a child and parent relationship. That is not a success in my book.

    As of September 2021, 38,000 paying parents with an ongoing arrangement had not paid any maintenance for more than three months, and 22,000 had not paid for more than six months. That is tens of thousands of individuals happy to let other people pick up their most fundamental responsibility of providing for their child. All too often, it is strangers picking up the pieces through the tax system. In theory, the Department has some tough powers, including imprisonment, but the figures I have quoted clearly show that they are not working. Imprisoning someone, although perhaps morally warranted, stops them being able to earn and is not a practical solution to use at the scale needed to tackle the tens of thousands of non-payers. Those delinquent individuals have learned that if they just start paying a bit again, the whole system resets.

    The Department’s civil enforcements are restricted to the collection of arrears at the time when a liability order is granted and cannot be used to enforce ongoing maintenance, which is another reason why an element of punishment would serve a wider purpose. It is not surprising that the evidence shows that overall, maintenance arrears continue to build up, even when the Department begins enforcement action. The NAO found that on average, parents had arrears of £2,200 before the enforcement action began and £2,600 afterwards. As if it were not bad enough that taxpayers have to top up the income of less well-off families when one parent is not contributing, we have to put time, money and effort into chasing up payments with no consequences for those who are not paying.

    Taking stronger steps is broadly supported. According to a survey by Mumsnet and Gingerbread, 93% of parents believe that those who regularly avoid paying child maintenance should face more serious penalties. Not only would punishment be morally warranted, but I expect that it would have a powerful effect on compliance and put people off not paying in the first place. As I said, tougher restrictions to ensure that people are paying their child maintenance could lift 60% of children not in receipt of payments out of poverty. With the cost of living crisis, there is no better time to tackle the issue.

    A change needs to be made to the system to ensure that the continuous rise in non-payments is tackled, and that is where home curfew can play a role. When the Government originally introduced enforcement measures, they crafted the legal framework to introduce home curfew measures but the powers were never enacted. I am not clear why, but I have campaigned for some time for those powers to be put to use, so I was delighted that, earlier this year, the Secretary of State announced plans to do exactly that. I hope that today’s debate helps to encourage the Government to make progress towards that commitment.

    I would welcome the opportunity for my constituents to contribute to a consultation; perhaps the Minister could meet me and some of them as plans are developed. It will be no surprise to him that I think it is important that we use this power not just as a mechanism to encourage payments but to punish. If we could meet ahead of the consultation so that we can ensure that that is part of the proposals, it would be appreciated.

    Home curfew could remain in place for the designated period regardless of whether a parent started to pay—for example, for three months. I imagine that spending three months at home every night, pondering their responsibilities, would be a powerful reality check. People need to understand that we as a society do not find non-payment acceptable and that they will be punished for not paying for the upkeep of their children.

    On a related note, not earning any money should be accepted as an excuse for not paying maintenance only when there has been a genuine attempt to find work, which should be determined in the same way that the Department assesses that as part of the wider work of the welfare state. If someone has responsibility for children, they should be out there doing everything they can to find a job. If they are not doing that, they should not be out socialising of an evening.

    Importantly, unlike imprisonment, home curfew can be used in a way that does not prevent a person from looking for a job and earning, as it can be tailored to their circumstances. It would typically be an evening and overnight curfew to allow people to find and take work during the day, but it could be switched around for people who find night work.

    I sound a note of caution. As constituency MPs, we have all had cases of people for whom the administration of maintenance by CMS has gone wrong. Of course, if we are seeking powers to restrict someone’s liberty, we need to ensure that the cases are watertight, but we know that tens of thousands of people are not paying and would be fair targets of this policy.

    I understand that home detention equipment is available, so we can make the change work. I would welcome people who are not paying having to explain why they have an ankle tag and cannot go to the pub in the evening. I have no doubt that many would say that they are guilty of a minor crime before admitting that they do not pay for their own kids, which tells us all we need to know about how badly we have got it wrong.

    I acknowledge that there are many loving parents who would and do contribute to the care of their children but who are prevented from seeing them by the parent who has primary custody. When I first raised the issue of home detention for non-payers, many such parents contacted me and were clearly distressed. I make it clear that I am in no way minimising that and I fully support every parent in exercising their clear legal right to secure access to their children. Of course, it is abhorrent for any parent not to act in good faith when it comes to access, but two wrongs do not make a right and, as with every MP, I have to choose what I campaign on.

    I am clear that every child deserves parents who step up and look after them and that no taxpayer should be left filling the void when they do not. On behalf of a society that I believe wants to see tougher action, the Government need to proceed at speed to secure it.

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Statement on the Ratification of the Istanbul Convention

    Priti Patel – 2022 Statement on the Ratification of the Istanbul Convention

    The statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2022.

    Tackling violence against women and girls—VAWG—is a Government priority and these crimes have no place in our society. Last July, we published our new cross-Government “Tackling violence against women and girls strategy” to help ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere—at home, online and on the streets. We are committed to radically changing how we end VAWG with a whole-system approach focusing on prioritising prevention, supporting survivors and pursuing perpetrators. And in March we published the first ever dedicated and complementary “Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan”, which seeks to transform the whole of society’s response to domestic abuse.

    The Council of Europe convention on combating violence against women and domestic violence, commonly known as the Istanbul convention, is a gold-standard international charter for the protection of women and girls. This Government were proud to sign it in 2012, to signal our strong commitment to tackling VAWG. The Government have always remained committed to ratifying the convention and since signing it we have worked to significantly strengthen our legislative framework and have introduced a wide range of tools to protect victims better. Our measures to protect women and girls from violence are some of the most robust in the world, and in some respects we go further than the convention requires.

    The Government are now satisfied that they have the legislative framework and other necessary measures in place to meet the requirements of the convention. I am therefore now pleased to confirm, as required by section 1(3)(a) of the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017, that the UK is compliant with the Istanbul convention and in a position to seek Parliament’s approval to ratify it. Ratification will send a strong message to women and girls in this country that the Government are committed to ensuring their safety and to ending VAWG. It will also send an equally strong message to our partners internationally which confirms that the UK remains at the forefront of tackling VAWG across the globe.

    I am pleased also to confirm that the Government are today laying the text of the Istanbul convention in the form of a Command Paper in both Houses, alongside an explanatory memorandum. If no objections are raised to ratification of the convention in either House within the next 21 joint sitting days, the Government will arrange to deposit their instrument of ratification. In line with the requirement under section 1(3)(b) of the 2017 Act, I can therefore confirm that I would expect the UK to have ratified the convention by 31 July 2022.

    Article 78(2) of the convention allows countries to make a reservation on certain provisions of the convention. This means that the country will not be bound by that particular provision. The Government have decided to make reservations on two of those provisions. We will be applying a reservation on part of article 44, which relates to the prosecution of UK residents for committing acts in another country which are crimes in UK law but not under the law of that other country, and which reflects the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We will also be applying a reservation on article 59, which relates to migrant victims, to enable us to ratify the convention before the evaluation of the Support for Migrant Victims scheme concludes, at which point we will consider the policy issues involved substantively, and whether that reservation should continue. Further detail on the reservations is contained within the explanatory memorandum published today.

    I know that ratifying this convention will send a strong message about the UK’s commitment to tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, and will help us to continue to lead the way in tackling these terrible crimes.

  • Kit Malthouse – 2022 Statement on Extracting Data from Electronic Devices

    Kit Malthouse – 2022 Statement on Extracting Data from Electronic Devices

    The statement made by Kit Malthouse, the Minister for Crime and Policing, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2022.

    Following the successful passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, I am pleased to announce that today I am launching a public consultation on the draft code of practice for the extraction of information from electronic devices.

    It is vital that victims feel confident in coming forward to report crime, but we know that fear of intrusive demands for information can deter victims from reporting offences or from continuing to support investigations. The powers in chapter 3 of part 2 of the Act therefore strengthen the law to ensure that there is a consistent approach to requesting information from phones and other electronic devices which puts respect for an individual’s privacy at the centre of every investigation.

    This code of practice will be a vital tool in ensuring that all use of these powers is lawful and that the powers are used only where it is necessary and proportionate. The draft code makes it clear that the powers must be used only as a last resort. This will ensure that all those who are asked to voluntarily provide their devices and give agreement to the extraction of information, are given all the necessary information to enable them to make the decision that is right for them.

    All authorised persons have a duty to have regard to the code when exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, the power. The code will also be admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings and failure to act in accordance with it may be taken into account by the court.

    Those who have an interest in the use of these powers and the protection of privacy for complainants are strongly encouraged to respond to the consultation, and I welcome the views of all colleagues on this important guidance.

    I will arrange for a copy of the consultation and draft code to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Speech to the Police Federation Conference

    Priti Patel – 2022 Speech to the Police Federation Conference

    The speech made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, to the Police Federation Conference in Manchester on 17 May 2022.

    It’s great to be here and really nice to see you all, as last year, we were all confined to being online and on the internet. And Steve Hartshorn, it’s a pleasure to meet you today properly as well for the first time.

    And as ever, this is just a wonderful opportunity for me personally to say something to you all, to thank you for the incredible work that you do and the way in which you engage and work with us.

    And I have to say, Steve, as well, you know I’m a Home Secretary that calls a spade a spade, having a very direct approach, because that’ll be absolutely my approach in terms of our way of working going forward as well.

    We are here to find solutions to challenges and no challenge is undeliverable. So it is all about how we can find solutions and outcomes and also about being honest and open because that is the only way forward to achieve the change that all your members, everyone here and the rank and file and our brilliant officers, want to see.

    And it’s also worth pointing out that we show a huge, deep admiration when it comes to policing and of course it’s my absolute desire and imperative to ensure that not only we finance and resource policing, but that we make sure policing remains as Steve has already said, the best it possibly can be, the most rewarding profession and a first-class public service.

    And Steve, I know you, working with me, will strain every single sinew to do exactly that.

    Some of you may think, when you read about our work more broadly in government and my role as Home Secretary, we always have a bit going on. But what I would say for me coming here today but also in respect of my work and the work of the government when it comes to policing, it is just so valuable and vitally important.

    It’s a statement of the obvious to say that being Home Secretary is an incredible job and I’m sure some of you are thinking ‘what is she talking about?’, judging from the press coverage that she receives; but it does hold a tremendous responsibility and a privilege.

    And I say that in the sense that even if you look over the last few years, we have seen in policing, all sorts of good things happen and challenging things happen like the pandemic; but also from my perspective I have been present when history is being made in policing but also more broadly in terms of the changes that you’ve seen in policing as well.

    So I do have a ringside seat. But actually I’m also in the arena with you all when it comes to bringing in some fundamental changes.

    Now it goes without saying – in fact, I was at City of London Police this morning – , that each day I meet the very best of you across the country. Yes, in London predominantly, but even last week, I was actually in Stoke and meeting officers there.

    And it is fair to say – and I think Steve has touched on this with some of the statistics that he has highlighted and public opinions voiced – that nobody does a harder job or a better one than the police.

    And no one does more, in my view, to make our country great. And nobody gives greater public service.

    Of course, it’s that essence of public service that actually unites all of us. And that is why Steve, many of the points that you’ve made are so pertient and that is why coming together and finding a different way of working is going to be so important to deliver for your members.

    Like many of you, my values and beliefs obviously in my case have shaped my political work, but also my approach to public service. And Steve has just touched on a range of issues, some of which cost money, some of which don’t.

    Actually a philosophy is about more than money and economics, but deciding, in my case, the choices that we make as politicians, and as your Home Secretary, have to reflect naturally, the matters which govern us each day, but also the ability to exercise judgement and decision-making, like you all do every day, sometimes in the most challenging of circumstances that are really fundamental to who we are and what we do; that actually applies to what you do every day, which is the rule of law and the safety of our country.

    Now, the leaders that I’ve always admired have always stood up for law and order and human rights in particular. And when I say this, I very much put this in the context of human rights are not just for criminals, but for the law-abiding majority – something that I know you will all stand by and feel very strongly about.

    And that means standing squarely with you, our police. I think actually when you look at the wider public discourse, yes in politics, but as someone that is a legislator as well, I see it with commentators. I quite frankly have always held many politicians and commentators with a degree of contempt who constantly undermine the police and the work that you do day in, day out, because I’ve seen this now for almost three years in my role.

    I could have changed my mind about policing. I spend a lot of time with police officers. I have nothing but pure respect and admiration and gratitude for all you do. And in my case that has only deepened.

    I can say this – and I know some of you may have heard me say this previously when I’ve attended your conference – but in my first two weeks as Home Secretary, I saw some of the most appalling things happen.

    I saw an assault on a police officer who had been attacked with a machete. I also saw the most tragic murder of PC Andrew Harper. And on top of that of course, like many of you, I’ve visited major terrorist incidents and tragedies. I’ve actually seen your unique combination of clinical professionalism, alongside human warmth and kindness, and I’ve also been alongside some of you when we’ve been there on dawn raids, also watching you run to danger.

    And with that, Steve has already touched on this, there is and I have a greater appreciation of the sacrifices made by you and also by your loved ones. Yes, by visiting memorials, and obviously the National Policing Memorial, the arboretum is just one example of that; but also when it comes to speaking to bereaved family members.

    That has probably been one of the most painful aspects of my job, but in terms of the sacrifices that officers and their families have made, probably one of the greatest privileges that I have also experienced.

    It’s fair to say, and I’m very conscious of Steve’s remarks and the requests, if I may put it that way, that have been presented today, that I’ve also sat down with you, your members, the Federation, to work alongside you and plan and negotiate to find the right way forward together.

    And with that note, the Police Federation plays an absolutely central role in this when it comes to giving officers from forces across England and Wales that very voice, so I’m actually very grateful to you for your way of working, but also your respectful and reassuring presence in the dialogue that we have.

    I think it goes without saying – and those of you that know me or have even met me and been out on raids with me and been on the front line occasionally when we’ve been together – that I’m very proudly pro-police. And I say this to a lot of people in Westminster, by the way, that anyone who feels differently should certainly vote for someone else.

    One of the differences that you’ll find with me is that distinction between politicians who prioritise systems and process and those who put people first – and I’m simply in that category of putting people first because policing is not just an institution. Just like the army or the NHS or even the teaching profession, it is a collection of dedicated professionals.

    So the reforms that I have driven in the last two and a half years – working with the Federation, working with policing leaders, working with the National Policing Board – have all been based upon that belief, and the investments that I have overseen, just over recent years, £17billion in policing, is also an investment in people – in each and every officer, and with the new recruits as well, and including you all, the next generation of policing leaders.

    So you’ve heard me and you’ve heard others in government speak about the 20,000 extra recruits. To me, this isn’t just the number. It is actually an infusement and an investment in new talent, the foundations of policing for generations to come.

    I also recognise the fact that of course many of you wear a uniform, but your backgrounds and experiences are far from uniform. And I think that is one of the greatest joys of policing. And it’s crucial that we continue to shape police forces that represent the community that are the best crime-fighting, protective organisations – but also proactive organisations.

    I know many of you have seen this already and I meet new recruits very, very frequently: we have younger officers – and it says something when a Home Secretary says that recruits are getting younger and the police officers are getting younger; but also we have second career officers, men and women from different backgrounds and actually different professional backgrounds as well; graduates and a whole mixture all aspiring to lead their communities, but also be leaders in policing.

    I’m also one of those that actually believes that you don’t have to hold high rank to be a leader, nor inspire others. I think that just comes as second nature to what you do.

    I also recognise that everything I’ve learned from being amongst policing and police officers and working with you has shaped the changes that I have led and government has led and actually our direction of travel.

    I’ve also learned that the courage you have shown and the sacrifices you make, are even greater than I think members of the public and people realise. And that’s why the Police Covenant matters so much to me – and Steve has touched on this and your former Chairs have been very strong advocates of this and in fact the day that I became Home Secretary, I very much said that I would not just bring this into legislation, I would deliver this for you.

    The Police Covenant matters. And that’s why I’m very grateful to you all, to the membership of the Police Federation and the leadership of the Police Federation for working with me on the Police Covenant Oversight Board.

    Because there’s no point in just speaking about legislation and policies. It is about the practical delivery that matters and makes a difference to you and your family. And I think together we have set the right priorities, driven delivery, but also done something else: we continue to challenge each other to do better and constantly learn from each other. And the Federation has actually played a huge role in gathering evidence on how best the Covenant can support families, but also jointly leading on considering new areas for the Covenant to address.

    So we can never stand still, we have to keep on developing this and of course in relation to death in service, there is no doubt that every life lost on duty and in the line of duty is an enormous tragedy. And I’m absolutely determined that in future this sacrifice will be recognised.

    Steve has also just touched on pay and pensions and if I may, I’d like to say a few words about this as well. If I may, Steve, I strongly urge the Federation to engage with us directly and the Police Renumeration Review Body, which does have a key role as you’ve touched on in advising the government on pay and conditions and the wider spectrum of pensions as well.

    But I think it’s important that your voices are heard, the voices of your members must be represented in that process. And as you know, the main public sector pension scheme including the police pensions, was reformed following recommendations of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission,

    All police officers will continue to have that lower pension age compared to other public servants which is linked to state pension age and I will continue to work with you absolutely in terms of being a voice but getting the representation that you need into those discussions to reflect the unique nature of policing.

    That distinction is incredibly important. And Steve, I look forward to working with you and getting this right because it’s never straightforward, but it’s imperative that we work together to really make sure your members and your members’ voices are heard in Whitehall on this issue.

    We’ve also made great progress, substantial progress, in policing since this time last year when we were speaking together virtually online. Yes, the plan to recruit 20,000 additional police officers is on track and in fact many of you are followers of the Police Uplift Programme. I know because some of you contact me directly.

    We already have over 13,000 – in fact 13,576 – police officers and I have to say I want to thank you for the example that you’ve all set not just in supporting the Police Uplift Programme but actually helping to make this an attractive career path.

    And I’m someone that has been very vocal, in fact from day one, not just about recruitment, but retention. And that is something I know that over the last few years, we’ve discussed and we will continue to ensure that we can make sure that we’re constantly investing in training, career development, making sure that we can retain our officers. Because there’s no point actually going out there recruiting more where the attrition rate just goes up and up and up.

    But as you know, I believe in investing in officers. I believe in giving you the resources and the training and I’ve also made it easier for you to use vital powers such as stop and search to keep our streets and communities safe. And in particular, when it comes to making those carrying weapons and drugs to think twice, I want to do everything possible to give you the confidence and the assurance you need to make sure that you can use your powers fairly, appropriately in the right places, but also bring communities alongside you as well.

    And that’s why we’re working with policing partners to develop a new national framework for how the use of police power should be scrutinised at a local level. So that we can give you the backing you need to use your powers proportionately and effectively. It’s the right thing to do.

    And of course, that means enhanced use of body -video, which also protects you from those spurious claims, saying that you’ve misused your powers, and I think actually it was last year at this very conference where I made a commitment that I would not let you be subjected to trial by social media. And I absolutely meant that.

    Steve has actually touched on a couple of areas linked to that as well in terms of IPC, but areas where we absolutely need to stand shoulder to shoulder and that 15-second representation of someone taking snapshots on social media does not do justice to the incredible work that you do every single day.

    And with that, of course the two-part Police and Crime Commissioners Review is delivering on our own commitments – the commitments of our manifesto and the government – to strengthen and expand the roles of PCCs to help them deliver effective police forces – yes, to cut crime and make our streets safer, but also to work with you in terms of protecting your ability to do your jobs.

    The recommendations from Part Two were announced in March this year, all on strengthening and expanding the role of PCCs in the criminal justice system specifically, and of course this includes setting up the foundations for a greater role for PCCs in offender management, improving the levers PCCs hold in terms of local partnerships and also the facilitation of data sharing.

    PCCs will also have access to the best possible evidence to support their efforts to improve public confidence in policing and also the criminal justice system.

    Steve, you touched on this as well, there is so much more that has taken place now within government to join up policing, the CPS and the courts so that we can protect victims and deliver for victims against some of the most appalling crimes that victims have been subjected to.

    And I think it’s fair to say we should pay recognition and celebrate the fact that more than 8,900 Specials in England and Wales will soon be able to join the Police Federation and that is something that was one of the early requests that came to me and we’ve worked together to ensure that we’ve made that possible.

    But if I may just touch on a few areas of policy which I know will be of interest to you. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act contains several important measures, many of which were requested by the Federation. And it’s extremely important to me that the law empowers and protects police officers so that you can carry out your duties effectively.

    That is why we introduced the new test to assess the standards of driving of police officers. Should any officer be involved in a collision, the courts will now be able to judge their standard of driving against a competent and careful peer with the same prescribed training rather than alongside a member of the public.

    I want our highly trained officers to have the confidence that they need to fight crime effectively but also to be represented effectively. I also want to commend the excellent work that DCC Terry Woods has been leading on behalf of the National Police Chief Council to encourage police forces to standardise police driver training.

    When it comes to legislation and policy, I also recognise that the law needed to change to better balance the right to protest with the rights of everyone else. As ever, you’ve never hesitated to put yourself in harm’s way while a selfish minority of protesters have used guerrilla tactics such as blocking motorways and locking on to oil tankers.

    And I can tell you now I know whose side I’m on.

    The increase in the maximum penalty for wilful obstruction of the highway came into force this month, and other public order measures in the Act will come into force on 28 June.

    But we need to build upon these changes so I brought forward the Public Order Bill, which reintroduces measures such as the new locking on offence rejected by the House of Lords in January.

    Under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, a Police Covenant report will be prepared and laid in Parliament each financial year. And the first report will be published in 2023 to cover 2022-23.

    And like you all, I’m especially proud that Harper’s Law will come into force from the end of June. I think we should pay tribute to Lissie Harper for the way in which she campaigned bravely and effectively but also with your support and I do want to commend the Police Federation for the support that you gave her in bringing that case directly to government.

    Harper’s Law means mandatory life sentences for people who kill an emergency worker while committing a crime will come into force.

    And there will also be increases in the maximum penalty for assaults on police officers and other emergency workers from 12 months to two years in prison for common assault or battery.

    I’ve also listened carefully to Steve’s requests that we look at legislation to protect off-duty police officers and believe you me, I absolutely believe in that. I’m not going to lie to you or provide you with government speak right now saying that we’ve reached agreements or that there’s more work to be done. But I can tell you now, without any hesitation or equivocation that I stand with you and that if I can, I will bring legislation forward.

    And I will do so with the same pride and dignity that policing displays day in, day out through the service you give and through the sacrifices that you make.

    One of the most disturbing sets of crimes you deal with, and I’m afraid has been at the forefront of policing in the last 12 months, is violence against women and girls. And dealing with this, of course, is our shared priority.

    None of us in this room will ever let women and girls down. And as you’ve all seen through our new Domestic Abuse Act; our new cross-government Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy and the complementary Domestic Abuse Plan; and the recent ‘Enough’ communications campaign which was launched in March, and the outstanding work from Maggie Blyth, who is leading this in policing. All of this now sets a new direction and a new framework when it comes to protecting women and girls and tackling some of the hardest issues around domestic violence.

    And Steve has just touched on in his own remarks the point about victims in the criminal justice system. We have a very significant commitment now through the Rape Review to do so much more in bringing the perpetrators of violence and sexual abuse to justice. So we have the new 24 Phone Commitment to ensure that no adult rape victim is left without a phone for more than 24 hours during a rape investigation, a policy that stems from the Rape Review and I have to say a policy that has come together by working with you all, working with policing leaders, but also working with some of the technology providers that I’ve already met today in the exhibition hall.

    This has also been backed up with a substantial funding package. So there is a plan and it is a sustained funding package so that we can absolutely deliver for victims. And you will also hear in the weeks to come from the Lord Chancellor Dominic Raab who will be speaking about the changes that we’re making to give victims the right in law to the protection that they need.

    So having police officers and prosecutors with the right skills is absolutely crucial. And that is essential when it comes to managing cases, not just effectively, but sensitively and in the right way so that we can ensure that justice is served. Yes, this means increasing the number of police officers and prosecutors focused in this area, but also ensuring that they have the right experience.

    Some of you may be familiar already with Operation Soteria and I’m already working closely with Chief Constable Sarah Crew. Many of you will know the great work Sarah is leading on to test a new model for the investigation of sexual offences where we can identify the specialist skills required for those offences and determine not just the right way but the optimal way to deliver the skills and lead to the right justice outcomes.

    I’m also pleased to announce two further measures this week. Following our pilot programme, I am relaxing the five voluntary conditions on the use of Section 60 Stop and Search. Having listened to you all very clearly, very frequently – in fact, you have all articulated day in, day out that Stop and Search is a vital tool in getting knives off our streets, and importantly in saving lives.

    I can also announce today that I’m also authorising Special Constables to carry Tasers and your voice has called for these important changes. And it actually speaks to a point that Steve has made about the investment in training, investment in our officers, but also the investment in the skills and the resources when it comes to policing.

    I know many of you feel that you’ve waited a long time for a Home Secretary to be on your side and listen to your calls for change. Not only have I listened, I’ve acted and I’ll continue to work with you because I do think it’s important that you have a Home Secretary that champions many of your calls in government.

    Of course, we should not only celebrate success, we need to work together to create a better culture and higher standards. Giving officers every possible support includes giving them the confidence to blow the whistle when things go wrong, so that we can root out misconduct and corruption and some of the issues I’m afraid that have dominated the headlines too frequently over recent months.

    The whole country was absolutely shattered and horrified by Sarah Everard’s abduction, rape and murder by a serving officer. And this horrendous case – and I’ll never forget it, getting the day to day reports and the other revelations that came forward – undermined confidence in policing and the public are in urgent need of reassurance.

    I’m unequivocal that unacceptable behaviour must be rooted out and at the same time called out. That is where we will work together to bring about that change, and of course lessons must be learned, and every necessary change must be made without fear or favour. That is absolutely I know what you want to do.

    And so on that basis, it’s right that we work together to take action to improve public confidence in policing at a time when we are investing in policing, recruiting more officers, working hard to retain officers, investing in training and everything else.

    Taking action to build confidence and improve confidence in policing with the public is absolutely vital. That of course speaks to Steve’s point about boosting police professionalism, but in particular the focus on leadership and training and skills.

    That also means a particular focus on leadership at Sergeant and Inspector levels, and working with policing partners to tackle disparities when it comes to policing and the criminal justice system.

    Of course, across policing, we also need to raise the bar so that women and girls feel confident in reporting crimes. And that is why I have established the Inquiry that is now led by Dame Elish Angiolini QC, which will be carried out in two phases.

    First, it will establish whether previous allegations when it came to Sarah Everard’s killer were handled appropriately, providing an account of his conduct and the circumstances around his continued employment as a police officer.

    There are many questions left unanswered right now.

    Phase Two will consider the broader issues raised by this case for policing as a whole but also for the protection of women. Dame Elish has my total support to get all the answers which the Everard family and the public desperately and rightly want to find out.

    I have also commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services to carry out a review of vetting and counter-corruption arrangements in England and Wales, looking at what forces are doing to identify and deal with predatory and misogynistic behaviour.

    This effort is underway, and I think it will provide us an evidence base to inform Part Two of the Angiolini Inquiry.

    The Inspectorate will also conduct an inspection into the Metropolitan Police to investigate the devastating findings of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel and to assess the current counter-corruption capability of the force.

    The inspection report was published in March and it painted a distressing and disturbing picture of the force, particularly of its inability proactively to tackle corruption issues.

    So it’s vital that we work together and we support each other on this. But also it’s vital that the Mayor of London works closely with the incoming Commissioner to ensure that the full response to this is one of their first priorities.

    Of course, there is so much more to do when it comes to not just public confidence, but effectively improving the trust in the police complaints system. And of course, when it comes to the awareness of the IOPC’s role, especially with young people and those communities with the lowest confidence in policing.

    Police misconduct statistics have been completely revamped, and will now cover the protected characteristics of officers involved, which will allow us to understand and answer some of those challenging issues around disproportionality in the discipline system.

    The rise in cases of officers misusing social media or abusing positions of trust for sexual purposes, is concerning. And we have seen egregious examples in recent months.

    But it’s also vital that our officers speak up when they witness misconduct by their colleagues, which is why two years ago we strengthened the duty on officers to report wrongdoing.

    All institutions require scrutiny. And anyone and everyone within those institutions should welcome this. Hard-working, dedicated and decent police officers like you all, are dreadfully undermined by such intolerable behaviour and it is the worst type of behaviour.

    I know you will feel deeply about this – I know Steve and all your colleagues do too. I also know – and I’ve heard this from too many officers – that it hits you all incredibly hard when a minority have abused the greatest privilege of being a police officer with such appalling behaviour. Public confidence in the police could not matter more. And you cannot do your jobs if that consent and support breaks down, and I know you want, as I do, for the public to feel safe and secure. And that’s why you choose this career path.

    So, of course together, we want to ensure that policing is dynamic, professional, attractive, and that go-to career choice that people want to choose. The police officer workforce is more representative than ever before. And the latest data does show that the highest proportion of ethnic minority and female officers are in place since records began.

    However, more work is evidently needed to recruit more black officers.

    We must do everything we possibly can to ensure that policing has an inclusive culture. And that’s just a basic principle of fairness. Everyone should have access to the same opportunities. I’m a great believer in that and talent should be recognised wherever exists earlier and in a more consistent way.

    And the Uplift Programme in particular is that once-in-a-generation opportunity to not just increase diversity in policing, but so much more; to allow us to level up to give people that ladder of opportunity in policing so that you can achieve every single goal that you wish in your career.

    And, that includes improvements in workforce data engagement, sharing best practice, but ultimately giving you the freedom to succeed. And I believe in that because experienced officers are incredibly valuable.

    I’ve given the College of Policing further funding to create a National Leadership Centre to not just improve standards but drive standards so that we can see that continual investment and professionalism and in training and also to support better talent management.

    There are now leadership standards for Sergeant and inspector rank, and more are on the way. And that means talent management and promotions will be fairer and better – and I’m hoping swifter too.

    The total number of new recruits is greater than the uplift because of the retiring officers. Overall, 31,000 new recruits have joined since November 2019. And there are many new colleagues among you. They all need support from each of you.

    I’m sure you could look back and reflect upon your time from when you first joined, all of you were new officers once. So I ask you to look back and think about what would have helped you then and how you can be supportive of your newer colleagues, but also be the type of inspirational leaders that they will also seek to be.

    So in conclusion, as your champion in Westminster and in government, I can tell you now, I will not hold back. I will call a spade a spade and I will do everything that I possibly can to make policing as attractive and dynamic and as rewarding, and rightly so, to make sure that policing represents the very best of you all.

    The public overwhelmingly recognises that our safety, democracy and civil society depend on you. And I have to say that is something you should all be incredibly proud of. And that’s something that I’m very proud of about you too.

  • Lee Rowley – 2022 Comments on the Smart Manufacturing Data Hub

    Lee Rowley – 2022 Comments on the Smart Manufacturing Data Hub

    The comments made by Lee Rowley, the UK Industry Minister, on 18 May 2022.

    As we embrace the digital manufacturing revolution, it is vital manufacturers across the UK can capitalise on the productivity and growth gains that come with the adopting the latest data-led digital technologies.

    The Smart Manufacturing Data Hub, backed by £20 million of government funds, will support companies to implement cutting edge production and process techniques themselves, helping bring the next generation of products to our shelves in a more efficient and sustainable way.