UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Peter Rawlinson – 1964 Speech on the Abolition of the Death Penalty

    Peter Rawlinson – 1964 Speech on the Abolition of the Death Penalty

    The speech made by Peter Rawlinson, the then Conservative MP for Epsom, in the House of Commons on 21 December 1964.

    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) in the first half-hour of his speech, referred to the Amendment and to what he said were various ingenious technicalities. He will forgive me, I hope, if I deal solely with the Bill, which, I understand, is the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill—a Bill which I oppose.

    The hon. Member described capital punishment as a grotesque barbarity. I think that there is no one in the House who would not agree that execution by solemn judicial process is a terrible and awful exercise of the authority of the State and of the people. So, also, terrible and awful is the murder of one person by another. It is the most terrible crime that one person can commit against another. Every rational person, when thinking of this serious problem—every rational person inside the House and throughout the country—will always be moved to consider it with mixed feelings of revulsion, of horror and of compassion. Compassion is not the monopoly of any group of people who hold any particular view in this very serious argument.

    This is an argument which crosses the lines of ordinary political controversy and almost of political instinct. It is something which depends on the personal judgment and personal conscience of every Member in the House. It is a matter in which one’s personal experience brings a view, a judgment and eventually a decision which has to be made, and no amount of statistics, of studies and reports affect in most people’s minds their final decision.

    Before the Homicide Act, 1957, in the practise of my profession, I was affected gravely on many occasions by the solemn procedure of the death penalty which I knew in those cases would never be carried out. I believed that it was wholly wrong in a case of that kind and an outrageous penalty prescribed for that act which was then murder under the law, but which in my view was not such thing in reality. So if that had been the price of retention, I think that I would have had grave concern. Therefore, I wholeheartedly welcomed the 1956 proposals and the 1957 Act.

    There is much misconception about the 1957 Act and the motives and ideas of the people who supported it. At that time and now some of us believed that it was an Act which represented the right way of dealing with the problem of capital punishment. It abolished certain technical matters, such as “constructive malice”, it established a new doctrine, of provocation, and it applied the Scottish law of diminished responsibility. It so limited and confined what had been the crime of murder.

    The 1957 Act defined as the crime of capital murder, for which the supreme penalty should apply, murder in the course of theft applying to the gang or robber, and murder by shooting applying to the gangster with a gun, the man who had gone out and acquired a gun or had stolen one, and had bought or stolen the ammunition, who had put the ammunition into the gun, put the gun into his pocket, loaded it and had taken it with him in committing a crime of robbery and then used it.

    The Act retained the death penalty for the killing of a policeman or warder, as well as for the double killing. These things exercised the minds of the most moderate people when we debated this subject in 1956 and 1957. It was the fear—a perfectly honourable fear shared by many people, and shared by the Executive at that time—of the effect of abolition and what the result would be on the practices of the professional criminal if there were total abolition. Would there be an increase of violence or an increase in the use of firearms? It was that which exercised our minds.

    We wondered in 1956 and 1957 whether this country’s crime and criminal activities would develop as they have done overseas; into the use of gangs and gangsters, armed with guns. Would there be an increased danger to the public and would the police have to be armed? All these questions were in our minds during those debates. It was inevitable that our minds should have been exercised in that way.

    Of course it is right for the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to agree—as he said when replying to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger)—that the 1957 Act adopted what the Royal Commission had stated about the moral heinousness of crime. The Commission said that it could not apply to moral heinousness. One may be able to use that in the exercise of statutory powers where one has power to release, but moral heinousness depends not on any objective characteristic or on a class of offence but on a particular situation, the circumstances of a particular offence and of a particular offender. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North pointed out, it did not claim to distinguish between different categories of murder on the score of heinousness. That, as I say, no statue can do.

    The 1957 Act was produced against the background of the time of a sharp increase in crimes of violence and it set up a frontier, a line, between capital and non-capital murder and it said, in effect, “Cross it at your peril”. It said, “Death where you kill in the course of committing a crime”, and “Death where it affects law and order”.

    Where one creates a line and frontier, there are bound to be anomalies. This applies to any other crime. Crime can be varied between the commission of the same act, but in a different way. The difference between common assault and manslaughter may depend on the thickness of a skull. In certain sex crimes it depend on the sixteenth birthday of a girl as to what the punishment will be and in other cases, such as drunken driving, it might depend on the capacity of the person to take drink. Of course the law contains anomalies. It always will and the remedy must be in the discretion which is retained as to punishment.

    When we were debating the 1957 Act the phrase “The Queen’s peace” was often used. It is an historical almost literary, phrase. It means that the conditions of life for the public should be such—and that the public is entitled to demand that it should be such—that the Executive, acting through Parliament, should provide the Queen’s peace so that people may go about their affairs and upon their business in peace. It can never be absolute. No one suggests that it can be. However, the public is entitled to demand of the Executive and Parliament that provision be made to ensure that all is done reasonably to maintain that peace and reasonably to ensure that people can live and work in those conditions.

    Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool)

    Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is developing his argument in a manner which is too sophisticated for me, will he explain how a rapist or poisoner does not disturb the peace, in the sense he means, as distinct from a robber? That is the point of argument we are considering now.

    Sir P. Rawlinson

    If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience I will deal with that point. I do not want to take as long as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, although I appreciate that he had the task of moving the Second Reading. I should have thought that the answer would be obvious to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). He knows it only too well. My argument is that one should use this penalty only where one believes that one can deter. I do not believe that one cannot deter a poisoner or a rapist. There is a duty on the Executive to deter where it can and that is given to the law enforcement officers. It is given to the police. It is a dangerous as well as difficult task.

    Much publicity is given to those occasions when the police are criticised. The failure of the police, whenever it occurs, is always heard about. We do not hear so much and so often, both in the House and outside, of the great executions of courage and bravery which the police perform in the carrying out of their duties. It is easy for us, in the safety of Parliament and sitting here, to theorise. We deal in words. They must deal with crime in action.

    Upon the Executive rests the real responsibility for law and order. The Executive have made their attitude towards the Bill perfectly clear. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne pointed out, the Measure was referred to in the Gracious Speech, and he has that signal distinction, one of many to fall upon him. The Government have provided Parliamentary time for the Bill and doubtless they have provided draftsmen to draft it. Nevertheless, Parliament and the public are entitled to obtain from the Government certain advice and information.

    Is there evidence now of an increase of crime by the professional criminal? Is there, in this sense, an increase—or is there evidence of an increase of crime by highly organised gangs? Can they advise positively or can they forecast whether a Bill such as this will, in their view, and in the view of the enforcement machinery, lead to any greater danger to the public? This is the sort of information which I hope we will receive from the Home Secretary.

    Mr. Sydney Silverman

    I agree that I made an inordinately long speech and that I should not now be interrupting. However, I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the House, if he can, whether we should retain the death penalty for such crimes as he is describing on the footing that this would deter people from committing them? Is there, in his opinion, any evidence to show that such crimes for which we have retained the death penalty have reduced in number since 1957?

    Sir P. Rawlinson

    I think there is such evidence, but I am giving an impression.

    Mr. Silverman

    Oh.

    Sir P. Rawlinson

    The hon. Member spoke for well over an hour and he now again intervenes when I am trying to reply to his question. I hope that he will not intervene again. I did not intervene when he was speaking. I can only give an impression. My impression is that there has been an increase in organised crime. I also have the impression that great care is and has been taken by professional criminals to avoid the risk of violence leading to death because of the difference between the penalty which is paid where violence ends in death, which is capital punishment.

    On 7th December, 1964, I put down to the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question for Written Answer, because of my belief—it is only a personal impression and it may be wrong—that there is this increasing possibility of gang warfare and the use of firearms. I asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would introduce legislation to provide that any one found in unlawful possession of a firearm should receive a sentence of not less than five years’ imprisonment, irrespective of any offence they might have committed. My reason for asking the Question is that the unlawful possession of a firearm is an offence that a person has to go to some trouble to commit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied that he was not convinced there were sufficient grounds for taking the exceptional step of fixing a minimum penalty.

    I wonder whether he consulted his right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, because I am sure that he will appreciate that my suggestion is certainly not a novel one. It was first suggested by the present Lord Chancellor himself in a letter to The Times on 15th July, 1959. His suggestion was an amnesty for all those who took their firearms to a police station. He also suggested then the introduction of legislation imposing a minimum penalty of five years’ imprisonment on those who were found in unlawful possession of firearms.

    If the situation was difficult in 1959, for that is what the Lord Chancellor then believed, what is the position today? I may be wrong, and I hope that the Home Secretary may be able to reassure the House, but I get the impression that there is this increase in organised gangs perhaps arising from matters we discussed in this House in the last Parliament, when new laws were enacted about gambling and clubs and prostitution. I expressed fears, and I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) expressed fears, during the debate on the Wolfenden proposals as to prostitution which led to the Street Offences Act.

    Has the driving of prostitution underground into the clubs led to the greater organisation of protection rackets? Have the police got evidence—and I have the impression that they may have—of gangs being organised in this particular field? There is the fear, and it is an honest fear that I express to the House, that enactment of this Bill at this time would do much to promote the situation that is growing up within the country at this time.

    Public anxiety over crime must be clear to every hon. Member—it is certainly clear to every member of the public. Public opinion has been expressed, and it is public opinion on a matter on which the public have the particular right, have they not, to express a view? We certainly have the duty to pay more attention to it in this respect than, perhaps, in regard to any other single matter.

    That public anxiety has been expressed in the most recent sentencing policy of the courts. We have the actual facts of the mail robbery—just to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I remember that just after that operation I was in the United States on a visit to the United States Attorney-General, Mr. Robert Kennedy, and I got the impression in that country of a somewhat rueful admiration for that organised gang. They commented on how skilfully the operation had been worked out, and what little violence was used—although, in that regard, people forget what happened to the guard, and the effect it has had upon him, although the operation was meant to be one with little or no violence.

    Those robbers might, because they were so careful not to use violence, or to have used as little violence as possible, have expected a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment; had the violence involved a death, they would have expected capital punishment. They got sentences of—what was it?—25 or 30 years. Because of such sentences, the Home Secretary has no power to intervene, except in particular circumstances, where he can release them temporarily because of ill health, for instance. Otherwise, he does not have the statutory power to intervene in that case.

    Those men will have to serve their sentences, except for a one-third reduction for good behaviour, so that any of them with a 30-year sentence will have to serve some 20 years. If the price to be paid for using as little violence as was used then is to be greater than that for using violence involving the risk of death, where is the deterrent for such men as these? Suppose courts were permitted by this Bill to impose a minimum, would it ever be more than an effective 20 years? So we come to the situation in which the price of a live witness to a prisoner’s identity may be the same as that for a dead one.

    These are professional criminals. They weigh up the circumstances and the risks involved. They balance risk against risk, and the booty against the penalty. The prisoner whom one sees in prison is very different from the thug he was before imprisonment. I am sure that most hon. Members will appreciate that there exists a serious assault upon our society. The present situation is that in the next 12 months from now 20,000 people will have suffered some violence of some kind and degree. This is the situation which we now face.

    Would the alternative presented by this Bill be really a life sentence? The Home Secretary possesses powers under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, to release on licence where a person has been sentenced to life imprisonment. That is a statutory power which is exercised by the Home Secretary. That means that the Home Secretary and his advisers have to carry out a determination as to how much of a life sentence a man shall serve. If this Bill becomes law, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to retain that power? Or does he propose to abandon that statutory power and replace it with some form of parole board, as has been suggested?

    This is a matter for the decision of the House. We have to decide whether we can and whether we should abandon this deterrent for something that is nebulous and uncertain, and can never carry the effectiveness of a sentence of capital punishment——

    Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

    I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is expressing a genuine fear, and a fear that is widely felt, but would he not agree that the same fear has been expressed by members—and distinguished members—of our mutual profession ever since 1800, when the abolition of capital punishment for various offences was imposed? And does not experience show that in every case the fear has proved to be unfounded?

    Sir P. Rawlinson

    I share some of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s commentary to the extent that I would agree that the crime of murder, as I said at the start of my remarks, seems to have been far too wide. It was certainly wrong to have the death penalty for certain killing offences. I do not believe, and I know that I disagree here with some of my hon. Friends, that we can by capital punishment deter the family murder, the crime of passion. I do not believe we can deter the poisoner or the sexually perverted, but I do believe that we can deter the professional criminal who acquires a pistol and goes out to rob, as an occupation, weighing risk against risk.

    I hope that the Solicitor-General will forgive me for not giving him notice that I intended to refer to what he said in his speech in his constituency. I shall refer to only three points which he made. He said that he had been influenced on the question of men being wrongly convicted for possession of offensive weapons, by the evidence in the Mars-Jones Report and also in the Evans case. This question is not related to that of the gun and the gangster. My argument is addressed to the case of the robber and the public crime in the course of robbery. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that juries did not, and would not, convict in such cases. I would agree if he were referring to the period prior to 1957. I have seen that myself because then a death penalty could be imposed in the case of a mother or child. It seemed totally improper and completely outrageous to be imposed for such a crime although technically it was then murder.

    Since 1957 I think that general experience is different from that. I have recently known juries bring in a verdict of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, because that was what the evidence drove them to, but they would rather have brought in a verdict in those circumstances of murder. He said that the 1957 Act can never be effective, but I say that it is effective because it has retained the deterrent in this particular field. Another of the evils of capital punishment is said to be a morbid interest in murder trials.

    Mrs. Anne Kerr (Rochester and Chatham)

    Hear, hear.

    Sir P. Rawlinson

    The hon. Lady says, “Hear, hear,” but it is not capital punishment which creates the morbid interest. It is not the punishment which attracts a great deal of attention or a great deal of morbid interest. It is the circumstances of any case if they are such as to arouse public interest because, say, of the sex nature or the personality involved. That is what brings these weird, strange people—I could not agree more—to a trial. All trials are trials for life.

    All murder trials, whatever the punishment would be, are concerned with death and with life.

    Many other hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall cut short my comments. But I believe that we are witnessing an increase in professional crime and that there is an extension of operations by organised gangs. I fear that the removal of capital punishment from this field of crime would introduce a risk of greater violence, the wider use of guns and greater danger to the public. I am not prepared to brush aside the opinions of those principally engaged in fighting crime on the ipse dixit—I say this with the greatest respect—of humane, sincere and compassionate men as I believe the abolitionists to be. I believe that there is a great distinction between the execution of a murderer and the killing by a man, in murder, for a victim dies unsuspecting and innocent on his lawful ordinary occasions. The murderer dies after he has deliberately with knowledge of the penalty for his deliberate act, committed the crime of murder.

    If there is a balance of choice between those lives, I certainly come down on the side of the life of the victim. I am not prepared to take the risk which I believe exists. Hon. Members may seriously disagree and of course I accept the seriousness of their argument, but I cannot take the risk, as I believe it is a risk, with the lives of innocent citizens, nor can I ignore the opinion of police officers. Terrible and ugly as we recognise the punishment to be, I believe there is a right and a duty on the State to say, “For this deliberate act you will lose your life.” I believe that such warning can and does deter certain men who should be deterred in this day and age. I for one will vote against this Bill.

  • Sydney Silverman – 1964 Speech on the Abolition of the Death Penalty

    Sydney Silverman – 1964 Speech on the Abolition of the Death Penalty

    The speech made by Sydney Silverman, the then Labour MP for Nelson and Colne, in the House of Commons on 21 December 1964.

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

    My first word must be one of appreciation and gratitude to the Government for having provided the House and those of us who wish to see a final end of the last remnant of a grotesque barbarity with the opportunity of seeing the end of it at last.

    If I may say one personal word, I suppose that I may claim a unique, if modest, distinction in that I believe I am the only private Member whose Private Member’s Bill has been accorded the distinction of a mention in the Queen’s Speech, and I take this as a good omen. This is a Private Member’s Bill. The Government are officially neutral about it. The vote will be, as it has always been with the notable exception of that on the Homicide Act, 1957, a free vote of the House, but I hope that on this occasion we may count on the neutrality of the Government being a benevolent neutrality.

    The Title of the Bill states that it is a Bill to abolish the death penalty, but I think it useful to say at the outset of the remarks which I hope to make to the House that the Title goes substantially beyond the amendment to the present law proposed by the Bill. I am not proposing to invite the House, on this occasion, to debate all the pros and cons of the preservation or abolition of the death penalty for murder. That battle—a long, grim, sometimes dreary, sometimes exciting battle—was won in 1957 in the Homicide Act.

    We are not concerned today with whether we ought to abolish or preserve the death penalty for murder. That we have already decided. The question before the House today—the only question remaining for Parliament to decide—is whether we shall abolish or retain not the abolition of the death penalty for murder, but the exceptions to that abolition which were made in the Homicide Act, 1957, and since there is scarcely anybody who has a good word to say for these exceptions, the answer to the question which is presently before Parliament ought not to be difficult.

    I thought it was worth while to say this at the outset because some newspapers and cognoscenti of public opinion are still talking as though the battle was to run again, as though we were at the beginning of this long and difficult road instead of, as the truth is, virtually at the end of it.

    Clause 1 of my Bill says: No person shall suffer death for murder, and a person guilty of murder shall, subject to subsection (4) below”— That deals with children— be sentenced to imprisonment for life. This is very like the Homicide Act, 1957, Section 7 of which reads: No person shall be liable to suffer death for murder in any case not falling within section five or six of this Act. Sections 5 and 6 of that Act deal with the exceptions, and I shall be dealing with them later. For the moment I draw the attention of the House to the fact that Section 7 of the Act, with those exceptions, is the same as Clause 1 of the Bill.

    Section 9 of that Act provides that those who are not sentenced to death under that Act shall suffer imprisonment for life. It is important to remember this, because this abolition in principle, subject to the exceptions, of the death penalty for murder did, in fact, abolish the death penalty for murder over about five-sixths of the field. It was done by an official act of policy of the Government of the day.

    No one said “You have no mandate to do it.” No one voted against it on the ground that it ran too far ahead of public opinion. Nobody said that there ought to be a referendum or a Gallup poll or any other method of seeing whether the Government of the day were entitled to call upon their supporters in this House and in another place to vote for the abolition of the death penalty for murder.

    In this, in my view, they were right. We do not govern ourselves in this country by a referendum. We do not govern ourselves by a Gallup poll. We do not, in matters of life and death, think that it is right to decide what is just or unjust by a spot, unconsidered reaction taken on the street corner or in a club or in a “pub”. Indeed, no part of our criminal law has ever been so determined. A good deal of it has not been enacted by Statute at all. It was the long, slow development of the common law.

    Where the law has resulted from Acts of Parliament, from Statute, the Government of the day have taken their responsibility as a Government, knowing that in a Parliamentary democracy it is for Parliament to decide what Parliament thinks right, knowing that in the background there is the public, the electorate, and that we shall all of us have to answer in due course to those who sent us here for what we have done.

    For my part, in this business of Parliamentary responsibility in a Parliamentary democracy, in this business of what it is right or wrong for a Member of Parliament to do, especially when he is acting in accordance with his own judgment and his own conscience and not in accordance with directions from a Whip or out of loyalty to a Government, I am content to confine my eloquence to saying “ditto” to Mr. Burke. It was Edmund Burke who stated this position once for and all in his famous letter to the electors of Bristol.

    To those who are a little, in my opinion, over-sensitive to what is, I think, quite mistakenly thought to be public opinion—I say this, maybe, a little boldly, but with no intention of giving offence to anybody—I should like hon. Members to imagine what their duty would be if they had the responsibility of deciding, if there were a man whom they knew it would be wrong to kill, if, in respect of that man, there were violent public pressure, nevertheless to kill him. Would it be right for a responsible legislator or member of the Government to kill that man, whom he thought he ought not to kill, because of some popular immediate pressure which might change its mind the next morning? Surely, anyone who did that would be repeating the mistake that Pontius Pilate made 2,000 years ago.

    Parliament must take its own responsibility. In exercising that responsibility, we in Parliament must be very conscious that we are responsible to those who send us here and must answer to them for what we do here. This is what we are not merely ready but anxious to do. But that does not mean that we must subordinate our judgment, still less that we must distort our consciences, in order to do something we believe to be wrong because if we do not we might lose a vote or even an election. So I say that the Government of the day were perfectly right to decide, as they did decide, in principle and subject to the exceptions that are left, to abolish the death penalty for murder.

    The result, the Homicide Act, 1957, was not easily reached. It had a history which many of us remember. But today, in spite of the fierce and passionate battles on the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill, 1956, following which the Homicide Act was passed, and although the Act has been law for seven or eight years, there is no one in the House today who is prepared to advise right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to go back to the old law. [HON. MEMBERS: “No.”] I see nothing to that effect on the Order Paper.

    Mr. Speaker has said that the Amendment he will call is that in the names of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) and a number of other hon. Members. That Amendment states: On Second Reading of Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, to move, That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months. That, of course, is the formula for rejection of the Bill. Supposing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has his way and the Bill is defeated. What will then be the law? Why, Sir, the law then will continue to be what it is now. It will continue to be the law as set out in the Homicide Act, 1957, and the death penalty will still not apply to five out of six murders. That principle will continue to be the law of the land.

    Brigadier Terence Clarke (Portsmouth, West)

    By gradual process, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) has eliminated hanging to the present state it has reached. I want to stop this where it is today. I would like to have a Private Member’s Bill washing out everything which the hon. Gentleman has done in the past.

    Mr. Silverman

    I do not quite understand that. The only exception I would take to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said is that I really cannot accept his compliment that the law, as his Amendment proposes to leave it, was achieved by me. The law as it stands was not enacted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. It was enacted by a Government of which the hon. and gallant Member was a loyal supporter. He did not oppose it. He did not vote against it. He accepted it.

    As for wishing to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to repeal that law, I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take his opportunity when it comes up, as I took mine when mine came up. I am only wondering why, if he feels so passionately that the Homicide Act, 1957, was wrong, he has been so dilatory in attempting to repeal it. But what we are concerned with today is not what the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like to do on some other occasion, but with what he proposes to do on this occasion—and what he proposes to do now expressly is to leave the law on the death penalty as it was left by the Homicide Act.

    But the argument does not stop there. The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) was Attorney-General in the Government responsible for the Homicide Act, 1957.

    Sir John Hobson (Warwick and Leamington)

    I was not even in the House at the time the Act was discussed. I entered the House a day or two before it received the Royal Assent.

    Mr. Silverman

    I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He was not Attorney-General then. He was only Attorney-General shortly afterwards.

    Sir J. Hobson

    No.

    Mr. Silverman

    Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no personal responsibility, since he was not a Member of the House, for the Act. But he has accepted it ever since, just like the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West.

    The reason I brought the right hon. and learned Gentleman into this was not so much for the mistake in thinking that he was Attorney-General at the time, but for what he has been doing in recent weeks. He has taken a leading part in the campaign against the Bill in the country. He has written very impressive and weighty letters in the correspondence columns of The Times. I do not accept the figures that he quoted in The Times. I think that they were all wrong. As he has never quoted us what is the authority for at any rate one of the two columns of figures, his argument has not impressed me.

    Sir J. Hobson rose——

    Mr. Silverman

    I will give way in a moment. Suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s figures are right—they may well be for anything I know to the contrary. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh.”] All I have said is that I would not support them myself and I would not accept them. This does not in any way mean that the figures are necessarily wrong. They may well be right. I am inviting the House, for the sake of argument, to assume that they are.

    Sir J. Hobson

    We should clear this matter up now. The figures I quoted were the result of Answers from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), the former Secretary of State for the Home Department, and his successor, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). They were published in Hansard.

    Mr. Silverman

    One of the two columns the right hon. and learned Gentleman embodied in one of his letters consisted of figures for murder. The other was of figures for executions. The one for murder was in the hundreds. There has never been, so far as I know—and I do not claim any infallibility or to know any more about this matter than any other hon. Member—a time in the history of this country when convictions for murder have reached hundreds a year. I had to say that in answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s interruption, but I come back to inviting the House to assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the right figures and has drawn the right inference from them.

    Again, that seems to me to be very doubtful. What inference did he draw? He said—and I will willingly give way if I misinterpret him in any way—that non-capital murders, since 1957, have increased and that capital murders have also increased. But, he said, capital murders had increased at a slower rate than non-capital murders. He drew the inference, which could be correct, that, therefore, the removal of the death penalty for non-capital murders had increased the number of non-capital murders. Is that right? Is that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says?

    I hope to have it right, because, if that is so, then I ask why the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not proposing to restore the death penalty for non-capital murders. [HON. MEMBERS: “It is the hon. Member’s Bill.”] I am not talking about Bills now. I am referring to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s contributions to the public discussion outside the House, when he has said distinctly and repeatedly that he is not proposing to go back to the old law. He would not be in favour of restoring the death penalty for non-capital murders. He would not be in favour of restoring the death penalty for any murder for which, under the present law, it is not inflicted.

    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that I am misquoting him, he is here and I am ready to give way. He knows that I am not misquoting him. This is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has been an Attorney-General and who may be again. How does he invite the House of Commons to believe that we have removed an effective deterrent to non-capital murder but not to restore it? He does not.

    I therefore return to the point which I have been making, that there is not before the House today, and is not, any serious proposal to go back on what was done in 1957, to restore the death penalty for all those murders for which it is not now inflicted, that being five-sixths of all of them, that it is not now proposed to reverse what we did in 1957, namely, in principle to abolish the death penalty for murder. It therefore seems clear that the only question with which the House is concerned is whether to abolish the exceptions which the 1957 Act made to that principle.

    Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

    I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be unfair, but would he not agree that the Long Title of his Bill forbids any Amendment which would have the effect of repealing the Homicide Act, 1957, that the Bill is obviously concerned with abolition and that, therefore, even if we wished, we could not put down an Amendment which would have the effect of restoring the death penalty to non-capital murder?

    Mr. Silverman

    I concede at once that it would not be possible in Committee to put down an Amendment which was outside the Long Title of the Bill. It is not for me to express any view as to what would or would not be within the Long Title. That is Mr. Speaker’s responsibility or, in Committee, the responsibility of the Chairman. However, there was nothing to prevent anyone inclined to that view from putting down a reasoned Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill, not merely objecting to the Bill, not merely advising its rejection, but advising its rejection because it would have been better to restore the death penalty abolished in 1957.

    May I point out that there is a reasoned Amendment which is not being called and which, like the unreasoned Amendment which has been selected, does not call for any repeal of the 1957 Act? That reasoned Amendment says: That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill”— the next words should be noted— which, while removing the deterrent of the 1957 Act to certain types of killer who might reasonably be supposed to be deterred from killing by the prospect of being hanged … It does not apply to all types of killer. It makes a distinction between those who might be deterred and those who might not and it assumes that the exceptions introduced in the Homicide Act were the exceptions of those who might be deterred, whereas all the others could not reasonably be expected to be deterred.

    In other words, it concedes that there is no deterrent, no unique deterrent, no exclusively effective, deterrent, in the death penalty to most murders, but claims that there is a uniquely deterrent effect is respect of some murders.

    I concede that that is the argument with which I have to deal and I propose to deal with it as shortly as I can very soon. All I am concerned to establish now, and all I have been concerned to establish so far, is that nobody thinks that substantially there is any other question to be decided.

    I now come to the subject of these exceptions and whether to retain them. I am sorry to be a little longer than I had intended, but this is the crux of the matter and I am sure that the House will have a little patience with me while I examine it. This question has a history which goes back a long way. It is 100 years, almost to the day, since a Royal Commission appointed by the House first made an attempt to distinguish between murders which ought to be capital and murders which ought not to be. In 1864, that Royal Commission was appointed. It was in favour of abolishing the death penalty altogether, but it recommended, because it thought that public opinion was not ready for that, precisely the suggestion that murders should be categorised so that some should be capital and some not.

    I confess that to all penal reformers this has always been a very attractive idea. If only we could have found a just and rational way of distinguishing between murders which could rightly and justly and rationally be regarded as capital and murders which could not, we would have seen an end to this controversy many years ago. Many attempts have been made over those 100 years and I will not weary the House by detailing or recounting any of them.

    However, the exceptions introduced into the Homicide Act, 1957, were not intended to distinguish between the more and the less heinous crimes. If they were intended to do any such thing, they lamentably failed any such objective. No one could think that the exceptions in the 1957 Act were the worst murders. Those who accept the position of the 1957 Act accept that the murderers of children shall not be hanged. Those who accept the 1957 Act accept that cold, calculated, premeditated murders shall not be capital.

    Those who accept the 1957 Act accept that foul sexual crimes shall not be capital. Those who accept the 1957 Act accept that if a man waylays his enemy around a dark corner of a back street and stabs him in the back with a knife, that shall not be capital murder, whereas if he waits for him with a revolver and shoots him in the front, that is capital murder.

    Anyone who tried to justify the exceptions in the 1957 Act on the ground that it was a successful attempt to distinguish between the gravest kinds of murder and crimes which were not so grave would have an impossible task. Let the House remember that Ruth Ellis would still have committed a capital crime under the Homicide Act because she used a revolver instead of a knife.

    We know what the exceptions in the 1957 Act are, but we know something else about them. Every single one of them had been defeated by the House of Commons by a substantial majority on a free vote. There is not one of the exceptions included in the 1957 Act that was not proposed in Committee or on Report during the passage through the House of Commons of the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill of 1956.

    Perhaps I might add a word to the modest distinction which I claimed for myself at the opening of my speech, because on the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill I suppose that I was the only back bencher who led a coalition of both sides of the House against the Government of the day and won at every stage. It was only when we reached the House of Lords that we were rejected and the right hon. Gentleman who was then Home Secretary or Leader of the House found himself in an inescapable dilemma. He had promised the House of Commons that if it decided to abolish the death penalty on a free vote, the Government would accept its decision. Having done that, he proceeded to give exactly the same pledge to another place, well knowing that the other place was most likely, as indeed it did, to come to the opposite conclusion.

    Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman found himself pledged to the House of Commons to abolish the death penalty and pledged to the House of Lords to retain it. As he could not possibly fulfil both pledges, what he did was, reasonably enough—no one can blame him for it—to attempt a compromise, and the exceptions in the Homicide Act, 1957, were never offered to the House, never offered to Parliament on their merits as penal reform or as criminal law. They were offered to the House of Commons as a political compromise to get the Government of the day out of a serious and awkward dilemma.

    I remind the House that all those exceptions had been rejected one by one, every one of them, when Members of the House of Commons—and I remind the House that it was a House of Commons with a Tory majority—were left to their individual judgment. When they were asked to obey their personal consciences, they had voted against every one of the exceptions introduced in the Homicide Act. It is true that they humbly and tamely accepted them at a later stage, but they accepted them for quite respectable reasons. I do not complain of any of them.

    The Government had put the Whips on and the question then was not whether the exceptions were right or wrong in principle. The question was whether hon. Members would support the Government of which they were supporters, which they wished to support, which they did not wish to embarrass and certainly which they did not wish to defeat. They accepted it on the authority of the Government, the Government taking responsibility for it and they taking only responsibility for not dissenting from the Government view. Their own individual conscientious judgment had already been exercised against it.

    An equally, or even more, curious thing happened in another place, because the Homicide Act, 1957, abolishing in principle the death penalty for murder, was accepted by another place. There were no objections to it at all, although it had just defeated the very same proposition without exceptions a month or two before.

    That is part of the history. There is another part of it. In 1948, I moved a Clause to the Criminal Justice Bill, a consolidating Measure——

    Mr. Iremonger

    I do not want to disturb the train of the hon. Member’s argument, but if he is now leaving the part of his argument which deals with the 1957 Act, may I ask whether he feels it right to do justice to those who supported the 1957 Act in this House by recalling the argument that the Government put forward? It was not that the Government purported to draw a line between those kinds of murder which were most heinous and those which were less heinous. They attempted to differentiate between types of murder as to the degree to which they contributed to the disturbance of public order. If I remember correctly, that was what influenced me and many of my hon. Friends to support my right hon. Friend in his Bill.

    Mr. Silverman

    That is very largely true. It is entirely true with one exception, which I shall take half a minute to deal with presently. I did not want to extend the length of my speech by dealing with all the exceptions separately. The argument about deterability was part of the argument in the Committee stage of the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill and it had been rejected on their own conscientious judgment by a majority of Members of the House of Commons at that stage.

    The exception is the question of second murders, because nobody, surely, has ever thought that if a man was not deterred by the death penalty from committing the first murder, he would be deterred from committing, not having been found out so far, a second one. In the case of second murders, the idea was not deterability, but that this was a much graver crime and should be punished.

    As to the other point, the hon. Member is perfectly right. All I am saying is that this was accepted by the House of Commons on the authority of the Government and against hon. Members’ own private conscientious judgment.

    In 1948, when I moved a Clause to suspend the death penalty for five years, it was rejected in another place because, it was said, it was too far in advance of public opinion. If it were done, it could only be done with exceptions, so the other place threw it out. Acting under that inspiration and incitement, my right hon. Friends in the Government of that day proposed a Clause to meet the objections in another place in order to provide exceptions. The exceptions included one or two others, but they also included all those in the Homicide Act, 1957.

    When we sent that back to another place, it was rejected also for the perfectly justifiable ground, which I am inviting the House of Commons today to say is still true, that it was unworkable, that it was irrational, that it was unjust and that public conscience would not stand for it and Parliament had no right to enact it. Therefore, the exceptions were rejected then by both Houses.

    Sir Alexander Spearman (Scarborough and Whitby)

    The hon. Member says that hanging is not a deterrent. He has said in the past that hanging is not a deterrent and, presumably, he bases his Bill upon that. I should like to know whether he will consider, at a later stage, a new Clause incorporating a trial period. If, indeed, hanging is not a deterrent, that would do his cause no harm but it would give some assurance to those, rightly or wrongly, who still have doubts about whether it is a deterrent.

    Mr. Silverman

    I have never said that hanging was not a deterrent.

    Sir A. Spearman

    An effective deterrent.

    Mr. Silverman

    That is the difference. The only point about deterrents, and, I think, the only rational ground on which a death penalty could ever be defended, is that there are fewer murders if we have the death penalty than if we do not have the death penalty. That is the criterion and test. What I have denied, and what I have not denied alone, is that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder in any sense that is more effective than other existing or imaginable deterrents. The Royal Commission has established that proposition beyond further controversy to the satisfaction of all those who wish to know the truth.

    The hon. Gentleman asks about a trial period. This is where I began 16 years ago. We have had already seven or eight years’ experience of the deterrent effect of the exceptions in the 1957 Act. Another five years will not alter the picture one way or the other. I think that this controversy has gone on long enough. The arguments both ways are clear, and I think that everybody knows what they are. I think that everybody has made up his mind about where the balance between the two arguments lies. I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by prolonging the debate, or by keeping the matter in issue, for another five years with the prospect of having to do it all over again five years’ hence.

    If it should turn out that this is all wrong, and if the abolition of this remnant of the death penalty proves to be a mistake, we do not need a five years’ Clause in the Bill to put it right. Parliament will remain sovereign. It will be able to repeal whatever we do. There is no need to keep the pot boiling, to keep the argument going, when it has been reduced to such a small, narrow limit and has had so much of a trial period.

    Sir Richard Glyn (Dorset, North)

    Would the hon. Gentleman help me about the question of deterrence? The Bill abolishes capital punishment for the offence of murder, whether it be heard and determined in an ordinary criminal court or by court-martial under Section 70 of the Army Act. But under the same section of the Army Act and equivalent sections of the Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts the death penalty can be passed for treason; and for mutiny under Section 31 of the Army Act; and for other specified acts under Section 24(1) of the Army Act.

    As I understand, the death penalty will remain for treason, mutiny and these other acts if the Bill becomes law. If the hon. Gentleman has left capital punishment for these numerous Service offences as a deterrent, will he say why he does not think it should be left as a deterrent for murder?

    Mr. Silverman

    Like, I think, all abolitionists and, though I am not so certain about this, the overwhelming majority of the House of Commons, I am in favour of abolishing the death penalty for any crime, whether it be treason, cowardice, desertion, sabotage in a dockyard, piracy, or anything else, because I do not believe—and this is the gravamen of the whole argument—That we have any right to pursue and carry out this callous, brutal, coldhearted ritual unless we are satisfied that a useful social purpose is thereby attained. I do not believe that it is attained.

    The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) may well ask why abolition of the death penalty for these offences is not included in the Bill. He must remember that the arguments about treason are very different from the arguments about murder. In peace time, we have not carried out the death penalty on anybody for any crime other than murder for 100 years. Even in war time, or just after war time for offences committed in war, we have executed only three people in the last 100 years. It would have been very bad tactics on our part if we had complicated the simple issue of being for or against the death penalty for murder by introducing a complicated argument for or against the abolition of the death penalty for other crimes when it has not been inflicted for 100 years and is virtually obsolete. We shall take a further opportunity some day of bringing that part of the law into line with the rest of our civilised law, but I do not think that we can do it on this occasion.

    Sir Richard Glyn

    Has the hon. Gentleman the figures for executions for mutiny?

    Mr. Silverman

    I hope that the figures which I have quoted are right; but I am not quoting them on my own responsibility. They have been supplied to me by the Home Office for the purpose of meeting such an objection as the hon. Gentleman has made. I therefore hope that he will accept them and will regard them as a sufficient answer to his question.

    In summing up this question of trying to find a remedy, all I need do is to invite attention to the Royal Commission’s Report. I recommend those who have not read it, and those who have forgotten it and still have doubts about this subject, to re-read the Report of the Royal Commission which examined the whole question and where all the arguments are to be found. It is very lucid and authoritative and is a massive argument against the death penalty.

    On the question of finding degrees or categories of murder, all that I need do is to read paragraph 534: Our examination of the law and procedure of other countries lends no support to the view that the objections to degrees of murder, which we discussed above, are only theoretical and academic and may be disproved by the practical experience of those countries where such a system is in force. We began our inquiry with the determination to make every effort to see whether we could succeed where so many have failed, and discover some effective method of classifying murders so as to confine the death penalty to the more heinous. Where degrees of murder have been introduced, they have undoubtedly resulted in limiting the application of capital punishment and for this reason they have commended themselves to public opinion, but in our view their advantages are far outweighed by the theoretical and practical objections which we have described. We conclude with regret that the object of our quest is chimerical and that it must be abandoned. It is true that the Royal Commission was talking about classifying murders according to whether they were bad or not so bad. But the same argument must inevitably apply to any other way of distinguishing between them unless the figures lead to any different conclusion.

    Mr. Edward Gardner (Billericay)

    The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Royal Commission’s Report on Capital Punishment is an argument in favour of abolition. Is he not aware that the Royal Commission was precluded expressly by its terms of reference, given by the Labour Government, from considering the question that the House today is debating?

    Mr. Silverman

    Of course I am aware of that. I assumed that every Member of the House was so aware of it that it did not need me to say it. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows this subject very well. It is a great mistake to offer cheap debating points about it. He knows that they are nothing more, because he knows perfectly well that the Royal Commission said in so many words that it could not find any way of ameliorating or modifying the death penalty, and that if Parliament wanted to do anything about the death penalty it was faced with the stark alternatives of retaining the death penalty as it was, or abolishing it altogether. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that very well and I think that he might have remembered it before prolonging my speech more than I have, unfortunately, had to do.

    There is one point with which I feel I ought to deal, and that is the question of the alternative. Of course, this question was equally relevant in 1957. Nobody raised it. There cannot be any question of having a different alternative in the case of the exceptions from the alternative which we enact when the death penalty is abolished over most of the field.

    I think that it is necessary to indicate to the House what the present position is. Nobody is ever released from a life sentence. It is true that the Home Secretary, from time to time, at different times and in different cases, lets a man out, but when he does so he lets him out on licence. The licence can be ended; the man can be recalled to prison, and sometimes he is.

    It is sometimes said, “But the average is too short”. But nobody serves an average. If one man is sentenced to life imprisonment and serves 20 years, and another is sentenced for a mercy killing and is let out in two years, the average of the two is 11 years. But that makes no difference to either of them. One serves his 20 years and the other serves his two. The Royal Commission collected all the figures between 1900 and 1949—the figures for half a century—and it found that the largest group were released after 15 years, that the next largest group were released after 10 years. A number of other periods were listed, some of them one year, one as high as 22 years. Thereafter, hon. Members of the House should not be misled by averages.

    I quote again from the Royal Commission’s conclusions about what are the criteria to be considered when the question under review is whether the man should be released or not. My quotation is from paragraph 657 of the Report. I hope that hon. Members will look at it, if they have not got it now, between now and Committee stage—if we ever get a Committee stage. These conclusions are on Section 2 of the Report. The Report says: Our conclusions, then, on this part of our terms of reference are that persons not mentally abnormal who would otherwise have been liable to suffer capital punishment could suitably be detained in the conditions now found in long-term prisons in England and Scotland, though we think that these admit of some improvements; that the principles now followed by the Secretaries of State in determining the actual length of detention in each case are in general appropriate for the purposes of punishment, deterrence and the protection of the public, without undue risk of causing moral and physical deterioration in the prisoner; and that if, in exceptional cases an exceptionally long period of detention is called for, the additional risk of such consequences ought not to be held to rule it out. The proposal is being made that that system should be altered and that the length of actual detention, even though a nominal life sentence is inflicted, should be determined by the trial judge at the time of trial and should be part of the sentence.

    Mr. Norman Cole (Bedfordshire, South) rose——

    Mr. Silverman

    I am trying to deal with the proposal. If, when I have set it out, the hon. Member would still like to ask anything about it, I would be happy to give way. Perhaps I had better state the point first.

    The proposal is that the judge at trial shall be given authority to fix the minimum period of detention appropriate to the particular criminal whom he is sentencing. I invite the House to consider that that would be to disregard one of the two essential criteria. One undoubtedly is the gravity of the offence. I have no doubt that the judges are a better tribunal, though not perfect, than any other conceivable tribunal of what length of detention is appropriate, having regard to the character of the crime which they have been trying.

    I do not doubt that for a moment. But although judges may be the best, though not an infallible, tribunal to judge that, they do not claim for themselves any divine omniscience about the future, and in determining in a life sentence when a man may be appropriately and safely released it may be important to know what he was like when he was sentenced; it must be at least equally important to know what he has become. This, I will say, is true, not merely of life sentences, but of all inordinately long sentences.

    The argument about averages has been a little distorted by comparison with a number of very long sentences passed for the first time in our history in the last three or four years. This is not the place, nor perhaps am I the person, to express any view about the appropriateness or propriety of 30 years for non-fatal robbery, still less to express a view about whether it was right or wrong to lump three maximum sentences together in order to make a maximum statutory sentence of 14 years into a period of 42 years.

    All I am inviting the House of Commons to remember at the moment is that these are exceptional crimes and exceptional sentences. They afford no useful or helpful guide to normal periods of imprisonment or to the normal penalties of our criminal law. If, indeed, the State were to insist at any time, for any purpose, on inflicting the gravest penalty in its power on criminals in respect of crimes which it declares not to be the gravest crime, then it inevitably places itself in a very great difficulty when it comes to determine what is appropriate for the gravest crime.

    All I am saying is that in this question of how long a life prisoner should be detained we must consider three elements: one, the gravity of the offence; two, the safety of the public; and, three, the danger of destroying by degrees over long, long years a life which we have refrained from destroying at the beginning. All these factors have to be taken into consideration, and the Home Secretary has the right, has the duty, has the responsibility and has the means, if we keep the life sentence, of taking them all into consideration.

    I am not saying that the responsibility need necessarily be left solely with him. I imagine that most Home Secretaries would welcome the advice and the assistance of a parole board. I am sure that if we had a parole board it would have a judicial element as well as a number of other elements. But what we must not sacrifice is the Home Secretary’s discretion, the prerogative of mercy to be applied according to his discretion, according to the rights and wrongs of particular cases at particular times. I hope that the House of Commons will accept that view. In any case, it is clearly not an argument which affects the giving or refusing of a Second Reading of the Bill. It is a Committee point, and I expect that many hon. Members will wish to raise it in Committee when it can be considered in much greater detail than it can be considered here.

    I have finished but for one closing remark which I should like to make. It may be said, it may be in many people’s minds, what does it matter? This question of the death penalty, be it right or wrong, is reduced to a very small compass. In 1964 we executed only two people, and those two were executed for one and the same murder. Last year, I think, it was also two. The year before it was either two or three—I am not quite sure which. It is a very small matter, and I can well understand Members on either side of the House saying, “In the face of all our anxieties and preoccupations, what can it matter whether we execute or do not execute two wretched murderers every year?”.

    For my part, I think that it matters. Men and women in my generation have lived through two world wars. They may have cost between them about 80 million human lives. When I was a very young man, in my boyhood in the earlier years of the twentieth century we regarded the twentieth century as synonymous with the ultimate achievement of civilisation, and when we wanted to say that a thing was wrong we said that it was not worthy of the twentieth century.

    Sir Winston Churchill once described this twentieth century, which we began with so much hope, as “this terrible twentieth century”. We have seen in it not merely those two wars, this destruction, this bloodshed. We have seen whole cities of non-combatant men, women and children wiped out without notice at one blow. We have seen a nation collecting from the ends of the earth 6 million human beings not for any military purpose, but for annihilation on grounds of race or creed.

    We are living today in a world under the threat of human extinction. We may be beginning to make our way out of it. But who knows? It is impossible to argue that the execution or non-execution of two people in England every year can make a very great contribution to the improvement of a dark and menacing world. But in this darkness and gloom into which the twentieth century civilisation has so far led us, we can at least light this small candle and see how far its tiny beams can penetrate the gloom.

  • Matthew Rycroft – 2022 Letter to Priti Patel on Rwanda Plan

    Matthew Rycroft – 2022 Letter to Priti Patel on Rwanda Plan

    The letter sent by Matthew Rycroft, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, to Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, on 13 April 2022.

    Dear Home Secretary,

    MIGRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP

    This letter summarises my assessment of the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) as the responsible Accounting Officer.

    You are looking to enter into an agreement with the Government of Rwanda (GoR). The negotiated agreement will enable the processing of asylum claims which are inadmissible under our current asylum system in Rwanda. Under this approach the UK’s legal obligations end once an individual is relocated to Rwanda, and GoR takes on the legal responsibility for that individual and for processing their claim in line with the Refugee Convention.

    You have made clear the rationale behind the MEDP, with the underlying policy acting as part of a suite of measures in the New Plan for Immigration to break the business model of people smugglers while maintaining a fair and robust immigration and borders system. The policy is also intended to support the Government in its objectives of preventing tragic loss of life in the Channel, deterring hazardous and illegal journeys to the UK and maintaining public trust and confidence in border controls. I also recognise the scale of the issue we are facing. The asylum system is costing the taxpayer over £1.5 billion per annum – the highest amount in over two decades, and current spend on hotels is c. £4.7 million per day including those who have arrived through resettlement programmes. I note the priority you have placed on these measures over the last year.

    My role as Permanent Secretary is to ensure that the Home Office delivers your objectives. It is also my personal responsibility as Principal Accounting Officer to ensure that the Department’s use of its resources is appropriate and consistent with the requirements set out in Managing Public Money (MPM).

    The Accounting Officer advice that I have received comprises a rigorous assessment of the regularity, propriety, feasibility and value for money of this policy, drawing on legal, policy and operational expertise. I have satisfied myself that it is regular, proper and feasible for this policy to proceed. We have incorporated learning from Windrush in developing this policy and the plans for its implementation.

    However, this advice highlights the uncertainty surrounding the value for money of the proposal. I recognise that, despite the high cost of this policy, there are potentially significant savings to be realised from deterring people entering the UK illegally. Value for money of the policy is dependent on it being effective as a deterrent. Evidence of a deterrent effect is highly uncertain and cannot be quantified with sufficient certainty to provide me with the necessary level of assurance over value for money.

    I do not believe sufficient evidence can be obtained to demonstrate that the policy will have a deterrent effect significant enough to make the policy value for money. This does not mean that the MEDP cannot have the appropriate deterrent effect; just that it there is not sufficient evidence for me to conclude that it will.

    Therefore, I will require your written instruction to proceed. I consider it is entirely appropriate for you to make a judgement to proceed in the light of the illegal migration challenge the country is facing. I will of course follow this direction and ensure the Department continues to support the implementation of the policy to the very best of our abilities.

    Should you issue a direction, I am required to copy all relevant papers to the Comptroller and Auditor General (who will inform the Public Accounts Committee) and the Treasury Officer of Accounts. I anticipate publishing our exchange of direction letters as early as practicable.

    Yours sincerely,

    Matthew Rycroft CBE
    Permanent Secretary

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Letter to Matthew Rycroft on Rwanda Plan

    Priti Patel – 2022 Letter to Matthew Rycroft on Rwanda Plan

    The letter sent by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, to Matthew Rycroft, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, on 13 April 2022.

    Dear Matthew,

    MIGRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP

    Thank you for your letter of 13 April setting out your current assessment of the Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda as the responsible Accounting Officer. As you know, tackling the longstanding issue of illegal migration is a top priority for this Government.

    Working together we have already successfully ended free movement and introduced our new Australian style points-based system, introduced the Government’s New Plan for Immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill. Through these efforts and others, we will deliver a fair but firm immigration system. That means having an asylum system that prioritises support via safe and legal routes for the truly vulnerable, rather than one that is open to gaming by economic migrants and people smugglers, resulting in the loss of life.

    As we continue work to deliver these changes, despite best efforts, Home Office modelling forecasts that small boat numbers are expected to rise again this summer.

    As Home Secretary my primary responsibilities are to protect the British public and to act in their interest. That means taking steps to address the risks to human life, as well as the soaring costs to the UK taxpayer, that illegal migration entails. Those costs are now at their highest level in over two decades. The cost of the Asylum system stands at over £1.5 billion a year and we are spending over £4.7 million each day to accommodate migrants in hotels.

    We know there is no single solution to tackle the issue of illegal migration. While we understand it is not possible for HMG to accurately model the deterrent effect from day one, together with Rwanda, we are confident this policy is our best chance at producing that effect.

    It is only by introducing new incentives and effective deterrents into the system, as our international partners like Denmark, Greece, and Australia have succeeded in doing, that we can take on the criminal gangs facilitating illegal entry and break their lethal business model.

    I recognise your assessment on the immediate value for money aspect of this proposal. However, I note that without action, costs will continue to rise, lives will continue to be lost, and that together we have introduced safeguards into our agreement to protect taxpayer funding. And while accepting the constraints of the accounting officer framework set out by HM Treasury, I also think there are credible invest-to-save arguments in the long term.

    Finally, I also want to recognise the efforts of our frontline staff who have professionally and unstintingly responded a series of unpredictable migration flows to the UK as a result of events outside of their control. Each day I am struck by the extremely challenging work we are asking Home Office officials and Border Force operational staff at all levels to undertake. It is with this in mind that I also believe there is an imperative to act now to mitigate the impact on staff wellbeing as well as departmental operational and financial pressures in the longer term.

    It would therefore be imprudent in my view, as Home Secretary, to allow the absence of quantifiable and dynamic modelling – which is inevitable when developing a response to global crises influenced by so many geopolitical factors such as climate change, war and conflict –– to delay delivery of a policy that we believe will reduce illegal migration, save lives, and ultimately break the business model of the smuggling gangs. I am therefore formally directing you as Accounting Officer to take forward this scheme with immediate effect, managing the identified risks as best you can. I am grateful for our joint work on this issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to deliver for the British people.

    Rt Hon Priti Patel MP
    Home Secretary

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on the Online Safety Bill

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on the Online Safety Bill

    The comments made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 17 April 2022.

    The time has come to properly protect people online and this week MPs will debate the most important legislation in the internet age.

    Our groundbreaking Online Safety Bill will make the UK the safest place to surf the web. It has been significantly strengthened following a lengthy period of engagement with people in politics, wider society and industry.

    We want to arm everyone with the skills to navigate the internet safely, so today we’re also announcing a funding boost and plans for experts to join forces with the government to help people spot dodgy information online.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Comments Ahead of His Visit to India

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Comments Ahead of His Visit to India

    The comments made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 17 April 2022.

    As we face threats to our peace and prosperity from autocratic states, it is vital that democracies and friends stick together. India, as a major economic power and the world’s largest democracy, is a highly valued strategic partner for the UK in these uncertain times.

    My visit to India will deliver on the things that really matter to the people of both our nations – from job creation and economic growth, to energy security and defence.

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (14/04/2022) – 50 days

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (14/04/2022) – 50 days

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 14 April 2022.

    Unbreakable people of the bravest country!

    We have withstood 50 days already. 50 days of Russian invasion, although the occupiers gave us a maximum of five. That’s how they “know us”. That’s how they “make friends with reality.”

    Russia did not start the war against Ukraine on February 24. Russian troops came to us in 2014. They captured our Crimea. They turned it into a large military base. They made the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov one of the most dangerous seas on the planet. They started a terrible, absolutely cynical war in our Donbas. They have been killing our people for 8 years. 14 thousand were killed during this time!

    How did the world respond to this? The question remained rhetorical. But that is why they decided they could afford a full-scale war.

    Some are still debating the severity of sanctions against the Russian Federation. But what is there to discuss when Russian troops are already repeating on our land what Europe saw only during World War II?

    During the 50 days of full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation, they showed that Donbas is the main target for Russia. It is Donbas that Russia wants to destroy in the first place. It is the Luhansk and Donetsk regions that Russian troops are destroying as if they want only stones to be left. And no people to be left at all.

    They forcibly recruit residents of these areas into their army. They throw them into the worst battles, literally in the frontal of our defense. They are destroying the cities and villages of Donbas. They burn everything that endured eight years of that war.

    For 80 years, proud and tidy Kharkiv has not seen such torments that Russia has brought to it. Why do they destroy it? What can be achieved by burning Kharkiv?

    What exactly can destruction on Saltivka or on Freedom Square give to Russia?

    And these are no longer rhetorical questions. This is a question of how absurd this invasion of the Russian Federation is. How suicidal it is for everything that Russia allegedly “protects”. For Russian culture, for relations with this nation, even for the Russian language. Russia is burning all this with its weapons. For decades at least. For generations.

    Ancient Chernihiv. Which is over a thousand years old. Which saw so many wars and so many invaders that at least in the XXI century it deserved peace and tranquility. But… Russia came. Came with the worst that Chernihiv has experienced since the X century. Since the period of Rus’ relation to which Russia once claimed. Now this myth is also burned. Rus’ would not destroy itself. Strangers did that to it. Horde and other invaders. That’s who came to our land today. And they are fighting in the same way – for the sake of looting and for the sake of torture.

    Thank God, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and our people, we defended most of our country.

    I remember the first day of the invasion of the Russian Federation. I remember what I was told on February 24. In particular, the strong of this world. To put it mildly, no one was sure that we would withstand it. Everyone sympathized. Many of them advised me to flee the country. Advised to actually surrender to tyranny.

    But they didn’t know us either. And they did not know how brave Ukrainians are, how much we value freedom. Our opportunity to live the way we want. Not the people who rule in such a way that their army sees toilets for the first time in their lives in the occupied territories and steals even ordinary household appliances.

    The occupiers will be responsible for everything they have done in Ukraine. For everything they did to Ukrainians. They will be responsible for Bucha, Kramatorsk, Volnovakha, Okhtyrka. For Hostomel and Borodyanka. For Izyum, for Mariupol and all other cities and communities of Ukraine, which the Russian army pulled back to the period 80 years ago. To that terrible time, about which everyone in the world has always said: “Never again.” Here it is again. Here it is now. And we will do everything to make it truly the last.

    Because the question “How to guarantee security for Ukraine and for Europe?” will never be rhetorical again. We will not allow this.

    I am grateful to everyone who supported our state. Who immediately asked how they could help. Who stood with us back to back and helped us get what is necessary for the defense of our state.

    This period, these 50 days have shown me many world leaders in a different way. Different states. I have seen great generosity in those who are not rich themselves. I have seen the extraordinary determination of those who were not taken seriously by global leaders. I have seen that the democratic world does have those whose will is enough to protect freedom from the onslaught of tyranny.

    I have seen politicians behaving as if they had no power. And I have seen non-politicians who did more in these 50 days than some statesmen who claimed leadership.

    But all that is just an add-on. An add-on for how Ukraine is defended by our people, all our people. Those who stopped the advance of endless columns of Russian equipment. Those who rebuff constant attacks in Donbas. Those who heroically defend Mariupol, helping our entire state to withstand. Those who stopped the offensive from the south. And made our Chornobaivka famous. Those who drove the enemy out of the north.

    Those who have shown that Russian aviation is defenseless, even though Russia has spent tens of billions of dollars on various systems to protect its aircraft.

    Those who have shown that Russian ships can go… to the bottom only.

    Those who help the army and society find everything they may need.

    Those who save, heal, those who teach. Conduct mine clearance. Who provide us all with a stable connection.

    Those who rebuilt supply chains for the whole country.

    Those who maintain financial stability, who saved the business and continued to work.

    Those who help the displaced persons.

    Those who started the sowing campaign. Those who give Ukraine the correct information and the necessary emotions. All our journalists, all those who united for the national telethon.

    50 days of our defense is an achievement. Achievement of millions of Ukrainians. Everyone who made the main decision in life on February 24 – to fight. To be human. Not to give up. And not to betray.

    From time immemorial to the present day, mankind has been looking for heroes. People always appreciate heroes. They always support those who are brave. And always feel who is fighting for the good. During the 50 days of this war, Ukraine became a hero for the whole free world. For those who have the courage to call a spade a spade. For those who are not poisoned by propaganda. You have all become heroes. All Ukrainian men and women who withstood and do not give up. And who will win. Who will return peace to Ukraine. I’m sure of it.

    I spoke today with our team, which will take part in the Invictus Games international sports competition. Among them are both veterans and servicemen who are currently defending our state. They are deeply concerned that they had to go to the competition. I assured them that we will wait for their return and will support them in the competition just as sincerely. I believe that our team will make us proud of it this year as well.

    And traditionally, as every evening, I signed decrees on awarding those who excelled in the defense of the state. 221 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, 34 of them posthumously. And two employees of the State Special Communications Service of Ukraine.

    The title of Hero of Ukraine was awarded to Major Kukurba Oleksandr Vasyliovych, chief of intelligence of the 299th tactical aviation brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Thanks to his courageous actions, dozens of enemy equipment units and hundreds of occupiers were destroyed.

    I also awarded those whose surnames cannot be told. But I awarded them for what is definitely good for everyone.

    Eternal glory to all who defend the state!

    Eternal memory to everyone who died for Ukraine!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (13/04/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (13/04/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 13 April 2022.

    Indomitable people of the bravest country!

    Today was a useful day for our state, for our defense against the Russian offensive. The presidents of four states – friends of Ukraine – arrived in Kyiv. Those who help us from the first days. Who did not hesitate to give us weapons. Who did not doubt whether to impose sanctions. And who is now at the level of the European Union pushing for a tougher sanctions package against the Russian Federation. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. I was very glad to meet with the presidents today. The negotiations were fruitful.

    It is important that the presidents visited Borodyanka in the Kyiv region, where they saw with their own eyes what the occupiers had done. For the presidents, this is another argument to push harder for tangible sanctions against Russia.

    First of all, we need an oil embargo. And Europe’s clear readiness to give up all Russian energy. The European Union must stop sponsoring Russia’s military machine.

    Western sanctions policy was also discussed today by a group of international experts led by Michael McFaul and Andriy Yermak. The group has been working for three weeks. It consists of international and Ukrainian experts who assess the sanctions imposed and how Russia is trying to circumvent them.

    The group has prepared concrete proposals on how to remove sanctions loopholes, which are constantly used by Russia, and how to immediately enhance sanctions to make it tangible for Moscow.

    I spoke today with US President Biden. The topics of the conversation included the prosecution of all Russian servicemen and commanders who committed war crimes. International cooperation for this. A new package of defensive support for Ukraine was discussed. The agreement was reached. $ 800 million. Weapons, ammunition, other assistance. Artillery systems, armored personnel carriers, helicopters. Sincere gratitude for your support! We also agreed to enhance sanctions against Russia.

    I addressed the Parliament and the people of Estonia. Expressed gratitude for the help provided to Ukraine, including weapons. I also called on Estonia to join the project of Ukraine’s reconstruction after the war.

    We are already cooperating with Estonia in the field of digitization. And after the war it could become an even bigger project. On restoration of government and business digital systems, on cybersecurity. On restoration of the relevant educational institutions.

    Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Karim Khan visited Bucha. It is right that a group of forensic experts from the International Criminal Court will start working in the city. Responsibility for the Russian military for war crimes is inevitable. We will drag them all to the tribunal. And not only for what was done in Bucha.

    In general, in the north of our country, in the liberated areas, mine clearance continues. The occupiers left tens of thousands of unexploded shells, mines and tripwire mines – a lot of everything. Therefore, everyone who wants to return home to the liberated territory should be as careful as possible, as attentive as possible. And immediately inform the police and rescuers in case you find a strange object, an explosive object.

    Combat reports for today do not differ significantly from previous ones. Russian troops are stepping up activity in the eastern and southern directions. They are trying to retaliate for their defeats. Rocket bombings and artillery strikes continue. New columns of equipment are being brought in. They are looking for reserves. They are trying to recruit residents of the south of our country – that is, from these temporarily occupied areas in addition to the so-called mobilization in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

    All this feverish activity of the occupiers testifies first of all to their insecurity. To the fact that even with significant stocks of Soviet military equipment and a significant number of soldiers, whom the commanders do not spare at all, the Russian troops doubt their ability to break us, to break Ukraine. Well, we do everything to justify their doubts.

    And I am grateful to all our defenders who hold positions and teach Russian soldiers to think that this war against Ukraine can only end in Russia’s strategic defeat – sooner or later.

    Either the Russian leadership will really seek peace, or as a result of this war, Russia will leave the international arena forever.

    And before delivering this address, as always, I signed decrees to award our defenders. 270 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were awarded state awards, 7 of them posthumously. 11 employees of the State Protection Department were also awarded.

    Another decree awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine to 2 servicemen of our Armed Forces. Posthumously.

    Eternal memory to all who gave their lives for Ukraine!

    Eternal glory to everyone who protects the people and protects our state!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (13/04/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (13/04/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 13 April 2022.

    Unbreakable people of the bravest country!

    Do you remember how Russia bragged that they would seize Kyiv in 48 hours? Instead, Ukraine has been repelling the enemy for 48 days. Today it is worth remembering.

    It is worth remembering that the Russian leadership expected to see the parade of occupiers on Khreschatyk a few days after February 24, after the beginning of the invasion. Instead they see orderly ranks of occupiers every day, whom our defenders send to hell.

    In 48 hours, which stretched for 48 days, the Russian army has reached a level of irreparable losses higher than that of the Soviet Union in 10 years of war in Afghanistan. Higher than that of Russia in the two wars in Chechnya.

    The general list of “two hundred” for Russia will soon reach 20,000. Literally in a few days, if not tonight.

    And then what? 30 thousand killed? 40 thousand?

    Today in Russia it was once again stated that their so-called “special operation” is supposedly going according to the plan. But, to be honest, no one in the world understands how such a plan could even emerge.

    How could a plan providing for the death of tens of thousands of your own soldiers in a little more than a month of war emerge? Who could approve such a plan? And what is the final level of their own losses acceptable for this person?

    Dozens or even hundreds of thousands of dead Russians?

    Obviously, no one in Moscow cares about the number of Ukrainian civilians killed.

    They say they do everything for the sake of the people, for the sake of Donbas… But even during World War II, Donbas did not see such cruelty in such a short time. And from whom? From Russian troops.

    In Donbas, the story of the siege of Leningrad was repeated. What for? What would the people who died or almost died in Leningrad during the Nazi blockade say about this? What would they say about the blockade of Mariupol?

    It was also stated in Russia today that the massacre committed by the Russian military in Bucha was allegedly a “staging”.

    For some reason, the massacres in Borodyanka, Hostomel, Makariv, cities and villages of the Chernihiv region, Kharkiv region and Donbas have not been commented on yet.

    There are not as many “specialists in staging” in the world as there are murderers in the Russian army.

    Responsibility for war crimes is inevitable.

    As an example, I can mention today’s result of the Security Service of Ukraine.

    It is very symbolic that Mr. Medvedchuk was detained on Cosmonautics Day.

    He has been hiding for 48 days. And finally decided to try to escape from our country. Well, for this “astronaut” – in the bad sense of the word – the famous “Let’s go!” did not work.

    I think it is especially cynical of him to use military camouflage. He tried to disguise himself like that. Such a “soldier”. Such a “patriot”.

    Well, if Medvedchuk chose a military uniform for himself, he falls under the rules of wartime.

    I offer the Russian Federation to exchange this guy of yours for our boys and our girls who are now in Russian captivity. It is therefore important that our law enforcement officials and military also consider this possibility.

    There are more and more testimonies and other official data of the investigation about the horrible crimes of the occupiers in the areas where they managed, unfortunately, to come. About the inhuman cruelty of the Russian military towards women and children. About numerous rapes.

    Not all serial rapists reached the level of brutality of Russian soldiers.

    Of course, we will establish the full truth about all these savages. No matter how much time and effort it takes, we will find them all.

    And let Medvedchuk be an example for you. Even the former oligarch did not escape, not to mention much more ordinary criminals from the Russian boondocks. We will get everyone.

    We take with great attention yesterday’s reports on the use of a projectile with a poisonous substance in Mariupol against the defenders of the city.

    It is not yet possible to draw one hundred percent conclusions about what kind of substance it was. Obviously it is impossible to conduct a full investigation and full analysis in the besieged city.

    However, given the repeated threats of Russian propagandists to use chemical weapons against the defenders of Mariupol and the repeated use by the Russian army of phosphorus munitions in Ukraine for example, the world must respond now. Respond preventively. Because after the use of weapons of mass destruction, any response will not change anything. And it will only look like a humiliation for the democratic world.

    Today, in my address to the parliament and the people of Lithuania, and at the same time to all European nations, I stressed that the sixth package of EU sanctions against Russia must include oil.

    Stop multiplying insufficiently strong sanctions packages. In any case, you will have to acknowledge that only Europe’s abandonment of Russia’s energy resources and the complete restriction of Russia’s banking system can be an argument for Russia’s leadership to seek peace. Without this, Moscow is looking for a military solution.

    I also spoke today with Chancellor of Austria Nehammer who had met with the Russian leader the day before. We exchanged details about this meeting.

    Many people like to mock the occupiers, troll their failures, the level of training of their soldiers and the questionable quality of the “latest” Russian equipment, which has been developed over the past 20 years and is inferior to Soviet models. And rightly so. That’s fair.

    But at the same time, we must understand that not all Russian tanks are stalled in the field. Not all enemy soldiers simply flee the battlefield. And not all of them are conscripts who do not know how to hold weapons properly.

    This does not mean we should be afraid of them.

    This means we must not belittle the merits of our soldiers, our army.

    And I want to thank them again, all our defenders. I don’t get tired of doing it. And I want you and I not to tire of telling them the most important thing: we believe in you. We are proud of you. We admire you.

    We are also proud of all our people who take to the streets despite the occupation. Who are protesting. Who are expelling the occupiers as best they can. We are proud of all our people!

    That is why it should always be emphasized that if our cities and villages are occupied, it is only temporary. And they will definitely be liberated.

    They will be liberated by our heroes. And not only by force of arms, but also by force of morale.

    Morale demonstrated almost daily by Ukrainian men and women in the cities and villages of the south of our country. In the areas that Russian troops have temporarily occupied and which our army has not yet liberated.

    No matter what, you need to resist the occupiers. It’s hard, I know. You have to fight. Protest. Defend our national statehood.

    And it is necessary to punish collaborators. Let them make “KhNR” somewhere in Khakassia, not in our native Ukrainian Kherson.

    The future of Ukraine directly depends on the strength of our resistance in all its forms.

    The future of us all, each of our cities, each of our villages.

    And I am grateful to everyone who understands this. Who does not stop resisting even when it seems that the result is very far. Because the darkest time is always before dawn.

    And today I want to separately address those heroes who are having a very hard time. Those who defend Mariupol. Marine battalion of the 36th marine brigade, Azov special operations detachment, 12th operational brigade of the National Guard of Ukraine. Subdivisions of the State Border Guard Service. Volunteers of the “Right Sector”. 555th military hospital and National Police employees.

    All the military who are fighting in the JFO area, who are defending Kharkiv, the Kharkiv region, all the military groups defending the Zaporizhzhia region, defending the south. Special thanks to the 92nd, 93rd, 95th brigades. Personally to General Nayev. I am infinitely grateful to everyone! On behalf of all Ukrainians.

    A few minutes ago I signed three decrees. 419 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were awarded state awards. 72 of them posthumously.

    Also, 30 servicemen of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine were awarded state awards.

    The title of Hero of Ukraine was awarded to Lieutenant Colonel Dmytro Mykolayovych Vasyliyev, commander of the missile division of the 19th missile brigade. Posthumously.

    Eternal glory to all our heroes!

    Eternal memory to everyone who died for Ukraine!

    Inevitable punishment to all our enemies.

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (12/04/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (12/04/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 12 April 2022.

    Ukrainians!

    Our defenders!

    The 47th day of the Russian-Ukrainian war, this shameful invasion that is gradually wiping Russia out of international relations, is coming to an end. Invasion that makes it more and more toxic every day. Now it is only a matter of time before the Russian army with its own actions and war crimes forces everyone in the world to renounce all ties with the Russian Federation.

    Security work is underway in the northern regions of our country, from where the occupiers were expelled. First of all, it is mine clearance. Russian troops left behind tens if not hundreds of thousands of dangerous objects. These are shells that did not explode, mines, tripwire mines. At least several thousand such items are disposed of daily.

    The occupiers left mines everywhere. In the houses they seized. Just on the streets, in the fields. They mined people’s property, mined cars, doors. They consciously did everything to make the return to these areas after deoccupation as dangerous as possible. Due to the actions of the Russian army, our territory is currently one of the most contaminated by mines in the world. And I believe this should also be considered as a war crime of Russian troops. They deliberately did everything to kill or maim as many of our people as possible, even when they were forced to withdraw from our land. Without the appropriate orders, they would not have done it.

    This afternoon I met on Bankova Street with an expert group working on the creation of a special mechanism for pre-trial investigation and judicial review of all war crimes committed by the occupiers. We are working on a legal way to bring the occupiers to justice, which will be as effective and as fast as possible. In order not to wait for decades until all international legal procedures are completed, but to accelerate the onset of justice. I expect that the options for creating such a special mechanism will be presented in the near future.

    Today, the occupiers issued a new statement, which testifies to their preparation for a new stage of terror against Ukraine and our defenders. One of the mouthpieces of the occupiers stated that they could use chemical weapons against the defenders of Mariupol. We take this as seriously as possible.

    I want to remind the world leaders that the possible use of chemical weapons by the Russian military has already been discussed. And already at that time it meant that it was necessary to react to the Russian aggression much tougher and faster.

    The European Union has now begun discussing a sixth package of sanctions against Russia.

    It is time to make this package such that even a word about weapons of mass destruction is no longer heard from the Russian side. An oil embargo against Russia is mandatory.

    Any new package of sanctions against Russia that does not affect oil will be received in Moscow with a smile.

    I spoke about the need to strengthen sanctions against Russia in my address to the parliament and people of the Republic of Korea.

    This week I will continue this format of communication with partner countries. Tomorrow I will address the parliament and the people of the Republic of Lithuania.

    By the way, Prime Minister of Lithuania Ingrida Šimonytė paid a visit to Ukraine today. I am grateful to her for the support, as well as to all the Lithuanian people.

    The issue of punishing all those guilty of crimes against Ukrainians was also discussed today with Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte. The second important topic of our conversation was the strengthening of sanctions against Russia. We will continue to coordinate our steps to force the Russian Federation to seek peace.

    I also discussed cooperation in the energy sphere with the Prime Minister of Norway. Expressed gratitude for the support of efforts aimed to force Russia to seek peace.

    I also held talks with the Chairperson of the African Union, President of Senegal. Informed him about the current situation in Ukraine, about the global threats posed by the Russian invasion.

    The key task both today and every day at this time is concrete defensive measures. A concrete increase in our ability to repel any attacks by Russian troops. I am dealing with this issue almost around the clock. I’m sure people see it, too. Just as they see that the military and technical capabilities of the enemy are still very high. Yes, Ukrainians are incomparably braver. Our Armed Forces are beating the occupiers with wisdom and well-thought-out tactics inaccessible to the Russian military.

    But when it comes to the necessary weapons, we still depend on the supply, on our partners.

    Unfortunately, we are not getting as much as we need to end this war sooner. To completely destroy the enemy on our land. And to fulfill those tasks that are obvious to each of our people. In particular, to unblock Mariupol.

    If we got jets and enough heavy armored vehicles, the necessary artillery, we would be able to do it. But…

    We still have to agree on this. We still have to persuade. We still have to squeeze out the necessary decisions. I am sure that we will get almost everything we need. But not only time is being lost. The lives of Ukrainians are being lost. Lives that can no longer be returned.

    And this is also the responsibility of those who still keep the weapons Ukraine needs in their armory. The responsibility that will forever remain in history.

    Just as our gratitude will remain in history. Gratitude to those states and politicians who really helped. Who did not waste time. Who didn’t bargain when life depended on help.

    I also signed several important decrees. 187 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, 15 servicemen of the National Guard of Ukraine and 6 servicemen of the Main Intelligence Directorate were awarded. The title of Hero of Ukraine was awarded to 5 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in particular to 2 colonels of the medical service:

    Ivchuk Viktor Mykhailovych – thanks to his actions more than a hundred lives were saved in Mariupol. Both of the military and civilians.

    Slesarenko Oleksandr Petrovych – thanks to his actions in the city of Chernihiv, medical care was provided to more than 450 servicemen and more than 600 civilians.

    I am grateful to all our heroes!

    Glory to everyone who defends Ukraine!

    Glory to Ukraine!