Category: Speeches

Rachel Reeves – 2022 Keynote Speech on Labour’s Economic Strategy

The speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Bury on 20 January 2022.

It’s great to be in Bury today – a town with a central place in the story of our industrial heritage and in our economic future.

Home to John Kay, the inventor of the flying shuttle which made Lancashire home to Britain’s thriving textiles industry.

Birthplace too, of Sir Robert Peel, the last Prime Minister to split the Conservative Party. And why did he do so?

Because the Conservatives would not put the interests of the people of this country ahead of the interest of a well-connected, elite. How times change.

And so it is particularly fitting to welcome Bury South’s own Christian Wakeford to the Labour Party. Christian, like so many others, sees that our country needs Keir Starmer’s leadership and a Labour government now more than ever.

And it is great to be joined by James Frith, the former Labour MP for Bury North, and someone who I know will play a big part in Labour’s future too.

But I am here to talk about Britain’s economic future, and our potential as a country.

We are a country with so much going for us.

Dynamic industries with reach all around the world, not least our cultural industries, with venues all around the country, like the Met, where we are today – giving life to our towns and cities.

And millions of working people able to make a lasting contribution to the future of our country.

The question is: why is a country with such rich resources not seeing that potential realised? Why are so many working people here in Bury and all across the country not feeling the benefits?

And how have we become trapped in this cycle of low growth, low pay, and high taxes?

The answer is simple. It comes down to a decade of Conservative failure.

Their failure to plan ahead.

Their failure to work together with business and industry.

And their failure to put the national interest above the interests of their friends and donors, utterly removed from the lives of working people.

For the best part of a decade, I worked as an economist at the Bank of England.

My first job there was to analyse the Japanese economy. Japan had just reached the end of what was often called its ‘Lost Decade’. We now talk about Japan’s ‘Lost Decades’ – thirty years of stagnant growth.

I saw the perils of an economy becoming trapped in a cycle where demand is sucked out of the economy and growth suppressed.

Britain has been through its own lost decade.

And so Covid hit us harder than other countries, in terms of lives lost, and the hit to our economy.

We have a choice.

We can continue down the path of another Lost Decade. Or we can take an approach based on bringing people together in a national endeavour, and on understanding that Britain’s real wealth is found – not in the bank accounts of friends and donors of the Conservative Party – but in the effort and talent of tens of millions of working people in this country.

Labour has a plan to build a stronger economy based on exactly that approach.

A plan to give people the respect they deserve.

A plan for real economic security.

A plan for prosperity in every part of Britain.

That is the plan that I will set out today.

But first, let’s look at where we are. While ministers worry only about the political costs of their parties, ordinary people are facing a cost of living crisis – with prices rising at the supermarket and the at petrol pump, energy bills soaring, and real wages falling.

People rightly expect leadership from government.

But instead they are being left to shoulder the burden alone, with the added insult of the triple whammy of a freeze on the income tax threshold, rising council tax, and a hike in National Insurance contributions.

Now is the wrong time to raise taxes on ordinary working people.

Labour would keep bills down by cutting VAT on energy, and expanding the Warm Homes Discount, taking at least £200 off the typical bill – with up to £400 in additional support for low and middle earners and pensioners – paid for by a windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas profits.

But this isn’t just about the short-term. As Professor Dieter Helm has shown, the global spike in gas prices has exposed the government’s failure to plan, leaving us uniquely exposed.

And it’s not just energy. That is just one chapter in a decade-long story of economic failure.

Between 1997 and 2010, when Labour were in government, the UK economy grew at 2.3% a year. Over the decade leading up to the pandemic it grew by an average of 1.8% a year.

And now the Bank of England expects growth to fall to as low as 1 per cent by the end of this Parliament, while other countries in the OECD are expected to grow at almost twice that rate.

This is the British economy according to Rishi Sunak.

No matter how much he tells us he wants to keep borrowing down and taxes low, the effect of such anaemic growth is devastating for our public finances.

If we could catch up with the growth rate of our best-performing peers, by 2030 the UK would have £75bn more in tax receipts – a growth dividend able to ease the burden of taxes on working people and start to repair the damage done to our overstretched public services over a decade of underinvestment.

Another Lost Decade isn’t inevitable.

These failures sit squarely on the shoulders of the Conservatives. Their policies have choked off growth and squeezed living standards.

The Conservatives have become the party of high taxation because they are the party of low growth.

But the choices they make on tax show whose side they’re on. And it’s certainly not the side of the tens of millions of people hit by the cost of living crisis.

Their approach isn’t just unfair – though it is.

It isn’t just going to make life that much harder for working people – though it will.

It won’t work.

As the TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady has said:

‘Our economy will only recover when working people can afford to spend in local shops and businesses’.

I’ve been hearing the same from businesses I speak to, concerned that customers will stay away as they feel the hit to their purses and their wallets.

It’s a vicious circle. Tory policies fail to deliver growth, and their response is policies that squeeze growth further.

It’s like trying to drive with the brakes on.

It’s no wonder the Tories have failed to deal with the cost of living crisis, because the Tories are the cost of living crisis.

We need a serious plan to deliver higher growth, built on the knowledge that wealth doesn’t just trickle from the top down, but comes from the bottom up and the middle out.

A plan that can drive up living standards, fund the public services we need, and allow us to get the national debt falling.

Under Keir Starmer’s leadership, Labour has changed, but so too have the Conservatives.

The Conservatives once called themselves the party of business. That’s a distant memory.

When the Prime Minister said ‘F- business’, I thought it was a throwaway remark. Little did I know it would be the central organising principle of his government.

And what’s left?

A government concerned not with unleashing the talents of British people, empowering the next generation of entrepreneurs, supporting British business, and sharing opportunity widely, but instead with selling access to the corridors of power.

A party not of productive business, but of crony capitalism. A government of waste – wasted money, wasted talent and wasted potential. This calls for a new contract between government and the British people.

That is what underpins Labour’s plan.

A plan to break us out of this cycle of high taxes, high prices and low growth.

A plan to get our economy firing on all cylinders, in every part of the country and every sector of the economy.

A plan that is proudly pro-worker, and proudly pro-business.

A plan for an industrial Britain, a learning Britain, an investing Britain, an innovative Britain, and a trading Britain.

Let me set these out.

First is a serious strategy for an industrial Britain, fit for the 21st century.

Where the Conservatives scrapped their own Industrial Strategy Council, Labour will create an industrial strategy built on an ethos of cooperation across the public and private sectors, employers and workers.

To unlock the brilliance of our leading businesses and entrepreneurs, mobilising these immense resources to create good work and economic growth in every part of Britain, and ensure that our communities can take pride in great British industries.

Britain has great strengths, whether in our world-leading creative industries, our automotive sector, or life sciences.

We have advantages in industries that will be vital to our green transition, including tidal and wind energy as well as the technologies needed for carbon capture and storage, and we already have great businesses leading the way, like Switch Mobility, in my own city of Leeds, who are pioneering the transition to electric buses – cheaper and better for the environment.

And initiatives we will build on like the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre, supporting the scale-up of the manufacture of batteries for electric vehicles and other applications.

Labour will continue to work with industry to develop plans for these and other sectors.

Of course industrial strategy is about making sure that we are succeeding in the most high-tech industries.

But it’s not enough for an industrial strategy to focus on a small number of businesses in a small number of sectors.

As the University of Manchester’s Karel Williams has long argued, we must attend to the foundations of our economy, without which we could not enjoy healthy lives or strong communities, but which have been neglected by government for too long.

Whether that’s our high street businesses, or sectors in which millions work to provide us with care, transport, energy and water, and food on the shelves.

It’s what I call the everyday economy.

Millions work in it. We all rely on it.

The state of our everyday economy really matters.

Because driving up pay and conditions in the everyday economy is key to increasing spending power in our communities and reviving our high streets.

Because if we want to drive up national productivity then it’s not only a few businesses at the leading edge which need to feel the benefits of new technologies and investment.

And because those foundations provide us with security as a society – especially when a crisis hits.

That calls for industrial strategies for sectors like care which have too often been overlooked, breaking loose of our cycle of long hours, low pay and low productivity, with a new deal for work.

And supporting those businesses which give life to our high streets by abolishing business rates and replacing them with a fair system that levels the playing field between online multinationals and high street businesses.

A real plan for the economy begins with the understanding that those industries of the future and the overlooked sectors on which we all rely are two sides of the same coin – the success of each dependent on the other – that no matter how innovative, no business can thrive without those strong foundations.

And any government serious about the strength of our economy and the welfare of our people will have a plan for both to thrive, together.

Second: we need a learning Britain.

We must ask ourselves how any country can achieve its potential when over 200,000 primary age children live in local areas where there are no good or outstanding schools, while record numbers of businesses report challenges getting the skilled staff they need.

Keir Starmer has set out a plan to make sure every young person leaves education ready for life and ready for work, with the practical skills, the careers advice and the experience they need to thrive in a modern economy.

And Labour has launched a new Council of Skills Advisers last year, to rethink how we approach skills for the decades ahead.

We need to expand opportunities for school leavers too.

But the Conservatives have shown themselves incapable of reversing the decline in apprenticeships, which has seen nearly 200,000 opportunities lost under their leadership, including a fall of 50% in the number of 16 to 18-year-olds starting an apprenticeship.

Labour would start now with our plan to create apprenticeship opportunities for young people – which could have seen one hundred thousand extra apprenticeships created this year – to drive our economic recovery.

Third: an investing Britain.

Over the last decade, a lack of investment has been holding Britain back.

In the nine years leading up to the pandemic the UK ranked third last out of the 38 countries in the OECD for investment as a proportion of GDP. And over the next five years, the UK is forecast to have a near £800 billion investment gap compared to other OECD economies.

The Director of the CBI, Tony Danker, has been clear about what’s needed: supporting business to invest, he says, will require ‘catalytic public investment’.

That’s what Labour’s climate investment pledge does – £28bn every year for each and every year of the decade – to ensure the industries and jobs of the future are found all across Britain.

Giga-factories to build batteries for electric vehicles, a thriving hydrogen industry, offshore wind with turbines made in Britain, planting trees and building flood defences, getting energy bills down and guaranteeing Britain’s energy security, and allowing our economy to adapt as we drive down our carbon emissions.

This is a global race for the jobs of the future.

As the former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney has said, we will require significant private investment alongside public to meet the challenges and opportunities of net zero.

Our climate investment pledge will leverage at least as much again in private investment, by giving businesses certainty and confidence.

We will also catalyse private investment by supporting businesses to focus on the long-term good of the company, through changing the priority duty of directors, and by replacing business rates with a new system of business taxation that properly encourages growth and investment.

Labour’s fiscal rules would ensure that necessary investment can take place in a way that supports sustainable public finances, not unlike the government’s rules which have already to led to the cancellation of the Northern Powerhouse Rail.

As well as an investment Britain we need an innovative Britain.

A Labour government will create the conditions for new, innovative businesses to start, grow and thrive – whether that is through a fair tax system that encourages and rewards growth, or by directly supporting the next generation of entrepreneurs through our target to help create 100,000 new businesses over the next five years – with a particular focus outside London and the South East.

Initiatives like B Corporations and The Purposeful Company show how a new way of doing business is on the rise, one that understands the value of working in partnership with workers and communities.

Keir Starmer has committed the next Labour government to a minimum target of three percent of GDP invested in R&D, from both the public and private sectors.

53% of UK research and development funding is directed at London and the greater South East – which benefits hugely from the Golden Triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge.

The comparative total for the entire north – from Newcastle to Bradford, Wigan to Grimsby – is just 16%.

We will support our northern universities, colleges and businesses not just to drive innovation, but to make sure that the fruits of the work of our leading scientists and institutions benefit small and medium-sized business, and are felt across our regions – so we can drive up productivity across the economy.

And there are great examples of work already being done and potential to be unleashed with the right support.

Like Northern Gritstone, a patient capital venture headed by Lord Jim O’Neill, formed in partnership with the universities of Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield with the aim of providing a pipeline for research to develop into successful businesses – creating wealth and jobs.

Britain is a country of creators, of makers and of problem-solvers.

We need a government that understands the value of our collective ideas and innovations, from the shopfloor to the boardroom.

And to unleash our potential we will build a trading Britain.

A truly patriotic government will champion British businesses at home and abroad.

The first step is to make Brexit work for the British people – addressing the flaws in the Tories’ deal that are hitting our food and drinks manufacturers, creative industries and professionals.

A Labour government won’t stand by on the side-lines and let British businesses and consumers pay the price for the mess the Tories have made. And we will seize new opportunities for British businesses to thrive at home and abroad.

We are a competitive and highly-skilled nation. We can work with our friends and neighbours to raise standards and do trade better.

We will build on the UK-EU trade deal in the interests of British businesses to cut red tape and make life easier for our exporters.

And with our plan to buy, make and sell more in Britain, we will use all the tools at government’s disposal to support businesses in this country – leading a culture change at the heart of government, putting local industries first and ensuring major infrastructure projects use, where possible, materials made here in Britain.

Asking every public body to increase the number of contracts to British firms, big and small to grow our industries and increase standards, while strengthening domestic supply chains and investing in the reshoring of jobs back to Britain.

Running throughout this Plan is a commitment to a stronger economy for every part of Britain.

In too many parts of our country, confidence in the future does not yet match pride in the past.

I spent three years working at HBOS in Halifax, so I know well what it can mean to a town to have a world-recognised business rooted in the local area.

But investment, jobs and opportunities have not been evenly spread across the country and it’s taken its toll on families and working people. Many people have had to move many miles away to find decent opportunities to get on.

So our mission is to create more and better jobs that are closer to home, so people have a real choice.

As research from IPPR shows, the Tories have taken £413 from every person, through cuts to local council funding, with just £32 returned in levelling up for the North.

Even then, the government doesn’t trust people to set out their own priorities, adopting a top-down approach.

It’s people on the ground, in their communities, who best understand what they need – the assets they can build on, and how to fulfil their ambitions.

There’s so much creativity in our regional towns and cities, building on our industrial past but adapting to the economy of the future.

Like Castleton Mills in my own constituency, once a key part of West Yorkshire’s textiles industry, but now a creative, collaborative space housing freelancers, remote workers and start-ups – including Northern Bloc Ice cream, and businesses from music promotion to digital content.

This creativity and resourcefulness is there to be unleashed all across our great country.

The Prime Minister’s survival strategy may involve wrecking our historic institutions and dragging the country’s global reputation down with him, but I reject the idea our best days are behind us – that we are fated to weaker growth and diminishing living standards.

There have never in living memory been so many opportunities for investment in new industries, new jobs, and new growth that can be felt in all parts of the country.

We need a future-looking government, working in a spirit of cooperation with businesses and trade unions to plan for the long term, to seize those opportunities.

The choice ahead of our country is this:

Another Lost Decade of low growth, high taxes, and a deepening cost of living crisis.

Or a contract between British government and the British people, a national effort to build a stronger economy, more resilient public services – and prosperity felt in every part of Britain.

That means real economic and energy security.

It means good jobs and thriving businesses in every town.

It means strong public services paid for by fair taxes and strong growth.

It means Britain’s best days lie ahead.

Thank you.

January 20, 2022
Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on Omicron

The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, to the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

Mr Speaker, with permission I will make a statement on our progress against Omicron and the review of our Plan B measures.

Within hours of learning from scientists in South Africa about the emergence of a new Covid variant last November, this government acted, introducing balanced and proportionate restrictions at our borders to slow the seeding of Omicron in our country.

As we learned more about this highly transmissible new variant, we implemented the Plan B measures we had prepared precisely in case our situation deteriorated, encouraging people to change their behaviour to slow the spread of the virus and buying crucial time to get boosters into arms.

We made the big call to refocus our National Health Service, necessarily requiring the difficult postponement of many other appointments –

So that we could double the speed of booster programme.

And thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our NHS and its volunteers, we delivered the fastest booster programme in Europe, reaching half our population before any other European country, with more than 36 million boosters now in arms across the UK, including more than 90 per cent of all over 60s in England.

And taking a balanced approach, we resisted calls from others to shut down our country all over again.

Many nations across Europe have endured further winter lockdowns.

Many have seen hospitality curfews and nightclubs closed, capacity limits at sports stadiums, the return of social distancing, and, in some places, Christmas and New Year as good as cancelled.

But this government took a different path.

We kept England open.

And we supported those businesses which faced reduced demand because of the response to Plan B measures.

And while we must continue to remain cautious, the data are showing that time and again this government got the toughest decisions right.

Today’s latest ONS data show clearly that infection levels are falling in England.

And while there are some places where cases are likely to continue rising,

including in primary schools – our scientists believe it is likely that the Omicron wave has now peaked nationally.

There remain, of course, significant pressures on the NHS across our country, and especially in the North East and North West.

But hospital admissions which were doubling every 9 days just two weeks ago – have now stabilised, with admissions in London even falling.

And the numbers in intensive care not only remain low but are actually also falling.

So this morning, the Cabinet concluded that because of the extraordinary booster campaign together with the way the public have responded to the Plan B measures – we can return to Plan A in England and allow Plan B regulations to expire.

As a result, from the start of Thursday next week mandatory certification will end.

Organisations can, of course, choose to use the NHS Covid Pass voluntarily but we will end the compulsory use of Covid status certification in England.

From now, the government is no longer asking people to work from home and people should now speak to their employers about arrangements for returning to the office.

And having looked at the data carefully, the Cabinet concluded that once regulations lapse, the government will no longer mandate the wearing of face masks anywhere.

Mr Speaker, from tomorrow, we will no longer require face masks in classrooms, and the Department for Education will shortly remove national guidance on their use in communal areas.

In the country at large, we will continue to suggest the use of face coverings in enclosed or crowded places, particularly where you come into contact with people you don’t normally meet.

But we will trust the judgement of the British people and no longer criminalise anyone who chooses not to wear one.

The government will also ease further restrictions on visits to care homes and my Rt Hon Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, will set out plans in the coming days.

Mr Speaker, as we return to Plan A, the House will know that some measures still remain, including those on self-isolation.

In particular, it is still a legal requirement for those who have tested positive for Covid to self-isolate.

On Monday we reduced the isolation period to five full days with two negative tests.

And there will soon come a time when we can remove the legal requirement to self-isolate altogether – just as we don’t place legal obligations on people to isolate if they have flu.

As Covid becomes endemic we will need to replace legal requirements with advice and guidance urging people with the virus to be careful and considerate of others.

The self-isolation regulations expire on 24th March, at which point I very much expect not to renew them.

Indeed were the data to allow, I would like to seek a vote in this House to bring that date forwards.

In advance of that, we will set out our long-term strategy for living with Covid-19, explaining how we hope and intend to protect our liberty and avoid restrictions in future by relying instead on medical advances – especially the vaccines which have already saved so many lives.

But to make that possible, we must all remain cautious during these last weeks of winter.

When there are still over 16,000 people in hospital in England alone, the pandemic is not over.

And, Mr Speaker, make no mistake, Omicron is not a mild disease for everyone – and especially if you’re not vaccinated.

Just look at the numbers in intensive care in other countries where vaccination rates are far lower.

Indeed, from our NHS data, we know that around 90 per cent of people in intensive care are not boosted.

So I urge members across the House to do everything possible to encourage any remaining constituents who have not done so – to get boosted now.

And for the next few weeks, I encourage everyone across the country to continue with all the cautious behaviours that we know help to keep each everybody safe.

washing hands,

letting fresh air in,

getting tested, self-isolating if positive, and, as I say, thinking about wearing a face covering in crowded and enclosed settings.

Mr Speaker, Omicron has tested us, just as Alpha and Delta did before.

But let’s remember some of what we’ve achieved.

We were the first nation in the world to administer a vaccine. We were the fastest in Europe to roll it out.

Because outside of the European Medicines Agency, this government made the big call to pursue our own British procurement strategy rather than opting back into the EU scheme as some people urged.

We created a world-beating testing programme, the largest in Europe, and procured the most antivirals of any country in Europe too, because this government made the big call to invest early in lateral flow tests and in cutting-edge drugs to protect the most vulnerable.

We’ve delivered the fastest booster campaign in Europe, and we’re the first to emerge from the Omicron wave, because the government made the big call to focus on our NHS, and to refocus our activity and lead that campaign to Get Boosted Now.

And that’s why we’ve retained the most open economy and society anywhere across the European continent, and the fastest growing economy in the G7 – because we made that tough decision to open up last Summer when others said that we shouldn’t, and to keep things open this winter when others wanted them shut.

This week the World Health Organisation said that while the global situation remains challenging, the United Kingdom can start to see “light at the end of the tunnel”.

And Mr Speaker, this is no accident of history.

Confronted by the nation’s biggest challenge since the Second World War and the worst pandemic since 1918, any government would get some things wrong. but this government got the big things right.

And I commend this Statement to the House.

January 20, 2022
James Cartlidge – 2022 Speech on the European Court of Human Rights

The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for the Adjournment debate, especially as you served on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as recently as 2017, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) observed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the quality and detail of his speech. I value his insight into the problems that face the Strasbourg Court given his twin roles as chair of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and vice-president of the Assembly. I commend his work in both roles: he and the rest of the delegation do a fantastic job representing our Parliament in Strasbourg.

My hon. Friend is widely recognised at the Assembly as a champion of democracy and transparency, the latter of which is particularly central to the debate. To highlight just one of his achievements in Strasbourg, he co-authored two important reports that pointed out issues affecting the rule of law and democracy in Turkey. The reports led to the Assembly’s adopting two resolutions, the most recent of which was adopted in April last year and called on Turkish authorities to take steps to address the issues that my hon. Friend had raised, including the need to refrain from incriminating, prosecuting and arresting peaceful demonstrators, students and LGBT people.

I mentioned transparency; in June last year, my hon. Friend supported the motion introduced by one of his co-delegates, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), that called on the Assembly to set up a transparency register to address concerns about the influence of some NGOs in the Assembly’s decision-making processes. I heard the similar concerns that my hon. Friend expressed in respect of the Strasbourg Court and will in a moment touch on the issue of the selection and election of judges to the Court, which made up much of the substance of his speech.

The Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights in particular, has played a leading role in the protection and promotion of human rights across our continent. The Court now has jurisdiction in respect of no fewer than 47 countries and is widely recognised as one of the most successful regional human rights courts in the world.

The UK, of course, has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected both at home and abroad and, as my hon. Friend knows, was instrumental in the drafting of the European convention on human rights and in the setting up of the Council of Europe, the primary statue of which is still known as the treaty of London.

As we have previously assured the House, the Government are wholeheartedly committed to remaining party to the ECHR and will ensure that our obligations under it—including those relative to the execution of judgments of the Strasbourg Court against the UK—continue to be met. It has long been a UK objective to strengthen the Strasbourg Court and the convention system, both to improve the efficiency of the European Court of Human Rights in the light of its continued backlog of pending applications and to ensure that it can focus on the most important cases before it, underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity to which my hon. Friend referred in detail.

It is true that the Court, having become a victim of its own success, continues to face significant challenges, with its case load having grown exponentially in the past 20 years. As a way to address this, in 2010 ECHR state parties adopted the Interlaken declaration, a 10-year programme of work known as the Interlaken process that set out to reduce the Court’s backlog of cases and allow for all cases, especially those that concern serious violations of human rights, to be adjudicated within a reasonable time. That was followed in 2012 by the Brighton declaration, which was adopted under the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.

As my hon. Friend will recognise, the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to reform the Strasbourg Court following the Interlaken declaration, and the Brighton declaration went further than Interlaken in a number of respects. Notably, it called for the stronger application of the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation. Those calls were, of course, aimed to address the Court’s growing case load, but they also served as a reminder of the paramount role of national courts in the enforcement of human rights.

One of the major achievements of the Brighton declaration was protocol No. 15 to the convention, which came into force in August 2021. Not only does protocol No. 15 add the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation to the preamble of the convention, but it will improve the efficiency of the Strasbourg Court by shortening the time limit for applications, ensuring that all applications have been duly considered by domestic courts and ensuring an appropriate upper age limit for judges, so that they can serve for the full term of their tenure and provide continuity to the Court. We also welcomed the adoption in 2018 of the Copenhagen declaration, which carried forward some of the initiatives begun in Brighton.

Although it can be said that the Interlaken process has been partly successful—the number of applications pending before the court in January 2021 was 62,000, which is down from a record high of just over 150,000 applications in 2011—the Court’s caseload is still stubbornly high and some other issues remain. Although state parties agreed in November 2020 that no comprehensive reform of the convention was needed, there was a recognition that further efforts should be pursued, and I very much agree with that assessment.

My hon. Friend has already alluded to a specific area that is worth highlighting: the selection and election of judges to the Strasbourg Court. In my view, it is crucial that judges in Strasbourg are of the highest calibre possible and independent from any political influence, as we aim to have in our system in the UK. As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as stipulated by article 22 of the convention. As part of that, the advisory panel set up in 2010 gives a non-binding opinion on whether countries’ candidates for judges, provided as a shortlist, meet the necessary criteria set out in paragraph 1 of article 21 of the convention.

I am aware that the panel is one way in which the Council of Europe has tried to improve the standard of judges elected to the Strasbourg Court in recent years, with the aim of increasing confidence in its judgments. However, consideration must be given to whether the process undertaken by the advisory panel is sufficiently robust to ensure that all candidates meet the requisite suitability criteria. I particularly note the concern raised by my hon. Friend about the calibre of some candidates put forward and their affiliations, be they political activists or academics who have limited experience in the practical application of the law. I would therefore welcome the Parliamentary Assembly’s exploring ways in which to share best practice with state parties to assist in that regard.

John Howell

Is my hon. Friend aware that Russia recently put forward three Russian candidates to be judges? They were considered so inadequate that even the committee responsible for them sent them home without seeing them.

James Cartlidge

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Russia has already had quite a lot of mentions in the debate. I am sure that will continue on matters affecting the ECHR, but as I said, we need to look at the issue of judges, which was such an important part of his speech.

I am particularly pleased that, at our Government’s request, state parties have agreed to ask the Steering Committee for Human Rights to take a further look at the effectiveness of the system for the selection and election of judges at the Strasbourg Court. The report will also look into the need for additional safeguards to preserve their independence and impartiality, and it may well explore some of the areas of concern raised by my hon. Friend. I know the committee will undertake other important work concerning reforms of the Strasbourg Court, including a review of the first effects for protocol No. 15 to the ECHR.

Although the focus of the debate has quite rightly been on reform at Strasbourg level, it is worth noting that our proposed reforms of the Human Rights Act 1998 should help to address the systematic reliance on Strasbourg jurisprudence by our domestic courts. Among other measures, we are consulting on options for reform of section 2 of the Human Rights Act that will emphasise the primacy of domestic precedent. These options will set out a broad range of case law, including, but not limited to, Strasbourg jurisprudence that UK courts may consider.

As the title of the debate is “European Court of Human Rights: Reform”, let me sum up by reiterating the UK’s commitment to its obligations under the European convention on human rights and that we will continue to abide by the Court’s judgments. We will continue to work with our Council of Europe partners to pursue ongoing reform of the Court, both to improve the Court’s efficiency in the light of its large backlog of pending applications and to ensure that it can focus on the most important cases before it, underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He put his case eloquently and in great detail, and I pay tribute to him again for his work. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to respond for the Government.

January 20, 2022
John Howell – 2022 Speech on the European Court of Human Rights

The speech made by John Howell, the Conservative MP for Henley, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

It is a great pleasure to have the Adjournment debate tonight. I am the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, but I will not be commenting on the consultation recently launched by the Lord Chancellor as it is largely a domestic issue. I will be considering the European Court of Human Rights from the Strasbourg end.

I am not from the wing of my party that believes we should pull out of the European Court of Human Rights, and I do not have an isolationist perspective that we should simply go it alone and ignore anything the Court says. The purpose of this debate is to consider how the Court can be reformed to make it better for people right across Europe, to make it more useful, to make its judgments more relevant and, above all, to make sure its judges show the same degree of integrity for which British judges are famous.

The UK has a key role in taking this forward. This is not about judgments but, among other things, it is about judges. The key question for the Government is whether they will support me, as the Secretary of State for Justice suggested, in the reforms about which I have already begun to have conversations in Strasbourg.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for all that he does in his role at the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a member. Does he agree that, although we have left the European Union—there is still some fragility in relation to that—it is crucial that the UK continues to play a part in the Council of Europe to ensure that human rights cases, in which he is particularly interested, are dealt with properly and that countries such as Russia, which has the most cases brought against it, are held to account? Does he agree that is important?

John Howell

I agree, and I will address the enormous number of cases involving Russia. The order of countries with the most cases before the European Court of Human Rights is: Russia, Turkey and Romania. We are nowhere on that list, but it is important for us to concentrate on it.

I shall turn first to the question of judges. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe elects the judges of the European Court of Human Rights. This immediately brings into question whether there should be a balance between the democratic legitimacy provided by us electing those judges and the political process. That question has been asked not only by us in Europe; it is always being asked in the USA. The politics of judges are not declared on their curriculum vitae, but everyone knows the political background of each candidate, and the voting for or against them is very much on party lines, as you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, from your time on the Council of Europe.

According to the European convention on human rights, judges must

“be of high moral character and must either possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognised competence.”

To ensure that these standards are met, there are two phases to the election process. The first phase is a national selection procedure, in which each state party chooses a list of three qualified candidates. The second phase is the election procedure undertaken by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in which parliamentarians assess the qualifications of the three candidates before voting to decide which one should become a judge. A fair and transparent process is called for throughout the entire operation. All candidates must have appropriate legal qualifications and experience, but the judge need not be a judge in their own country, and it is possible for politicians and civil servants to be appointed as judges. This happens frequently. In the UK, where judges are appointed and progressed through the judicial rankings based on merit and with political bipartisanship, this concept can be difficult to understand.

At this point, I should like to praise our own judge there, Tim Eicke QC. He is qualified in at least two systems of law, he is genuinely independent, and a fair process was used to appoint him. He has gone out of his way to give support to the Parliamentary Assembly, and we have had a number of discussions with him. I pay him the greatest possible compliments for the work that he does in the Court.

A recent report shows that at least 22 of the 100 permanent judges who have served on the European Court of Human Rights between 2009 and 2019 are former officials or collaborators of seven non-governmental organisations that are highly active before the Court. Since 2009, there have been at least 185 cases in which at least one of these seven NGOs was officially involved in the proceedings. In 88 of those cases, judges sat in a case in which the NGO with which they were linked was involved. For example, in one case before the Court, 10 of the 16 applicants were NGOs funded by the one NGO that looked after them, as were six of the NGOs acting as third parties. Of the 17 judges who have sat in the Grand Chamber, six are linked to the applicant and intervening NGOs. From 2009 to 2019, there were only 12 cases in which a judge withdrew from a case apparently because of a link with an NGO involved in the case. This situation calls into question the independence of the Court and the impartiality of the judges, and it is contrary to the rules that the ECHR itself imposes on states in this area.

Particular attention should be paid to the choice of candidates for the posts of judges. A mechanism is needed for avoiding the appointment of political activists, not only to the office of judge, but as Court jurists. Links between NGOs, lawyers and applicants should be made visible by asking them to indicate in the application form whether they are accompanied in their efforts by an NGO, and to mention its name. This requirement would improve the transparency of the proceedings, both for the Court and for the respondent Government. The future of the convention system rests on this, as:

“The quality of judges and members of the Registry is essential to maintaining the authority of the Court and therefore also for the future of the Convention mechanism.”

I emphasise that it is the quality of the judges that is crucial to the future of the system.

We all know that NGOs have a strong political or ideological character, which in itself should be seen not as an advantage, but as an obstacle to appointment to the Court. To this end, candidates for the office of judge should have the obligation to declare their relationships with any organisation that is active at the Court. Also, the Parliamentary Assembly should be given sufficient means to carry out a proper assessment of candidates before the election. The current arrangement does not allow for in-depth discussion, although there is a separate Committee set up on which a number of Members of this House serve.

The current publication of the summary of judges’ curriculum vitae could be complemented by a simple thing: a declaration of interests. The demand for declarations of interest and their publication is growing, as they constitute one of the main measures to prevent conflicts of interest. Such a declaration has been imposed on all French magistrates since 2016. In the United States, members of the Supreme Court are subject to a declaration of interests, updated each year and made public, which notably mentions the advantages or gifts received during the previous year. A similar requirement should be put in place if we want the quality of judges of the European Court of Human Rights and the whole structure to be in line with what we expect it to be.

Some work also needs to be done on formalising withdrawal procedures. Any judge who, in a particular case, has doubts as to the requirements concerning him or herself on the principles of judicial ethics should have the obligation, and no longer only the option, to inform the President of the Court. The Court should inform the parties in advance of the composition of the formation of the panel that will decide their case, in accordance with the principle of publicity of the proceedings provided by the convention itself, in article 6. In its current practice, the Court deprives the parties of the possibility of requesting the withdrawal of a judge, as it only informs them of the identity of the judges when the judgment is published. There are exceptions to this, where the case is tried in public hearing or in the Grand Chamber, but most cases are not so tried, so the ability of the person bringing a case to challenge a judge for his or her association with an organisation such as an NGO is removed. A party cannot generally effectively request the withdrawal of a judge, which I think is very sad.

Finally, I want to turn to the Brighton declaration to see whether it might be able to help. It was produced towards the end of our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, not long after I entered the House, although I was not involved in the Council of Europe at that time. The declaration covered the future of the European Court of Human Rights. It opened with a general reaffirmation of our

“deep and abiding commitment to the Convention”

The aim of the Brighton declaration was to secure rights and freedoms as defined in the convention. It also recognised the fundamental principle of subsidiarity. That may have been one of the first occasions on which the term “subsidiarity” was used to describe a European institution. It would be typical of the EU to steal that, as it stole the flag of the Council of Europe and the anthem as well—but we can consider that on another occasion.

The declaration contained specific practical measures designed to enhance the role of national Parliaments in ensuring effective implementation, such as their being offered information on the compatibility of draft primary legislation with the convention—I, and, I am sure, all other Members, have seen the use of those measures in the context of legislation that we consider and how we go about implementing it—and it encouraged the facilitation of the important role of national Parliaments in scrutinising the effectiveness of the measures taken by Governments to implement judgments of the Court. However, while those measures are welcome, the declaration failed to address the key points that I have mentioned—for instance, the point about reform of the judges. I suspect that that is because there is such a vested interest in that regard, and that reform will therefore prove to be a long task; I hope that I will continue in my current role for long enough to be able to perform it. The changes that were proposed in the declaration were relatively technical and uncontroversial in nature.

It would be more useful for me to address some of the issues that are likely to come up under the consultation, which I said I would not cover in my speech. Let me now say that I lied about that, and touch on a few of them. They include the ability of individuals to obtain practical and effective access to the Court, and the relationship of the Court to the member states which are part of it. The declaration gave a strong commitment to the convention without tackling the crucial issue of the election of judges. I return to what I said about the quality of those judges being essential to the future of the Court and of the convention system.

Those are all important things to discuss, but if we get too far into them without tackling the problem of the judges and the mechanics of the Court, we miss a trick—here I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech: we, as the United Kingdom, have a great deal to offer because of the standards of our judicial system and our experience—because we miss the opportunity to reform the Court not just for our benefit, but for that of people throughout Europe.

I will leave the House with one important statistic that I have already mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The countries with the most cases against them are Russia, Turkey and Romania. The UK has very few cases against it. Everybody remembers votes for prisoners because over the time that I have been in Parliament that is the one major issue that has come to the House. That gives us a good chance to implement change that is clean and for the greater benefit. I hope that, with the help of the Ministry of Justice, I will be able to carry that out in Strasbourg, hopefully with the agreement of all the other member countries that elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights.

January 20, 2022
Julia Lopez – 2022 Statement on Public Consultations to Improve UK Cyber Resilience

The statement made by Julia Lopez, the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

Today, my Department has launched two consultations seeking public views on our proposals to improve the UK’s cyber resilience.

The UK, as one of the leading digital nations, has accelerated its adoption of digital technologies. These technologies have rapidly become integral to the functioning of our economy and form an important part of our critical national infrastructure. In order to ensure our continued prosperity, it is vital that cyber-security is a fundamental part of our country’s digital transformation journey.

Cyber-security incidents are increasing in frequency and sophistication, with the potential to cause severe damage to critical national infrastructure and the economy. Over the course of the last year, the National Cyber Security Centre has faced an unprecedented increase in the volume of cyber-security incidents to which it has had to respond. In addition, there have been a number of high-profile cyber incidents within the last year, both domestically and abroad, which have highlighted the increasing sophistication of threats to the UK’s cyber resilience. The faster paced digitisation of the UK’s economy means that these attacks will have an even greater impact on British businesses and consumers.

Incidents such as the SolarWinds supply chain compromise in December 2020 and the ransomware attack on the Colonial pipeline in May 2020 demonstrated how such cyber-attacks can impact critical services and national infrastructure. At the same time, they have also highlighted the increased need for a sustained supply of diverse and skilled individuals into the cyber workforce to make systems more resilient against cyber-threats like these.

Today’s consultations are aimed at addressing these challenges. They are divided into three distinct pillars, which are discussed over two separate consultations, given the nature and audience of the differing pillars.

The first consultation covers pillars 1 and 2, and applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. Changes proposed here affect the Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations 2018. This is a key piece of cyber-security legislation which establishes legal measures to strengthen the overall level of security (both cyber and physical resilience) of network and information systems that are critical for the provision of essential UK services, such as transport, energy, water, digital infrastructure, arid health, as well as key digital services.

Proposals in pillar 1 seek to bring additional critical providers of digital services under the NIS regulations. The proposals also establish a new risk-based and proportionate supervisory framework for all digital service providers in scope of NIS. Combined, these proposed measures will strengthen the oversight of providers who frequently have privileged access and provide critical support to essential UK services, and ensure that these businesses have adequate cyber-security protections in place.

The proposals in the second pillar seek to future-proof the NIS regulations, by allowing changes to be implemented so the UK can adapt to evolving threats and technological developments. The Government propose powers to allow important updates to the NIS framework to be made in the future, either to respond to changing threats or technology or to cover other areas as necessary, as well as provisions to secure the most critical organisations on which essential services depend. The Government would also propose to make changes to the current cost recovery system and the incident reporting framework under NIS. Measures proposed in both of these pillars seek to address some of the supply chain cyber-security issues which we have experienced, and which, given the nature of the digital economy, are here to stay.

The second consultation covers the third pillar. Its audience is different from the first two pillars and its proposals are limited to England only. It proposes a set of additional approaches the Government can provide in quality-assuring the cyber profession. This includes exploring both legislative and non-legislative options. The Government will look to the UK Cyber Security Council to be the professional authority to ensure efforts to supply the cyber workforce with diverse and high-quality individuals is done consistently and sustainably. The role of the council will involve developing professional standards and a career pathways framework, bringing together the existing qualification and certification market under a coherent structure. The consultation seeks to gather views on embedding a legislative underpinning for the cyber profession as well as non-legislative measures including a potential role for Government procurement requirements that explores the extent to which a similar demonstration of competence should be required for specific Government functions.

Copies of the consultation on proposals for legislation to improve the UK’s cyber resilience and embedding standards and pathways across the cyber profession by 2025 can be found on the Government website: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposal-for-legislation-to-improve-the-uks-cyber-resilience.

Sharing views will help improve the UK’s cyber-security regulations. By strengthening the oversight of critical digital suppliers, existing cyber-regulation, and improving the UK’s cyber-security profession, we can solidify the UK’s position as a democratic and responsible cyber-power and protect our essential services (such as the NHS, transport services, digital services and energy supplies). This will, ultimately, defend the interests, livelihoods, and economic prosperity of our people and businesses.

January 20, 2022
Leo Docherty – 2022 Statement on the UK Armed Forces Families Strategy 2022-2032

The statement made by Leo Docherty, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

The Ministry of Defence’s “UK Armed Forces Families Strategy 2022-32” on making the recognition and care of armed forces families a national priority has today been laid before the House.

The strategy addresses the challenges armed forces families face with mobility, deployment and separation and the implications this has for accessing good quality healthcare, education, and accommodation. It also notes the evolving nature of family life and the pressures this can place on childcare and managing the career of the partner or spouse alongside that of the service person.

The strategy will be supported by an action plan that includes the commitments made in the Government’s response to the “Living in Our Shoes” report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). The strategy and action plan will be delivered in partnership with the devolved administrations and the charitable and private sectors.

The delivery of improved support is already under way. For example, the MOD is working with the Department for Education and local authorities to lessen the impact of mobility on service children’s educational attainment. Informed by consultation with families, we are also working with the Department for Health and Social Care and healthcare providers across the UK to improve understanding of the health needs of armed forces families. To advocate for the skills and experiences of partners and spouses we are collaborating with the Department for Work and Pensions and charities to ensure that they are recognised and valued by employers. And next year sees full roll-out of the wraparound childcare programme.

But this is only the beginning. The Government and their partners value the role of all families in the regular and reserve forces and recognise their integral role in providing support to serving personnel based in the UK and overseas. Therefore, we are committed both to putting them at the heart of the Defence community and to helping them thrive in wider society. Together, under the principles of this strategy, we will continually review our policies to better support them, empower them and improve their lived experience.

January 20, 2022
Steve Barclay – 2022 Statement on the Veterans Strategy Action Plan 2022-2024

The statement made by Steve Barclay, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

The Government have today published the “Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan 2022-24”, setting out how we will continue to empower, support and champion our veteran community. Just as the armed forces have stood by our country in its times of need, the nation will continue to fulfil its duty by supporting our veterans in their civilian lives.

The plan will deliver for veterans across three key areas. We will better understand our veteran community, making sure we have the information we need to inform policy and service design.

We will transform services and support for veterans, building on progress already made to ensure we are meeting veterans’ needs. We will celebrate our veterans and their contribution to society so that all veterans feel their service is valued by the nation.

The action plan contains over 60 commitments, which together will provide a step change in provision. For most service leavers, the successful transition into employment is the foundation of positive life outcomes. We will be doing more to champion the unique skill set of veterans to employers through a bespoke campaign and a new private sector employers advisory group. We will continue to support veterans to gain quality employment, with the roll out of the Great Place to Work for Veterans scheme, which guarantees interviews for veterans in the civil service. We are launching “Advance into Justice” which will fast-track veterans into prison officer roles. We will improve the enhanced learning credit scheme to make it easier for veterans to access a wider range of academic and vocational opportunities to support their development of a chosen career post-service.

We will also invest in making better use of data than ever before, as well as digital programmes, including a £44 million digital transformation package. Compensation and pension services will be radically improved, with a new digital portal that will enable veterans to apply and track progress online. This will help the 1.2 million pensions members and 30,000 annual compensation claimants to access services more quickly and easily.

We want to ensure all veterans feel their service is valued. Regrettably, some people have historically been excluded from serving their country. The Government are determined to take bold steps to begin looking at how we can redress these past wrongs, and we will commission an independent review into the impact that the pre-2000 ban on homosexuality in the armed forces has had on LGBT veterans today.

A further £18 million will be invested in health and wellbeing support for veterans. To bring improvements to mental health services, NHS England will bring the three services offered under Op Courage into one long-term integrated service, making access easier for veterans and their families. The Veterans Trauma Network will be further developed to create an integrated plan to support the physical health of veterans. “Veteran Aware” accreditation will continue to be rolled out across England— meaning more NHS trusts and GP practices than ever before will become veteran-friendly accredited.

The Office for Veterans’ Affairs will work across Government and beyond to make sure the action plan commitments are monitored and delivered. in 2024, the Government will develop a veterans’ strategy refresh, setting out how far we have come and what remains to be done to deliver on our policy ambition by 2028 to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran.

January 20, 2022
Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on the Defection of Christian Wakeford to the Labour Party

The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 19 January 2022.

The policies of the Conservative government are doing nothing to help the people of Bury South and indeed are only making the struggles they face on a daily basis worse.

January 19, 2022
Gavin Williamson – 2022 Speech on Somaliland

The speech made by Gavin Williamson, the Conservative MP for South Staffordshire, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2022.

I am very grateful for the privilege of being able to bring this Adjournment debate to the House today.

In 1960, Somaliland emerged independent from the British empire after many years as the British Somaliland protectorate. For five days it was independent, before it took the step to merge with what was then the Trust Territory of Somaliland, historically Italian, to form a union. Both nations entered that union with optimism—a sense and a view of creating a pan-Somalia where all Somalis would be able to come together. The hope, for so many of those in Somaliland, was that this would be a union of equals.

Sadly, over the following 30 years, those hopes and aspirations for what might have been were not fulfilled. Instead, as the years progressed, the situation got worse, with military dictatorships and, tragically, people from the north of Somalia in historically British Somaliland being discriminated against. What started to emerge was attacks on civilians. There were mass killings of tens of thousands of Somali civilians. It was one of the few conflicts where fighter jets took off from cities in one area in order to bomb the cities that they had taken off from, indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians.

Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)

My constituency has a very large population from Somaliland, whose families suffered, as the right hon. Gentleman has described, in that conflict. Last year, Somaliland celebrated 30 years since the declaration of independence. It has built up its own independent Government, its own currency and democratic elections. It has shown the capability to establish a state. Is it not time that the UK Government formally recognise its right to self-determination and its need to be an independent state?

Gavin Williamson

The hon. Lady raises a very important point. The key reason for this debate is to discuss the fact that Somaliland has developed so much. In those years of conflict—where so many Somalilanders had their lives under threat, and so many hundreds of thousands were displaced, both internally within Somaliland and externally—that dream and that vision of creating their own homeland once again and re-establishing those old territorial borders burned bright, and that is what they were able to achieve in 1991.

Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)

I draw the House’s attention to my interest as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on Somaliland. It has been a privilege to work with the right hon. Gentleman on these issues. Will he also pay tribute to my predecessor, Alun Michael, and the many members of the Somalilander community in Cardiff and across the UK for exposing those atrocities at the time, including in this House and elsewhere, and explaining what had gone on to the world? Will he commend them on what they did at that time?

Gavin Williamson

I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s predecessor and the many people who live in his constituency. In his constituency is a very established Somaliland community that has been there probably far longer than he or I have been on this earth. This country has deep links with Somaliland that go back not just many decades, but a century and more, with many Somalilanders calling Britain their home, as well as Somaliland itself.

Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has secured this important debate. Many of us have been supporting Somaliland as an independent state, and we very much welcome the fact that he is here. On that point, he will know no doubt that many of Her Majesty’s naval ships for 100 or more years have had lascars from Somaliland—stokers and others—who built the first mosques in this country. Does he not agree that recognising the Somalilanders here in the UK is also about recognising our own past and our own future together as investors in a new Africa? It would demonstrate that independent states that govern themselves well in democracies can succeed, and we can partner with them.

Gavin Williamson

My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is absolutely right. By taking the brave step to recognise Somaliland, we would not just be opening up opportunities for Somaliland itself, but opportunities for British investors and British business to go there and work, very much creating the gateway to the whole of the horn of Africa.

Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has brought this most important subject to the Floor of the House. I visited Hargeisa when I was Secretary of State for International Development, and we spent quite a lot of time on exactly the issues that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee have just raised. There is an enormous degree of normalcy there. The democratic structures, when they have elections, have held in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. There is proper governance. I have travelled on a bus in Hargeisa that was a result of British investment. The case that my right hon. Friend is making about Somaliland becoming an independent state is one where the Foreign Office normally takes the view that it does not want to lead it, but it would support it. Is he aware that the African Union is at least passively acquiescent in that view, if not actively supportive?

Gavin Williamson

On both areas that my right hon. Friend raises, he is absolutely right. One flies into Hargeisa airport, and it is a safe place to visit. One can get a bus to the centre of Hargeisa, as he did. When I visited, I must confess I did not get a bus, but I will endeavour to do so the next time I visit. He is equally right that this is an opportunity. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office so often wants to be led on these issues, but there is sometimes a moment for Britain to lead, as against to be led.

Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about leading the world. Throughout the world, where western nations do not get involved, China does, and recently we have had many discussions about China’s influence. Does he therefore agree that when we look at development taking place in Somaliland, we can see that it is in our strategic interests and that of western countries not just to see what happens but to take an active, leading role and not allow that vacuum to be filled with those who, perhaps, we have difficulties with?

Gavin Williamson

My right hon. Friend is so correct. If we look to Djibouti, to the north of Somaliland, we see the Chinese investment that is going in. Where there is a vacuum, others do step in. If this country showed the leadership that it can by recognising Somaliland, that would show the Somaliland Government the value that we put on their friendship and partnership.

Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)

I commend my right hon. Friend for securing the debate. I am honoured to represent a Somaliland community in Swindon. Building on the points made by right hon. and hon. Members about Somaliland’s strategic importance, and in particular its proximity to international shipping lanes, we all know that with British leadership under our good friend the noble Lord Hague, we led the way in dealing with piracy emanating from the horn of Africa. Is this not another opportunity for Britain to show leadership and recognise stable government in a region that is in pitifully short supply of such a quality?

Gavin Williamson

My right hon. and learned Friend is accurate in his assessment. Even though we are not yet in a position of recognising Somaliland, we already have that level of co-operation with Somalilanders. When I visited Somaliland as Defence Secretary, I saw at first hand the co-operation that British forces already had with Somaliland in protecting its coastal waters—and by doing so, keeping them safe for the international community.

Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)

I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate and commend the Government on the support they have been providing to the Administration in Somaliland. Liverpool Riverside has a long-established Somali community and Somalilanders. Will he join me in calling for the UK Government to support a binding referendum within two years to allow Somalilanders to express their democratic will, guaranteed by the international community?

Gavin Williamson

I am not sure whether you are an expert on Somaliland affairs, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is the opportunity for you to brush up on them. The hon. Lady makes an important point, but there has already been a referendum in Somaliland, and it was absolutely clear about the wishes of the Somaliland people: they want to see recognition, to be independent and to have that independent state. However, if that is a hurdle to establishing international recognition for Somaliland, the Somaliland Government may wish to look at that.

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)

The right hon. Gentleman has been extremely fortunate not only in the House allowing him a lot of time to debate this important topic but in the number of hon. Members in their places supporting him and the cause of Somaliland. Wembley has a huge Somaliland community of expatriates who have said to me that, in all likelihood, a new Somaliland would desperately want to join the Commonwealth. Does he agree with them?

Gavin Williamson

From my visit to Somaliland and my discussions with so many Somalilanders in the UK, I have a real sense of kinship between Somaliland, Britain and other Commonwealth nations. I think that Somaliland would very much want to join the Commonwealth, and I hope that the Commonwealth would welcome them with open arms.

Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I have the privilege of chairing the all-party group on Somaliland, and we have a large Somaliland community in Sheffield. The way he described the formation of what is currently legally Somalia was really interesting. Immediately on gaining independence, Somaliland was an independent country, and it voluntarily chose to enter into a union. The concerns about changing post-colonial boundaries do not apply in the case of an independent Somaliland; post-colonial boundaries, it was an independent country. The idea that Mogadishu now has any remit in Somaliland is a piece of nonsense, and it is time the Government recognised that.

Gavin Williamson

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The boundaries being proposed are exactly the same as those that were agreed between Britain, Italy, and Ethiopia, and with the French in numerous treaties prior to that. Somaliland is not asking for a change to the boundaries, as they are very much what was there in 1960. There are precedents when it comes to unwinding acts of union and confederacies. One need only look to the other side of Africa, at the confederation between Senegal and Gambia, which was unwound in the late 1980s. This is not unprecedented. We are suggesting going back and recognising what were well-established international boundaries that we ourselves recognised and drew up.

Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)

I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. The Defence Committee has just produced a report on the Navy and the importance of the sea in defence, and he mentioned his visits as Secretary of State for Defence. Does he agree that it is vital that we recognise Somaliland, given the strategic importance of the location in terms of defence?

Gavin Williamson

My hon. Friend is accurate in pinpointing the strategic importance of Somaliland. That is one of many reasons why it is so vital that not just Britain, but the United States and other NATO members lead the way in recognising Somaliland—not just because of the many brilliant things that have been done there, but because of the country’s strategic importance. The question is how we reinforce and support that Government.

John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)

If I may pursue that point, is it not desirable for a stable state in a region that is becoming increasingly unstable to achieve that level of recognition? We talk a lot about supply chain vulnerability; this is one of the most vulnerable places we have found. Even one ship blocking the Suez canal caused ripples right the way throughout industry. We should also recognise the importance of enabling communities here and in Somaliland to move freely, have passports that are recognised, conclude international agreements, and unleash the country’s energy. Having a properly administered state in the region would enable those communities to do those things. Is it not time that we grasped the nettle and recognised Somaliland?

Gavin Williamson

There is a level of consensus bubbling up that is not always typical of debates in this House. It is incredibly important to demonstrate the will and feeling of the House on this important issue. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about supply chains. DP World already invests in the port of Berbera, and the welcome investment from British International Investment—the old Commonwealth Development Corporation—amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds. The Government recognise the importance of Somaliland, and we are willing to invest hundreds of millions of pounds there, because we realise that it opens up so much of the horn of Africa to British goods and investment. However, we still do not recognise the state of Somaliland, which is a real tragedy. It is so sad to see that so many Somalilanders have difficulty travelling to Somaliland. They cannot fly direct from the UK, but have to go via either Addis Ababa or Dubai. By taking the step of recognising Somaliland, we can make so many British citizens’ lives easier.

Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate; the attendance shows the strength of feeling across the House. Does he agree that recognition can take several forms, and that the Government could take interim steps to show willing, and to demonstrate progress towards the formal recognition that we all want? That could include the Department for International Trade—or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which has responsibilities to DIT—channelling food and aid through Somaliland. That way, Somaliland will not be at the wrong end of the supply chain; it often ends up with a raw deal.

Gavin Williamson

That is absolutely correct. For so long, international development aid has been channelled through the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Government in Mogadishu, which sadly means that people in Somaliland have often not had the assistance that this Government expected them to get. A perfect example of that is vaccines. A large supply of vaccines was sent to the people of Somaliland, but it was channelled through the Government in Mogadishu. By the time it arrived in Somaliland, sadly, there was only a few days left in which to dispense most of the vaccines.

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I do not have any Somalis in my constituency, but I have a great love for the country because my ayah came from Somaliland when we lived in Aden. I remind the House that the Aden Protectorate and the Somaliland Protectorate were very closely linked; I remember my father flying over to Somaliland as part of the Aden Protectorate Levies when there was that close link. The people of Somaliland have a real affection for this country. That goes back a long time, and it would be absolutely right of our Government to encourage, support and allow Somaliland to be a real nation.

Gavin Williamson

We have seen the people of Somaliland pay a price for the defence of this nation in both the first and second world war. If people go to Somaliland, they can see the Commonwealth war grave cemetery. So many Somalilanders gave their life in defence of this country and beat fascism on the horn of Africa. We owe a debt of honour to the people of Somaliland, and should restore to them the freedom that they fought to preserve for us.

Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)

I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this debate, which has demonstrated an exceptional degree of unity across the House in support of his proposal. He makes a good point about the debt of honour that we owe to the people of Somaliland. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) highlighted that we have a strong community of people who owe their origins to Somaliland in our city. In recognition of that, the council passed a resolution in 2014 adding its voice to the demands for independence. Does the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) agree that the parliamentary and local elections held last year were another successful democratic moment in Somaliland, further reflecting the maturity and strength of democracy in the country, which is an essential building block for recognition of statehood, and which the Government should recognise?

Gavin Williamson

I do not often advocate that a Government should follow the leadership of Sheffield City Council, but on this occasion I certainly do. The Government should try to catch up with what that city council has been doing. So many communities—Sheffield, Liverpool, Cardiff, Bristol, Swindon; we could go on and on—have welcomed Somalilanders, and Somalilanders have made these great cities and great communities their home, and will continue to do so.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)

The right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated just how important this topic is to all of us here. Newport is home to the second-largest Somaliland community in Wales, and I want to place on record my thanks for the community’s amazing contributions to the city over the years. Has the right hon. Gentleman given any thought to how the devolved Governments can play a role in supporting the people of Somaliland as they continue to seek formal recognition?

Gavin Williamson

I strongly believe that this is a United Kingdom endeavour, in which we can all move forward in strengthening the bridges that already exist between the United Kingdom and Somaliland. Many steps have already been taken in municipal and devolved government to encourage the links between our great nations of the United Kingdom and Somaliland, but now is the time for the UK Government to take the lead—for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office not to be shy, and not to think that policy is stuck in the 1960s.

James Daly (Bury North) (Con)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing a debate on such an important subject. There has been unanimity this evening on the many reasons why we should recognise Somaliland, but does he, as a former Education Secretary, view and accept Somaliland as a champion of education in Africa for both boys and girls? We have heard about how the devolved Administrations and this Government can assist, develop and support Somaliland. In that context, the education system is not only something to be treasured, but perhaps a way in which we can provide support.

Gavin Williamson

One of the most precious things that a nation can have is democracy. That means justice, but it also means the education that we give our children. Those who have the privilege of visiting Somaliland will see both boys and girls being educated. There is no discrimination there; Somalilanders want to educate all, because they recognise that that is what will strengthen Somaliland for the future.

Mr Mitchell

My right hon. Friend has heard representations from people in a number of places where there are large Somaliland communities. Does he agree that the level of remittances to Somaliland from the diaspora is enormous? Some years ago, it was about six times the annual state budget. Perhaps, following this debate, the Minister could consult his officials on trying to make remittancing easier, so that there is more competition and lower charges, and the enormous Somaliland community in the United Kingdom can send money back through the remittancing structure without paying exorbitant fees.

Gavin Williamson

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of remittances going to Somaliland. This Government do not make that easier for people. Their view that Somaliland is locked in with Somalia makes it much more difficult for businesses to operate there, and to ensure that a flow of money from the diaspora community in this country goes back to Somaliland. The FCDO, working with Her Majesty’s Treasury, could take up this practical issue and consider how it could make improvements. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond to that point at the end of the debate.

Somaliland is a country that has incredibly proud links with our country. When we have been in need and have asked for help, it has responded by sending its young men to defend our values and our freedoms. In 1991, it emerged from years of subjugation to the regime in Mogadishu—from having so many citizens, including children, killed in cold blood—and it was able to establish its borders once more. It was able to put in place the structures for a legal system and elections. All across Africa, we are always asking for countries to have proper legal systems, to educate their boys and their girls and to ensure the establishment of democracy. In May last year, we saw the parliamentary elections in Somaliland. They were peaceful; they were calm; they were fair. We saw the roll-out of iris-recognition technology, the first use of that technology anywhere on the continent of Africa, to ensure that they were fair and properly run.

All that goes to show the maturity of this country. In Somaliland, we have seen different parties enter government and leave it without questioning the veracity of their opponents’ claim. Indeed, as I recall, one presidential election was won by a margin of 80 votes. That vote was accepted, and we saw a peaceful transition. I cannot help thinking that there are some western democracies where, if the margin was quite so close, there might have been a little bit more controversy than we saw within Somaliland.

Somaliland has been an amazing, shining beacon of everything we want to see flourish in Africa. It is the example we want others to follow, but it needs our help and our assistance, because around it are real challenges. To the south, in Somalia, we see the challenges of al-Shabaab. We see the disorder and difficulties in Ethiopia and some of the real security challenges in Djibouti.

Somaliland is a country that wants to be our friend. It is a country that turns to us and asks us to show leadership. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, instead of delivering the pre-prepared brief that no doubt every Foreign Office Minister has read out for the past 60 years, to show some guile, some leadership and some imagination—to show that he is a politician, not just a tool of Foreign Office officials to read their words. I have worked with him in the Whips Office; I saw some moments of merit.

As politicians, and as this House, we must show leadership on this issue. We must show our friends in Somaliland that we are willing to defend them as they have defended us. Even if the Minister cannot give us all the promises we would like to hear—even if he cannot say at the Dispatch Box today that we can recognise Somaliland—he needs to go away, sit down and work out how we take the next steps. We cannot spend another 30 years pretending that the reality on the ground, an independent Somaliland, does not exist because it is not on the Foreign Office map. We must respond to those realities. We must lead on foreign policy. We must show our Somaliland friends that we are there for them and that we will deliver for them—that we will not just talk about our history, but talk about how we can make history together in the future.

January 19, 2022
Keir Starmer – 2022 Keynote Speech on the NHS and Labour’s Health Contract

The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 18 January 2022.

Health Contract

Thank you everyone and good morning.

Two weeks ago, I set out the terms of Labour’s new contract with the British people.

To provide people with the security, prosperity and respect they deserve.

Today, I will concentrate on an aspect of security as I set out Labour’s contract for better health.

Two years ago, the pandemic struck.

As I speak, over 150,000 of our fellow citizens have lost their lives.

I am convinced that a swifter response by government could have reduced that number.

Covid affected every aspect of our lives. Children couldn’t go to school. Parents couldn’t get to work. We couldn’t see our families.

Covid is still affecting so many of us.

And the bravery and skill of health workers is helping to see us through.

The least we can do to show the respect they are owed is to ensure that we protect the National Health Service.

The NHS cannot look after us, if we do not look after it.

This is a political crusade for us in the Labour party.

The NHS is Labour’s proudest achievement in office.

As Bevan said when he introduced the National Health Service Act: The NHS would “lift the shadow from millions of homes”.

But this is also a personal crusade for me.

My wife works in our local hospital.

My sister is a care worker.

And my mum was a nurse in the NHS.

She took great pride in what she did all her working life.

But she was also, sadly, a long-term patient of the NHS.

I spent a lot of time as a child visiting my mum in hospital.

I have never forgotten – I never will forget – the care my mum received. The respect with which she was treated.

I want that level of care for everyone.

We all need the security of knowing that the NHS is there for us when we need it.

That will be what my contract will offer. And I cannot stress how badly it is needed.

Rather than concentrating on getting through the pandemic and bringing down waiting lists this self-indulgent Tory party is having a fight about a leader who they should have known from the start is not fit for office.

Boris Johnson is too preoccupied defending his rule breaking and as day follows night when it comes to the National Health Service you can never trust the Tories.

We are witnessing the broken spectacle of a Prime Minister mired in deceit and deception, unable to lead.

But while the Tories bicker and fight each other on whats app, I want to look to the future.

Because the NHS faces new challenges.

We are an ageing population a fact brutally exposed by a virus that hit the oldest the hardest.

We must devise new methods of care to help with long-term conditions.

We need to think about mental as well as physical health.

And we need to think not just about how we treat patients but about how we prevent them from falling ill in the first place.

The Present Crisis

But before we can think about the future we must attend to the present.

When Labour left office 12 years ago, the Conservatives inherited a strong NHS…

Waiting times were the shortest on record.

The overall mortality rate from cancer had fallen by 22%.

That proud record really puts the failure of the Tory years into sharp relief.

Today, NHS waiting lists are the highest since records began.

6 million people in England – more than one in nine – are waiting for consultations and operations.

I would imagine that most people in this room know someone who is either waiting for an operation on an eye, a hip or a knee. Or someone who is worried about the symptoms they are experiencing but cannot get an appointment to see anyone.

The Health Secretary has admitted this backlog is going to get worse.

And it is not good enough to blame all this on Covid.

This mess has been much longer in the making and this government has to bear the responsibility.

Waiting lists were the highest on record before the virus arrived.

Average life expectancy had stalled after decades of improvement.

And the health gap between the poorest and wealthiest parts of the country had increased.

And why are we in this mess?

Why have we got to this point, where the NHS itself is in a critical condition?

It’s not hard to work out what has gone wrong.

The NHS went into the pandemic short of 100,000 staff.

In social care, there were 112,000 vacancies.

Even before the pandemic, patients could not be discharged from hospital bed because there were too few places in social care and too few staff.

The consequences of 12 years of Tory failure are coming in.

This is what always happens with Tory governments.

It always ends this way.

And I am afraid it may well get worse yet.

The Conservatives said they would train more GPs.

The Health Secretary now admits he is not on track to meet that commitment.

These broken promises cost lives.

If there is no GP to go to people will end up going to hospital.

A&E departments become the front door of health and social care.

The first task of a Labour government would be to clear up the mess the Tories have made of the NHS.

The last Labour Government brought waiting times down from 18 months to 18 weeks.

We will need to do the same again.

People who can afford it, are paying to go private.

Those who can’t afford it are stuck in the queue, waiting for months, if not years, in pain and agony.

That cannot be right.

This is an issue about fairness, as much as it is an issue about health.

People should get treated faster via the NHS.

But it’s outrageous that people are being forced to spend more in the private sector simply because the Tories have run down the public sector.

That’s why the Labour government I lead will invest properly to bring down waiting lists.

We would start by recruiting, training and, crucially, retaining the staff we need.

We have a five-point plan for the transformation of social care.

We would make sure that every older and disabled person who needs care and support can get it when and where they need it.

We would act on the principles of prevention and early intervention; an approach we call “Home First”.

We would give disabled adults choice and control over their support.

We would establish a New Deal for Care Workers to ensure they get the job security they deserve, and the rewards they have earned.

And we would establish a new partnership with families to ensure they don’t put themselves at risk for looking after people they love.

And, as we repair and strengthen, we need to learn to live with Covid.

So that people can live their lives as normal supported by a strong health care system.

I don’t want a government ever again to have to place tough restrictions on our lives, our livelihoods and our liberties.

And I’m delighted to say that Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary will be setting out the details of our plan for living with Covid in the days to come.

New Problems

But the job will not be done once we have dealt with the immediate crisis.

It’s much bigger than that because health challenges are changing all the time.

In the first half of the 20th century polio, rubella, mumps, tuberculosis, and diphtheria were among the leading causes of death.

The NHS’s treat and cure model proved a remarkable success.

In the second half of the 20th century, these conditions were effectively wiped out.

In 1950, the average life expectancy was 69, today it is 81.

People live for much longer now with conditions that would once have killed them or which they would not have lived long enough to contract.

Many of the pressures on the NHS today are the result of our successes.

I am delighted we are an ageing society.

It’s wonderful that so many people live so long.

But an older society needs a different health system.

One that is as much about prevention as it is about cure.

That is a bit less about the community hospital and a bit more about the community.

A health system that is a bit less about the system and a lot more about the patient.

Many people feel insecure about whether the NHS will be there for them in the future.

I understand that anxiety: I share it.

In fact, it makes me more than anxious.

It makes me angry.

Angry that an important national institution is being allowed to decline.

Angry that this government has the opportunity to do something good but is instead doing nothing.

And angry that so many people who could be helped are suffering.

The shadow that Bevan said was lifting from so many homes is falling again.

So let me tell you what we would do to lift it.

How we would protect an NHS free at the point of use.

How we would secure health care for all.

It is obvious that the NHS needs more money.

But that is not all it needs.

Do not think that the NHS is automatically protected when more investment goes in.

The NHS also needs reform, so that it works in a different way.

We set the NHS up in 1948, to treat the diseases of 1948.

When we were last in government, we started to reform the NHS so that it was pointed more towards the patient so that it answered the needs of the time.

That renewal process has stalled because this government simply doesn’t care enough, if the NHS falls behind.

It will fall to us again to establish the changes that the NHS needs if it is to remain the great institution it has been for more than seven decades.

From Cure to Prevention

Let me give you a flavour of the change I have in mind.

It has been said many times that the NHS is a national sickness service rather than a truly National Health Service.

I see health as about more than hospitals and surgeries, as important as they are.

It is about the towns and cities where we grow up, the food we eat, our access to green spaces.

Health is about the air we breathe.

It is estimated that, every year in the UK, air pollution kills tens of thousands of people.

We would introduce a new Clean Air Act to tackle this silent killer.

Poor health affects our earnings, our relationships, and our sense of purpose.

And its effects are measured in lower productivity and higher crime, in family breakdown, and increased loneliness and depression.

Labour would make wellbeing matter as much as national economic output.

My preferred definition of well-being has been given by Angus Deaton, the winner of the Nobel prize: “all the things that are good for a person, that make for a good life”.

This is about treating people with basic respect.

So we would expect the Treasury under a Labour Government, to weigh every pound it spends not just for its effect on national income but also for its effect on national well-being.

A good example of a policy for well-being is supporting our mental health.

A Labour government would treat mental health as seriously as physical health.

We would guarantee mental health treatment in less than a month.

We’ll recruit over 8,500 more mental health professionals to support a million more people every year.

Every school will have specialist support.

Every community will have an open access mental health hub for young people.

Under Labour, spending on mental health will never be allowed to fall.

Stress, depression and anxiety account for 18 million workdays lost every year.

We know that the more secure people feel about their jobs the less likely they are to suffer from stress and be absent from work.

So we would expect employers to take wellbeing at work seriously.

Under Labour’s New Deal for Working People, people will have the security of knowing they have the right to paid leave for family emergencies.

Security and respect at work is good for workers.

It is good for families.

And a healthier workforce is good for the economy.

That is why I envisage a health service in the future which is under less strain because a healthier population needs it less.

Let me give you an example of prevention in action.

In the early 2000s, every pub you walked into was filled with smoke.

More than a quarter of all British adults smoked cigarettes.

Labour banned smoking indoors, as well as cigarette advertising.

Now just 14 per cent of adults smoke.

Reducing the number of smokers preventing countless people from needing treatment and it freed up beds in the NHS.

Just think of what more we could do.

We know that high blood pressure and cholesterol hit the poor hardest.

The consequences are cancers, heart failures, strokes.

Much of this can be prevented.

And usually the earlier you act, the better.

A community in which all are respected is itself a source of better health.

Because the connections we have in our communities are a form of security.

These bonds have been eroded over 12 years of Tory rule.

The social clubs, community centres, sports clubs, the green spaces, secure homes and safe streets.

These are all health policies.

There is a great example in Wigan.

Like most local authorities the Labour council in Wigan saw its budget slashed.

Its leadership responded with great imagination.

They decided to let the people decide the future of their own borough.

The people wrote the contract.

The Wigan Deal.

Which set out what both the people and the council would do.

Already, life expectancy in Wigan has increased.

On average, more than two years of good health have been added to people’s lives.

And early deaths from heart disease have fallen faster than elsewhere in the country.

This is what Labour in power can do.

This is, in fact, what Labour is doing in many councils all over the country.

And what the Labour government in Wales is doing too.

From Hospital To Home

I want the opportunity to add to this through central government.

Because the range of what we can do now is quite mind-boggling.

I was really struck by the power of progress recently.

Many years ago, my mum had her knees and her hips replaced, when she was in her 20s and 30s.

As was typical at the time, it took her six months to recover from the operation.

She couldn’t get out of bed for weeks.

By contrast, recently, a friend of mine had a hip operation, and he was on his feet the same day.

The improvement in care in our lifetimes has been amazing.

That’s what makes me optimistic about the NHS.

That’s why, for all the neglect of the Tories, and all the big challenges it faces I am still upbeat about its future.

We are still only beginning to explore what we might achieve.

There are technologies that can provide us with early warnings about the diseases we might be vulnerable to.

“Hospital at home” technologies allow patients to track and report their conditions with remote supervision.

We now have access to the most incredible array of information about ourselves.

Every day, algorithms are predicting our shopping choices.

Imagine how information like that could be gathered and the insights used for our health.

We can connect people with information and choices about their own health.

Which give people greater security and control of their health.

And that in turn makes us healthier, happier and more prosperous.

Conclusion: Only Labour

Sadly, the NHS is not getting better at the moment.

There is no plan.

No strategic thinking.

If the NHS is going to continue to look after us, then it has to change.

And only the Labour party has the permission to make that change.

We founded the NHS.

We understand it.

We have reason to be thankful for it.

I know I do.

We are not out of the woods yet.

The pandemic is by no means over.

But we should not make the mistake of thinking that once we get through Covid all will be well with the NHS.

It won’t.

We have a government that we cannot trust with a precious national resource.

Nearly three quarters of a century ago this party put into practice one of its cherished principles.

Health care, collectively provided, free at the point of use to embody the idea of equality.

It was a powerful idea then and it is a powerful idea now.

And every generation has to find its own way to carry the tradition on.

Because to prosper, we need the security of good health.

This is the health contract that we will sign with the British nation.

Item one, to tackle the immediate crisis to bring down waiting times by recruiting, training and retaining the staff we need.

Item two, to make mental health as important as physical health.

And item three, to shift the focus of health care to prevention as well as cure.

To build the communities that care for us.

To ensure that the NHS thrives.

To look after the NHS so it can look after us.

January 19, 2022