UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Brandon Lewis – 2012 Statement on the Business Rates Revaluation

    Brandon Lewis – 2012 Statement on the Business Rates Revaluation

    The statement made by Brandon Lewis, the then Minister of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 18 October 2012.

    I am today announcing the government’s intention to postpone the next business rates revaluation in England to 2017. Primary legislation will be brought forward through the Growth and Infrastructure Bill which will shortly be laid before Parliament.

    Business rates are the third biggest outgoing for local firms after rent and staff costs. This decision will avoid local firms and local shops facing unexpected hikes in their business rate bills over the next five years. As business rates are linked to inflation, there will be no real terms increase in rates over this period. This reform will provide certainty for business to plan and invest, supporting local economic growth.

    Since the last revaluation (based on 2008 valuations), the economy and property market have faced exceptional changes. A revaluation at this point would be likely to result in sharp changes to business rate bills in many parts of the country and in many sectors. Tax stability is vital to businesses looking to grow and help improve the economy.

    The government is committed to maintaining up to date rate bills through regular five yearly revaluations in England which will resume after 2017, once the economy has had a chance to recover fully from the financial and fiscal crisis this government inherited from the last administration.

    These measures complement the local retention of business rates being introduced through the Local Government Finance Bill which will give councils new incentives to support local firms and local shops, and also complements the new power to introduce local business rate discounts, the automation of small business rate relief and the abolition of the unfair ‘ports tax’ all enacted through the Localism Act 2011.

  • Brandon Lewis – 2012 Speech to the Chief Fire Officers Association Conference

    Brandon Lewis – 2012 Speech to the Chief Fire Officers Association Conference

    The speech made by Brandon Lewis, the then Minister of Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 20 September 2012.

    Introduction

    I am delighted to be here today in my second full week in my new job. I’d like congratulate Vij (Randeniya) on his election as the new CFOA President and thank Lee (Howell) for all his work as part of the presidential team.

    I would like to put on record my thanks to fire and rescue authorities for the important role they played in torch relays across the United Kingdom and during the Olympic and Paralympics Games.

    Although the role that fire and rescue authorities played has gone almost unnoticed in the public eye, the effort and resources which were put in place were greatly appreciated across Government. I am pleased that a number of fire and rescue authority staff who made a significant contribution in delivery of services will be receiving recognition in the form of a commemorative medallion.

    I’d also like to play tribute to Bob Neill, who I know had a deep understanding of the issues you face, a huge knowledge of the sector, and who worked closely with you on resetting the relationship between central and local government, devolving power and responsibility to the front line professionals, to communities and their local elected representatives – where it rightly sits.

    I am very pleased to have been given this brief and I look forward to working with you and your elected members in the coming weeks, months and, hopefully, years. I’m particularly pleased to say that my new brief maintains the link between fire and rescue and local government. Alongside my fire responsibilities I am also local government Minister. This is particularly important to me as I am a keen proponent of local determination on service delivery, on prioritisation and on spending decisions. Keeping the fire and local government link is vital in this and I am sure you will be pleased to hear that I intend to continue Bob’s good work here, embedding localism, continuing the integration of funding via the business rates system, and more importantly, getting out of the way to let you do what you do best.

    Fire prevention

    We will of course, continue to support you where it is appropriate. Thankfully, the number of fires and associated fatalities and injuries continue to fall. The latest statistics show fire deaths in the home have more than halved in the last twenty years – and fell 12 per cent last year.

    This is a fantastic achievement and the Fire Kills campaign is a great example of how effective a partnership between Government and local fire and rescue authorities can be. The campaign’s annual report for 2011/12 was published last week. It clearly demonstrates the range and impact of fire prevention activity being delivered by both the Department through its media campaign, and by its partners. The outstanding success of this campaign is, as you know, in large part due to the sterling, and often innovative, work undertaken at the local level to embed its fire safety messages with both the general public, and with those who may be especially vulnerable to the risks from fire.

    Ultimately, the commitment of you and your local partners to the prevention agenda saves lives and resources. It ensures that our communities are safer places, less exposed to the destruction and devastation caused by fire.

    The challenge must now be to maintain that clear focus on fire prevention, community safety and resilience. Working together allows us to deliver consistent safety messages, tailoring and targeting the campaign to maximise its effectiveness at the local level.

    Next month, the Fire Kills campaign will again be running the hugely successful national advertising campaign to encourage everyone to test that their smoke alarms are working when changing their clocks. I’m sure you’ll already be considering how best to support this at the local level.

    By working together we have the opportunity to really drive home the importance of fire safe behaviour and maintain the downward trend on fire deaths. Given its impact, I am committed to maintaining a high profile focus on community fire prevention and safety activity.

    Resilience

    Prevention activity doesn’t just relate to improving fire safety. We have a model for civil contingency delivery that fits with our views of localism: planning and action at local level based on local risks and with partners having local accountability to make your localities more resilient places.

    I know fire and rescue authorities are increasingly providing strategic leadership to local multi-agency emergency planning activity, with Chief Fire Officers chairing four of England’s 38 local resilience forums.

    This means fire and rescue authorities working with partners locally to better identify and mitigate complex resilience risks that could disrupt everyday life; including flooding, severe winter weather, disruption to fuel supplies or security threats. I hope, as I’m sure you do, that your role in responding to these types of emergencies is not called upon. But in my role as Minister for fire, resilience and emergencies I am keen to hear more about the good examples of the role of fire and rescue authorities in local multi-agency planning that strengthens our ability to quickly respond and recover from disruptive events.

    A clear vision for local delivery: the national framework

    At the very heart of the Government’s ambition is putting power back where it belongs – in communities and with the locally elected councilors who represent them.

    Fire and rescue authorities have been empowered with greater freedoms and flexibilities. You now have general powers of competence and an equivalent general power along with the ability to consult locally to allow charging for additional activities including the option for charging for persistent false reports. These are good examples of central Government stepping back and letting you get on with your job.

    The Fire and Rescue National Framework is currently proceeding through parliament, and will be fully in force in October this year. I’ve come to it new. But I like what I see. For me, it embodies the right approach; setting high level principles instead of detailed requirements – it’s ‘what’ not ‘how’. I am pleased to hear that CFOA has welcomed this document. I would also like to thank you for the support and advice I understand you gave to officials as part of the working group. I think we should all be proud of the Framework, one that moves away from prescription to empowerment, and one that clearly sets out three bold priorities for fire and rescue authorities to:

    identify and assess the full range of foreseeable fire and rescue related risks their areas face, make provision for prevention and protection activities and respond to incidents appropriately

    work in partnership with their communities and a wide range of partners locally and nationally to deliver their service; and
    be accountable to communities for the service they provide.

    It goes without saying that this includes the business community. I firmly believe that businesses have the right to expect that those enforcing regulatory compliance do so in accordance with the fundamental principles of better regulation. I know that CFOA are keen to address shortcomings in this area and to lead work at the local level to develop fire safety audit and enforcement responsibilities to reflect more closely the aspirations that businesses have. Essentially, this means for helpful, proportionate and consistent advice on compliance.

    Given that economic growth and business support is our number one priority, I commend you for your approach and look forward to a positive progression of this significant tranche of work.

    Our national resilience to major fire and rescue related risks remains a priority for government. But we can only do this together, through true partnership, working across all local and national responders.

    That is why we have put in place the Fire and Rescue Strategic Resilience Board, and it is already bringing key partners together to consider national resilience issues. Of course, government will continue to set the strategic direction, but our approach to national resilience must be based on and drawn from local capability alongside your professional expertise.

    We can only prepare effectively if we have an approach to resilience based on local expertise and knowledge. Communities rightly expect their local fire and rescue authorities to play their part in keeping the country safe; every major emergency originates as a local emergency and being able to plan effectively for all incidents and emergencies, irrespective of whether they are of a local, cross-border or national nature, is essential.

    In delivering for your communities, you need to engage them – give them a real understanding of the risks being faced and the full range of what you are doing so they can better understand why you make the decisions you do.

    We all know there are some increasingly tough decisions to be made on how best to allocate prevention, protection and operational resources locally – this needs to be done in a way that meets community aspirations in an open and consultative way.

    By giving communities a voice, you give them a choice:

    choice to make their views known on whether their priorities are the same as yours
    choice to come up with new ideas on service provision
    choice to challenge you on these issues

    Going further, we are today launching a consultation on assurance statements, a mechanism for showing the public how the services they provide are run by their authorities. I know that some of you have mixed feelings on such statements. But for me this is about demonstrating a commitment to greater openness, showing the taxpayer how their money (including council tax) is spent, enabling communities to hold their authorities to account over how they spend the public’s money and for the decisions that they make. And some of you are already doing it very well. Every aspect of council business – including the decisions they make for the delivery of fire and rescue – should be open to public scrutiny including senior pay, councillor expenses and local services.

    Economic context

    I am of course mindful of the financial backdrop we all face. We have taken tough decisions necessary to reduce the budget deficit that we inherited from the last administration. Every bit of the public sector needs to do its bit to help, and local government accounts for a quarter of the public sector.

    I value the incredibly important service that fire and rescue authorities deliver for local communities, and the part they play in national resilience. Despite the need to cut the national deficit, fire and rescue, as a frontline emergency service, has been given funding protection with reductions back-loaded to give more time for sensible savings to be made and reductions applied to fire and rescue authorities have been less than those applied to local authorities in general.

    You will know that we are currently consulting upon plans for 2013-15 funding as part of the business rates retention scheme – this consultation is due to close on the 24th of September and I know that many of you have already engaged in the process. I would urge those whose voices have not yet been heard to ensure they make their views known.

    I know that you are anxious to see what funding might look like from 2013, but I’m sure you will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the consultation, nor can I pre-empt the announcements on funding for 2013/14, which I expect to be made in December in the usual way.

    Despite the challenges, or maybe because of them, I know that you as the professional leaders for the fire and rescue sector are making great strides in efficiency. You have well established processes in place to use integrated risk management plans to make strategic and operational decisions on the siting of fire stations, the staffing and equipping of such stations, and hours of operation of each station. You are looking at your own service configuration to delivering services in a new environment. Some of you are looking at how you use your estate, I know for example that Merseyside are working with the police to share headquarters, that partners in the North West and partners in the South are sharing control rooms.

    Just last week I visited my local constituency fire and rescue authority, Norfolk, who updated me on their Combined fire and rescue, police and ambulance station in Sheringham which officially opened in January this year.

    Sharing buildings is also bringing collaboration on other matters, and I am sure that all of you are looking outside your own sector to see how the country’s national emergency services estate could be better used – sharing facilities and back office services. I know that you are increasingly working with the Ambulance Service and that inter-agency collaborations and interoperability are becoming increasingly important. I’m sure there are ways that we can work and share with the Ambulance Service and other partners and not only improve the services we deliver but also become more efficient.

    Engagement

    Well, in 2 weeks, you can imagine that I am only just scratching the surface of what your issues are. I have already met with Cllr Kay Hammond, who as you know is the new Chair of the Fire Services Management Committee. I outlined to Cllr Hammond that I want to strengthen my engagement with your elected politicians, and I have made clear that as well as having a more regular engagement with the FSMC, I will want to meet chairs and members of fire and rescue authorities. I know that as the professional leadership of the sector you will want to support your councilors in meetings with me.

    I also want to broaden my engagement with CFOA as the representative body for senior professionals. I will be meeting with your president, vice-president and vice-president elect. After this I want my engagement to be with the Board and the Council – I want to hear a broad range of views, and I will make time to engage with you on a regular basis and intend to get out and about visiting as many of your areas as possible.

    CFRA

    The National Framework specifically embeds the key role of the post of the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser who provides professional, independent advice both to senior officials and Ministers. The post was first created in 2007 with Sir Ken Knight filling the position since that time. However, earlier this year Ken indicated that, having completed five years, and with the Olympics behind us it was the right time to move on.

    Having served in Fire and Rescue for over 40 years, including positions as Chief Fire Officer of County, Combined and Metropolitan Fire Authorities as well as the Fire Commissioner for London, Ken has provided consistent and professional advice to my predecessors as he continues to give me. I have hugely valued his input in my first weeks.

    The Secretary of State and I recognise the value and importance of professional advice within the Department and therefore we will shortly be advertising for Ken’s successor whilst I am delighted that Ken has agreed to remain in post until the appointment is made. I hope that senior professionals will take an interest in the post, seeing it as an opportunity to utilise their knowledge and experience to support officials and Ministers.

    We will also be continue to provide opportunities for secondments from the sector to contribute professional views to the development of government policy and give individuals a chance to develop and to experience the workings of government. I hope you will see DCLG as a good place to send your brightest officers as a key part of their career progression.

    There will be other opportunities to say thank you to Ken but I wanted to place on record the Government’s appreciation for the support and advice he has given through the last challenging five years, and of course the previous 41 years in fire and rescue.

    Conclusion

    I hope that I have given you a clear indication of where my priorities lie. I recognise that there are tough times ahead but I believe fire and rescue authorities and Chief Fire Officers can provide the leadership needed to continue to deliver a trusted and excellent public service. A new and more collaborative national-local relationship provides an opportunity for fire and rescue authorities, and organisations like CFOA, to play an ever stronger part in setting the agenda and in keeping our communities and our nation safe. I look forward to working with you all. Fire and rescue services are hugely respected in the UK and have the ability to reach high.

    Thank you.

  • Simon Hughes – 2015 Speech to the Data Protection Practitioner Conference

    Simon Hughes – 2015 Speech to the Data Protection Practitioner Conference

    The speech made by Simon Hughes, the then Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties, in Manchester on 2 March 2015.

    Thank you for your introduction and for inviting me to join you at today’s conference.

    The issues around access to information matter hugely to people, and increasingly so.

    When private and personal data goes missing it is a matter of real concern to those affected.

    When data is misused, for example to make nuisance calls, it can cause real distress.

    When information is not managed effectively, for example in connection with the need to check the backgrounds of those working with children, it can lead to serious lapses of safety and security.

    When the public and the media cannot access legitimate information, for example about decisions made by the government, they are rightly frustrated.

    I am clear. And the Coalition government is clear. The issues you are discussing today, but deal with every day, matter to the public and can have a real impact on people’s lives.

    I want, therefore, to first thank you for all that you do in the fields where you work.

    The UK’s information rights regime is one of which we should be proud – and you can be proud of the advances which have been made.

    I want to take this opportunity to commend the Information Commissioner for his work, and all who work in the Office of the Information Commissioner for their work, particularly to make sure that individuals understand their right to information.

    The Information Rights Balance of Competences review which we recently conducted – and which some of you may have contributed to – confirmed that the Data Protection Act strikes a good balance between the interests of data controllers and data subjects.

    I am equally clear that there can be no room for complacency.

    As the Minister with responsibility for these issues for just over a year, I have been determined that there is no complacency in government.

    Every year, if not every month, brings a new technological advance.

    Last week I celebrated the 32nd anniversary of my election as an MP in 1983. In that time I have seen a transformation in how I communicate with my constituents and the way their information – often hugely personal and highly sensitive – is managed. Those changes have brought huge benefits and helped me to improve, I hope, the way I can serve my constituents as their MP. I am now an email or a tweet away, rather than a letter or a surgery appointment away – although of course these methods of engagement continue. I can direct constituents to sources of government information on the internet which previously would have been available only by post or on the end of an agency’s helpline, often with a lengthy wait. Our systems are now cloud-based.

    The Internet of Things will transform our lives in ways we cannot imagine.

    And each of these advances brings with it new and ever more difficult issues of privacy and data protection.

    It is our job to meet the challenge of safeguarding personal data, whilst also facilitating its use and flow.

    Let me give you just four brief examples which I imagine you are all aware of which show how we are meeting that challenge.

    First, just last month, we have taken a really important step to widen the protection of data by passing legislation that will extend the Information Commissioner’s powers of compulsory audit to public authority NHS bodies.

    This now allows the Information Commissioner to undertake mandatory ‘spot-checks’ on specified NHS data controllers.

    In practical terms, this means that the ICO can now work with data controllers in the NHS to rectify problems at an earlier stage. He can now carry out inspections when he deems it necessary.

    The reforms should encourage NHS bodies to improve their compliance with the data protection framework. These changes should also go some way towards improving public confidence in the ability of NHS bodies to protect sensitive personal data.

    This is just one example of how government has worked with the ICO and stakeholders to improve data protection legislation.

    The second example is one that I am particularly pleased about, as it fulfils a promise I made at this conference last year.

    I said then that the government intended to end the practice of enforced subject access.

    I am pleased to say that legislation to make this a criminal offence will come into force on 10 March. From this date, it will be a criminal offence for any employer to ask a prospective employee to submit a personal data request and then disclose the results to them in order to obtain employment or secure services.

    Of course, appropriate safeguards are in place which make it possible to access an individual’s criminal records where it is legitimate to do so. The relevant sections of the Police Act 1997 now provide an appropriate statutory regime for employers and others to obtain criminal records across the UK without the need to resort to the practice of enforced subject access requests.

    This is a really important reform which I know will be welcomed by employees.

    A third example is the government’s efforts to protect individuals’ rights in the work we are doing in conjunction with industry bodies, consumer groups and regulators to tackle the menace of nuisance calls.

    Nuisance calls can be an annoyance to all of us, but for the vulnerable and elderly they can be genuinely distressing. The government takes this issue seriously. We have made some progress in this area and we are working hard to target those companies which operate outside the boundaries of the law.

    I am pleased to say that legislation will now come into force on 6 April that will make it easier for the ICO to take enforcement action against rogue businesses which breach the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations.

    The new legislation will make sure that the ICO will only need to prove a company has breached the rules, rather than as is the case now, having to find evidence of significant harm and distress from unsolicited communications.

    This is a welcome step in a raft of measures aimed at tackling nuisance calls. The Claims Management Regulator is also working hard, in partnership with others such as the ICO and Ofcom, to address the challenges posed by rogue claims companies.

    We have given the Claims Management Regulator new powers to impose financial penalties on claims companies which break the rules. That includes using information gathered by unlawful unsolicited marketing. We have also introduced tough new rules, requiring claims companies to make sure that when they contact consumers to offer claims services, they do so within the legal boundaries. These changes show that we are committed to strengthening individuals’ data protection and privacy rights.

    My fourth and final example demonstrates the other side of the coin – our determination to open up access to information to which the public has an absolute right.

    I know that Tony Blair has described the Freedom of Information Act as his biggest regret and, in his autobiography, called himself an imbecile and a nincompoop for introducing it, but I don’t agree.

    I think it has been a hugely significant reform that has helped throw open the curtains and let in much needed light on government and public bodies, the decisions of which affect all aspects of people’s lives. Those should be open to full and proper scrutiny – and I will always be a strong promoter of FOI.

    I am therefore particularly pleased last month to have been able to take through an Order in Parliament to extend the FOI Act to Network Rail.

    This measure will give the public an enforceable right to access a wide range of information about the operation, maintenance and development of the rail infrastructure. It brings more than £3.5 billion of public spending every year into the light. Not only does this include Network Rail’s work to maintain and develop the rail network, but it also includes its operation of key railway stations, provision of light maintenance depots, and allowing train-operating companies to use its tracks and stations. It also covers information about corporate issues which relate to the discharge of these functions, such as pay and rail safety.

    Network Rail joins 100 other bodies that have been brought within the scope of FOI by the coalition government.

    I believe there is further to go. I want to see all public service delivered by the private sector put on an equal footing and subject to FOI – they are, after all, being paid for by the taxpayer. There is not coalition agreement on that as of today, but I will continue to press for it until there is.

    Those are my four examples.

    Extending the Information Commissioner’s powers of compulsory audit to public authority NHS bodies.

    Ending the practice of enforced subject access.

    New powers to tackle the menace of nuisance calls.

    Extending Freedom of Information.

    I could go on with many others, but I think those four alone are evidence of our determination to strike that balance between facilitating the use and flow of data yet safeguarding personal information.

    So let me conclude by looking ahead.

    I am clear, and the government is clear, that the absolute priority for 2015 is to reach an EU-wide agreement on a new a new data protection framework.

    We must have an updated data protection act that meets the needs of the 21st century.

    We have to strengthen the information rights framework.

    We have to do so in a way that both protects personal data and facilitates economic growth.

    And that means doing so in a way that respects individuals’ rights to privacy without being too prescriptive or costly for business.

    We have already made progress in those negotiations and there have been many changes made to the European Commission’s original proposals, published in January 2012.

    New elements of the data protection regulation which have been revisited include: ‘the right to be forgotten’, 24 hours breach notifications, a cross- EU regulatory one-stop shop and mandatory data protection impact assessments.

    We have made good progress in negotiating these and other parts of the Regulation.

    In particular, we have worked hard to ensure that the original text, which was too prescriptive and process driven, is now more balanced so that data protection obligations on business are proportionate to the degree of harm of the processing activity.

    Many of you here today have helped us with our negotiations.

    You may have met with my officials to engage in the details of the new proposals; or you may have raised your concerns by writing to my office and meeting with MEPs.

    With your help we will continue to negotiate for a sensible and proportionate data protection framework which protects civil liberties while allowing for economic growth and innovation in the digital economy. These can and should be achieved in tandem, rather than at the expense of one another.

    With your help, I will continue to do all I can to make sure that the UK plays a full part in the negotiations ahead so we can meet that commitment we have made to secure agreement on the new package by the end of 2015.

    Thank you again for all that you do.

    These are exciting and challenging times for everyone involved in this area of work.

    Our shared goal is an information rights framework that is easy to understand, easy to apply and is effectively regulated

    To achieve that, let us all continue to support the good work that is being done by the ICO and others in this area.

    Thank you for inviting me to join you today.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on the Rough Sleeping Accommodation Programme Funding

    Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on the Rough Sleeping Accommodation Programme Funding

    The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 18 March 2021.

    Today, the Government are launching the next phase of the rough sleeping accommodation programme. Councils across England are invited to bid for a share of funding totalling £212 million for 2021-22 to 2023-24 to deliver move-on homes for rough sleepers. These homes will be a national asset to support vulnerable people, and high-quality support services will be provided alongside to help vulnerable people move on from rough sleeping.

    This funding is part of the £433 million rough sleeping accommodation programme available over the lifetime of this Parliament to deliver 6,000 new homes for rough sleepers, announced by the Government in May 2020. This represents the largest ever investment in move-on accommodation. Today’s announcement builds on the first year of the programme, in which the Government allocated more than £150 million for move-on accommodation for rough sleepers, as well as investing in high-quality support over the next three years, so that vulnerable people helped through the programme can maintain their tenancies and move on from rough sleeping.

    Further information on future years of the programme is available in the fund’s prospectus, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rough-sleeping-accommodation-programme-2021-24.

    The Government have made clear that no one should be without a roof over their head, which is why we have committed to end rough sleeping. That is also why, including this programme, we have spent £700 million in 2020-21 and are spending over £750 million over the next financial year to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.

    This programme builds on the Government’s unprecedented Everyone In initiative, which has so far supported 37,000 individuals during the pandemic, with more than 26,000 already successfully moved on to longer-term accommodation. Together with our pledge to fully enforce the Homelessness Reduction Act, this funding demonstrates our commitment to making the most of this opportunity to transform the lives of the some of the most vulnerable in society, and to ending rough sleeping for good.

  • Priti Patel – 2021 Statement on Refugee Protection and Integration

    Priti Patel – 2021 Statement on Refugee Protection and Integration

    The statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 18 March 2021.

    Global Britain has a proud record of helping those fleeing persecution, oppression or tyranny from around the world. In addition to providing £10 billion each year to support people in need through overseas aid, the UK is a global leader in refugee resettlement. Between 2016 and 2019 we resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any EU member state.

    In 2015, we committed to resettle 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees who fled the brutal conflict in Syria through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme (VPRS). This included people requiring urgent medical treatment, survivors of violence and torture, and women and children at risk.

    Today we are delighted to be able to confirm that we have now met that commitment. We have resettled 20,080 vulnerable refugees across the UK since September 2015.

    In total, this means that, across all Government-funded resettlement schemes, more than 25,000 refugees have been resettled in the UK over the past six years, around half of whom were children.

    This achievement has been made possible thanks to the outstanding work and dedication of many partners, including non-governmental organisations in the UK and international partners, community and faith groups, local authorities, devolved Administrations and individual members of the public. I am truly grateful for this collaborative effort.

    Resettlement is vital to safely and legally provide a path to settlement for vulnerable people fleeing persecution and it is right that we continue to offer safe pathways for those in need of protection. The launch of our new global UK resettlement scheme will now build on the success of previous schemes and we will continue our proud record of resettling refugees who need our help from around the world.

    We want refugees in the UK to have the freedom to succeed and that means access to the tools they need to become fully independent, provide for themselves and their families and the ability to contribute and integrate into the economic and cultural life of the UK.

    That is why today I have also announced £14 million of funding to help newly granted refugees to integrate in the UK. The £14 million fund will pilot new approaches across the country to support newly granted refugees to learn English, move into work, access housing and build links in their local communities. Lessons learned from these pilots will inform future support available to all refugees.

    This Government continue to step forward to provide help to those facing oppression or tyranny. This year we have also introduced a new pathway to citizenship for British national (overseas) status holders and their family members who are facing draconian new security laws in Hong Kong, which may see an estimated 320,000 people come to the UK over the next five years.

    We have also enabled over 29,000 close relatives of refugees to join them in the UK through refugee family reunion in the last five years.

    Looking ahead, as we reform the asylum system, global Britain will continue its proud tradition of providing safe haven to those in need through safe and legal routes.

  • Paul Scully – 2021 Statement on Horizon and the Post Office

    Paul Scully – 2021 Statement on Horizon and the Post Office

    The statement made by Paul Scully, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 18 March 2021.

    Problems with the Post Office’s Horizon IT system have affected the lives and livelihoods of many postmasters.

    Over the years, the Horizon accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash in branches. The Post Office at the time thought that some of these were caused by postmasters, and this led to dismissals, recovery of losses by Post Office Ltd and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions.

    A group of 555 of these postmasters, led by former postmaster Alan Bates, brought a group litigation claim against the Post Office in 2016. It is clear from the findings of Mr Justice Fraser, just how wrong the Post Office was in its relationship with postmasters and that there were clear failings with the Horizon system.

    The Government pay tribute to those postmasters and colleagues across the House who continue to shine a spotlight on such an important issue.

    The Post Office reached a full and final settlement with claimants in the group litigation in December 2019 and apologised for its past failings. That settlement was an important step towards addressing the wrongs of the past, but it was only the start of a long journey for the Post Office to repair and strengthen the relationship with postmasters.

    As part of the settlement the Post Office agreed to set up the historical shortfall scheme. The scheme was open to current and former postmasters who did not participate in the group litigation claim against the Post Office and did not have a criminal conviction, but who may have experienced and repaid Horizon shortfalls. It is therefore an important step in making sure that all those who were affected have the opportunity to seek resolution.

    The scheme closed in August 2020 and received over 2,400 applications. This number was higher than the Post Office had anticipated when the scheme was established. All of these applications of course need to be properly assessed.

    The Post Office is committed to the successful delivery and timely completion of the historical shortfall scheme. However, the cost of the scheme is beyond what the business can afford.

    The Government will therefore provide sufficient financial support to the Post Office to ensure that the scheme can proceed, based on current expectations of the likely cost. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is providing this support in his capacity as sole shareholder in the Post Office.

    There are two reasons this is being done.

    First, we must ensure that those postmasters who have applied to this scheme are able to seek redress. By supporting the scheme, we will make it possible for these postmasters to be fairly compensated.

    Secondly, we must protect the post office network. As we have seen through the pandemic, it provides essential services to citizens across the country.

    Without this support the Post Office would be unable to deliver fully the historical shortfall scheme and it would be unable to continue to operate its network as we know it today. This is a critical intervention that benefits current and former postmasters and the millions of customers that rely on their local post office branch.

    The final cost of delivering the historical shortfall scheme will be determined over the coming months, including through the work of an independent panel. This support will ensure that postmasters are appropriately compensated, however we will not spend more of taxpayers’ money than is necessary to ensure the scheme meets its objectives.

    The Post Office is rightly contributing what it can from its own resources to the delivery of the scheme.

    While it is important that the scheme remains independent of Government it is also important that this shareholder support delivers value for money. The Government are confident that the controls in place in the design of the historical shortfall scheme will make sure this is the case.

    The Post Office will make the first offers to applicants shortly. However, given the number of applications it will take time to work through all the claims that the Post Office has received. The Government would therefore like to thank postmasters in advance for their patience and reassure them that their claims will be properly handled.

    The Horizon dispute has affected the lives of too many people and supporting the scheme operated by the Post Office will help them right the wrongs of the past.

    We must also ensure that a situation like this can never be allowed to occur again. That is why this Government have asked Sir Wyn Williams to lead the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry.

    Sir Wyn’s inquiry will work to fully understand what happened, gather available evidence and ensure lessons have been learnt so that this cannot occur again. It will also look specifically at whether the historical shortfall scheme is being properly delivered. The Government look forward to receiving Sir Wyn’s report in the summer.

  • Christopher Pincher – 2021 Speech on Public Landmarks Review

    Christopher Pincher – 2021 Speech on Public Landmarks Review

    The speech made by Christopher Pincher, the Minister for Housing, in the House of Commons on 18 March 2021.

    May I begin by congratulating both my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on securing this debate and the other Members who have spoken on their excellent, sincere and considered contributions? I always listen with great care and attention to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and, as far as I am able, I always do what I can to achieve his objects. No one, either, would ever question my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for being anything other than punchy and patriotic in the pursuit of his constituents’ interests.

    The starting point, and the end point, for this Government is that it is our duty to protect our nation’s history, traditions and heritage. We believe that our history shapes us, that we are poorer if we seek to deny that history, and that the right approach to statues and other public landmarks, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) attested, however contentious they may be to some, is to retain and, if it is appropriate, to explain them to enable better public understanding and respect.

    Many Members, today and in previous debates in the House, have spoken proudly of the tradition that we have in this country of commemorating individuals with statues to acknowledge their contributions to society, whether at local or national level. Those erected by local communities can be a lasting and shared source of local pride. Frank Whittle, the inventor of the jet engine, is commemorated in Coventry, where he is from, and in Lutterworth, Rugby and a number of other places around our country. Edith Cavell’s memorial near Trafalgar Square was erected by public subscription, as was the statue in my own town, Tamworth, to Sir Robert Peel, a man who repealed the corn laws, emancipated the Catholics, founded the police—a force for liberal good in our country, even though last year there was a flurry on social media to pull him down.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington spoke about his concerns at the action of the Mayor of London in setting up his commission for diversity in the public realm, with the purported intention of increasing the representation of London’s great and diverse communities in its built environment, but the real aim of which seems to be to airbrush the past and demolish public monuments to our history. Certainly, its composition is concerning—as my hon. Friend suggested, one member has already been forced to resign—and although I have written to the Mayor about its true cost and its true intentions, he has yet to reply to me, so I share my hon. Friend’s concerns.

    Marco Longhi

    Does the Minister therefore agree that the £1.1 million that the Mayor purportedly intends to spend on his commission for statues should be spent on better supporting Londoners at this very difficult time, and that the Leader of the Opposition should direct the Mayor to do exactly that?

    Christopher Pincher

    I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who of course has a statue to the Earl of Dudley looking over his town in the west midlands. The Leader of the Opposition should take his Mayor in hand, but I am afraid that I must borrow from Euripides, who famously said that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. If Euripides were with us today, he would probably say that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make members and leaders of the Labour party, because the leader of the Labour party has gone mad. He has been captured. He is a POW—a prisoner of woke. I trust that he will be released so that he can direct his friend the Mayor of London to pay greater attention to Londoners, because it will be for them, ultimately, to judge whether that £1.1 million of public expenditure is spent on statue destruction, or whether the Mayor might better spend his time and the public’s money trying to put up more homes for Londoners rather than pull down their statues in public parks.

    I suspect that the Mayor’s real interest is to distract us and draw our attention away from his lamentable failure to build a better future for Londoners. To borrow from Churchill—by the way, his statues are going nowhere—Sadiq Khan is a very modest Mayor with much to be modest about. Let me be quite clear: his lopsided commission has no mandate to advocate for the removal of existing statues. The Government’s policy is that historic statues should be retained and explained rather than removed, and any such proposed removal of an historic statue should rightly be, and will be, subject to planning permission or listed building consent.

    Sir John Hayes

    And, I hope, to acclaim. In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on securing the debate, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to support the idea that I advanced of more plaques and statues, particularly for winners of the VC and GC, who, by the way, are drawn from all ethnicities?

    Christopher Pincher

    I am always prepared to recognise the honour done for us by those great men who won the Victoria Cross, from wherever they hailed, and I certainly hope that more plaques to their memory are forthcoming.

    By doing the things that we are proposing to do, we will give the whole community—not simply the self-loathing, Britain-hating perpetual revolutionaries who seem to have captured the commanding heights of the Labour party, but the whole community—the opportunity to engage and to give their views. Additionally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the power to call in planning applications, and he has set out his intention to exercise that power if appropriate.

    It is clear from the contributions in this debate and in the wider public discourse that, with the passing of time and changing values in society, there will be examples of those who have had statues erected to them whose own story—and perhaps their family’s—is complex. Many statues and other historical objects were created by generations with different perspectives on right and wrong from our own. Some of what they believed to be virtues, we now believe to be vices. But it is better—far better—to remember that history, reflect that not everyone in the past was perfect, and retain that history and its monuments, so that we can all better understand it, not destroy it as the Marxist, wokeist ideologues would insist on.

    We have a proud and rich history. Britain led the way in the abolition of slavery; we were foremost in abolishing it. The Royal Navy was one of the seminal forces sweeping it from the seas. So when we hear of those who argue that some public memorials are an abomination and that statues of people who profited from the transatlantic slave trade should be taken down, this Government’s clear view is that doing so is quite misguided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington asked, where does that misguided logic end? Are we to take down the statue of Julius Caesar from Tower Hill, for we can be pretty sure that he brought slaves with him in 54 BC and doubtless carried away a few enslaved ancient Britons when he left? Do we want the Elgin marbles taken down and hidden away because they appear to deny the existence of slavery in ancient Greece? That is where that logic leads, but where does it end?

    Our view of retaining and, where right, explaining is shared by Historic England, the Government’s advisory body on the historic environment. If we remove difficult and contentious parts of our heritage, we risk harming our own understanding of our collective past; yet that is where some of these book burners of the internet age are set on going. Ours is a great country with a proud and illustrious heritage of democracy, freedom and rule of law, and that is why we do not gloss over any failures in our past, nor seek to destroy the historic heritage that can help us understand those failures.

    I am pleased to update the House on the changes that the Government are bringing forward to ensure the protection of our heritage. The planning system plays a crucial part in conserving and enhancing our heritage. I am pleased to tell the House that under the changes coming into effect in the spring, any proposals to remove an unlisted public landmark will require an application for planning permission, giving communities the right to be consulted. We are also introducing notification requirements to ensure that the Secretary of State is made aware of any contentious applications and has the opportunity to exercise his call-in powers if he considers that appropriate

    History, by its nature, can be contentious. But rest assured: the Government will act to ensure that our national heritage is protected from those who would seek to remove or deface it. The Spanish philosopher, Jorge Santayana, wrote in his “The Life of Reason”—and Churchill often quoted him—

    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

    For the sake of our remembered history, so that we do not repeat it—and, please, for the sanity of the Labour party—let us agree to remember and explain our past, not seek to destroy it.

  • Gareth Bacon – 2021 Speech on Public Landmarks Review

    Gareth Bacon – 2021 Speech on Public Landmarks Review

    The speech made by Gareth Bacon, the Conservative MP for Orpington, in the House of Commons on 18 March 2021.

    Britain is under attack—not in a physical sense, but in a philosophical, ideological and historical sense. Our heritage is under direct assault. There are those who seek to call the very sense of what it is to be British today into question. Attempts are being made to rewrite our history, indoctrinate our children with anti-British propaganda and impose an alternative worldview.

    Our institutions have been undermined. Attempts have been made to sully the reputations of towering figures from British history because the views of their time may not conform to today’s values. The rise of the power, reach and influence of social media in recent years has been highly influential, increasing the pace and spread of what is a broadly left-wing, anti-British, anti-western and anti-capitalist rhetoric. A domino phenomenon is being witnessed as a succession of national institutions and organisations accept, seemingly without question or critical analysis, the new orthodoxy.

    The new orthodoxy has become colloquially known as the woke perspective. In modern day Britain, the woke viewpoint includes attacking the historical concept of Britain by reinterpreting British history in a slanted and decontextualised manner, using modern viewpoints and value judgments. In woke eyes, the British empire is no longer seen as a modernising, civilising force that spread trade, wealth and the rule of law around the globe. Instead, it is viewed as a racist, colonialist, oppressive force than invaded sovereign foreign countries, plundered them and enslaved people en masse.

    Great British heroes such as Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson and Sir Winston Churchill, who were until comparatively recently almost universally regarded in a highly favourable light, now have their reputations besmirched.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. When we record greatness, we celebrate men and women who are inherently imperfect. When I look at Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, I honour what Churchill represented: duty, fortitude and an unwavering belief that when we British stood together, we could not be defeated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these are worthy of celebration and honour today, and that by tearing them down we make no statement other than that we will not acknowledge our past, which makes me fear for our future?

    Gareth Bacon

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I agree with him unreservedly. I would also like to acknowledge the honour of being intervened on by him. I gather this is a rite of passage for any Member of Parliament: you are not really a Member of Parliament until you have been intervened upon by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so I am very grateful to him.

    Britain, a small country on the north-western edge of the European continent that led the world in the fields of science, industry, democracy, trade, law, the arts and much more besides, and that stood and fought, often for long periods alone, for freedom against European tyranny in the shape of Napoleon and Nazism and successfully opposed Soviet Communism, is reinterpreted in the woke perspective solely as a slave-owning force of oppression and evil. The slanted views of the woke perspective focus firmly on the past. Its preoccupation is with rewriting that past in order to alter the present. By rewriting Britain’s long and varied history to focus solely on slavery, without any acknowledgement of Britain’s huge role in stamping it out, the woke perspective seeks historical justification for its ideological belief that modern Britain is inherently racist, with an entirely shameful past.

    Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that woke activists are of course entitled to their views, and to express them, but that they are not entitled to impose those views as though they were in any way authoritative or unchallengeable? Does he agree that that is an arrogant and divisive standpoint to take?

    Gareth Bacon

    I agree with my hon. Friend. In any mature democracy, the right to hold alternative views and to express them is unchallengeable. However, what I do not think is unchallengeable is an attempt to stamp out contrary views, to cancel people, to bully and intimidate them and to make them fear for their safety simply because they have an alternative view.

    This woke view of our nation’s history fails to recognise the open, tolerant and global Britain that is a force for good in the world—a champion of democracy, equality, peace and prosperity that was forged in the empire. Its mission is to destroy the accepted sense of Britain in order to impose a countervailing ideological perspective, because if it delegitimises the one, it is possible to legitimise the other. Of course, there is no better way to achieve this than to topple the towering heroes on which British history balances. For example, left-wing efforts to paint Churchill as a racist are an attempt to warp our country’s memory of the second world war.

    It is against this backdrop that we see a sudden push from some quarters to question the legitimacy of the statues, monuments and even the road names of certain parts of our country. Chief among them, of course, is London. Our capital city has always been the political, governmental, financial and cultural centre of our country. It therefore has many historic monuments. Unfortunately for London, it also has a Mayor who has never wasted a moment in ingratiating himself with woke activists.

    Within days of the protests in central London last summer, Sadiq Khan announced that he would create a commission for diversity in the public realm. Staggeringly, for a man who constantly pleads poverty when it comes to carrying out his core functions of building houses, running the transport system or keeping people safe on the streets, Sadiq Khan has set aside £1.1 million of taxpayers’ money for this exercise. He claims that the commission is about putting up more monuments of historically significant black and ethnic minority figures and to aid public understanding. This indeed is a worthy aim, but he rather let the cat out of the bag when asked last June whether he thought the commission would lead to statues being removed, and he said, “I hope so.”

    The Mayor’s desire to rewrite history is underlined in the application pack for people aspiring to be on the commission. In it, the Mayor states:

    “Our statues, street names, memorials and buildings have left a distorted view of the past.”

    He goes on to call for the commission to:

    “Further the discussion into what legacies should be celebrated.”

    The terms of reference for the commission stated that there would be:

    “A fair and transparent recruitment process resulting in a group of 15 Commission Members in addition to the two Co-Chairs with broad-ranging knowledge, expertise and lived experience relevant to the work of the Commission.”

    Anyone who takes that at face value is either spectacularly naive or they have not been following the development of Sadiq Khan’s mayoralty.

    In February, the membership of the commission was announced, and it is fair to say that it removed any pretence that it would produce an impartial and objective historical world view. One of the commissioners has already been forced to resign for antisemitic comments he made in the past. Of the remaining commissioners, one has said:

    “The UK is evil. It is the common denominator in atrocities across the world and is responsible for white supremacy everywhere.”

    Another said:

    “Boris Johnson is an out and out complete”—

    he then uses an obscene four-letter word beginning with c —“who is overtly racist.” He goes on to express support for defunding the police. A third claimed last year that:

    “The concept of race was created by white people in order to give them power over non-white people.”

    When setting this commission up, the Mayor claimed:

    “The membership will be representative of London’s diversity.”

    Diversity of what? Certainly not diversity of thought or of political opinion. These people are hand-picked, hard-left political activists. Sadiq Khan is playing an irresponsible and dangerous game by establishing a new commission to tear down London’s landmarks. The Mayor expects this to be an easy, virtue-signalling public relations win, but his decision has created division and inflamed tensions in the capital. A recent poll conducted by YouGov found that 42% of Londoners oppose the plans, compared with 38% who are in favour of them.

    An e-petition calling for the protection of all historical statues and monuments has attracted more than 35,000 signatures of support. Shaun Bailey, Mr Khan’s Conservative opponent in the forthcoming London mayoral election, commented:

    “The Mayor has driven wedges between communities…With his diversity commission, he’s trying to re-write British history, but he does not have the expertise or the authority to do this.”

    He is completely correct.

    One of my constituents wrote to me, and I will quote what he said at length. He said:

    “I originated from Pakistan and my late Father was born in India. I am very concerned about how the identity politics and cancel culture is being promoted. I fully support those who have raised their concerns about Mr Khan’s initiative about changing the names of London roads and dismantling historic statues and monuments.

    There are no other nations or countries which will wipe out or bring disrepute to their empires or Kingdoms and will actively degrade their heroes. History is history and let it not punish our present!”

    He continues:

    “If we study the…British Empire, the British left a huge legacy throughout its vast empire. The British made a chain of Universities and medical colleges, the world’s best irrigation system, it introduced a new structure of administration and introduced democracy in the Subcontinent. It built modern infrastructure including railway tracks, bridges and railway stations. Moreover Britain has welcomed people from North, South, East and West and we must teach patriotism in our schools.”

    Whether we like it or not, there are many very good, some bad and a few ugly elements in Britain’s past, and it is a complicated picture, filled with imperfect heroes. The notion that historical figures should be judged by today’s standards will eliminate every British hero this country holds dear. Will Sadiq Khan topple Churchill for his support for the British empire? Will Admiral Nelson fall for living in a time when slavery existed? Will Sir Francis Drake, Oliver Cromwell, King James II, Lord Kitchener and William Gladstone be erased, and their contributions to British history forgotten, because they were flawed characters? Where do we draw the line? Should Gandhi’s statue be removed because he believed Indians were racially superior to Africans? Will Karl Marx’s tomb be destroyed because of his deeply held antisemitism? Should Egypt’s pyramids and Rome’s colosseum fall because they were built by slaves and those civilisations profited from that abhorrent trade?

    This is why Sadiq Khan was wrong to jump on this latest virtue-signalling bandwagon. His decision to tear down statues in London risks encouraging left-wing mobs to topple statues themselves and far-right mobs to take to the streets to protect them. The events of last summer are proof of that. Instead of posturing in this way, the Mayor should take a long, hard look at his record of failure, which has left communities behind in London. After five years at the helm of City Hall, it is time he took his fair share of responsibility for the challenges and inequities that exist in London today. On his watch: violent crime soared to record levels and murder reached an 11-year high; only 17,000 affordable homes have been completed in five years; 22 major transport upgrades that could regenerate communities have either been delayed or cancelled; and Crossrail is three years late and £4 billion over budget, and Transport for London has lost £2 billion in fares income it would otherwise have accumulated.

    The sad truth is that London is saddled with a Mayor who is not especially interested in the core functions of his role. There is no virtue he will not signal, no passing bandwagon he will not jump on and no gallery he will not play to in his never-ending attempt to ingratiate himself with the latest trend on Twitter. Pandering to woke activists in this way is deeply disturbing. These moves are illegitimate and dangerous. They will do nothing for inclusiveness. Instead, they will foster bitterness and resentment on all sides. We must not go down this route. If the Mayor of London insists on pushing ahead with this deeply divisive, virtue-signalling exercise, the Government should step up to protect our national heritage and explicitly strip him of the power to dismantle it.

  • Nigel Adams – 2021 Speech on Sri Lanka

    Nigel Adams – 2021 Speech on Sri Lanka

    The speech made by Nigel Adams, the Minister for Asia, in the House of Commons on 18 March 2021.

    I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her for her work with the APPG. I also pay tribute to the many other Members across the House for their work on this important issue and for the many informed and passionate contributions that we have heard this afternoon. I will try to respond to as many of them as possible in the time I have, but I am conscious that I have to give the hon. Lady a couple of minutes at the end of the debate. The Minister for South Asia—the Minister that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) wrote to—would have been delighted to take part in this debate, but obviously he sits in the other place so it is my pleasure to respond on his behalf and on behalf of the Government.

    Human rights in Sri Lanka are an important issue and a long-standing priority both for the UK Government and for many fellow Members. This debate is timely, coming during the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council, which began on 22 February. The human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the limited progress on reconciliation and accountability raised by many right hon. and hon. Members are deeply concerning. As the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon, pointed out, in February last year the Government of Sri Lanka withdrew their support for the UK-led UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 and its successor resolutions 34/1 and 40/1. Those resolutions concerned reconciliation, transitional justice and accountability.

    The Sri Lankan Government then announced a domestic mechanism on accountability. As with previous domestic initiatives, however, meaningful progress has yet to be delivered. There have also been a number of setbacks on accountability, including the appointment into Government positions of military figures accused of war crimes, as referenced by hon. Members this afternoon. As the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) pointed out, they also include the presidential pardon of former army sergeant, Sunil Ratnayake, one of the few perpetrators of war crime atrocities to have been convicted in Sri Lanka.

    Other worrying human rights developments include the continued harassment and surveillance of minorities and civil society groups, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the increasing role of the military in civilian governance, and a constitutional amendment that has extended Executive control over the judiciary and the independent institutions. As the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) pointed out, the Government’s policy of forcibly cremating those deceased due to covid, which has only recently been reversed, has particularly affected the Muslim and Christian communities. Even now, our understanding is that families face significant restrictions on where and how burials can take place.

    The UK Government are deeply concerned by these developments. We have long stood by all the victims of the conflict in Sri Lanka. I was particularly taken by the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), who had very personal recollections of that time. We have condemned LTTE terrorism and worked over many years to achieve post-conflict truth, accountability and transitional justice. Together with our international partners in the Core Group on Sri Lanka, the UK has led successive UN Human Rights Council resolutions on Sri Lanka in 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2019. In February, June and September of last year, we set out our continued support for the UN Human Rights Council framework and our growing concerns about the human rights situation in Core Group statements to the HRC.

    Sri Lanka is a human rights priority country for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In our annual reports, and in Lord Ahmad’s autumn ministerial statement, the Government have highlighted a number of important concerns, which have been highlighted here this afternoon. Accountability and human rights have also been integral to any bilateral discussions we have had with the Government of Sri Lanka. The Foreign Secretary underlined the importance of accountability when he spoke to the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister in May. Lord Ahmad, the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth, has also had numerous discussions with the Foreign Minister, most recently in January, and with the Sri Lankan high commissioner here in London.

    We welcome the recent reports on Sri Lanka by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We agree with the high commissioner that the Human Rights Council must continue to monitor the situation in Sri Lanka very closely and we must continue to press for accountability and reconciliation. Along with our Core Group partners, the UK, as penholder, has presented a new draft resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council. The resolution aims to provide a continued framework for international engagement on human rights in Sri Lanka. The draft calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to make progress on accountability and human rights, and stresses the importance of a comprehensive accountability process for all violations and abuses committed in Sri Lanka. It aims to keep Sri Lanka firmly on the HRC agenda and requests OHCHR reporting on the human rights situation and, importantly, on accountability.

    A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), have called for an international accountability mechanism —a mechanism to collect and preserve evidence of human rights violations—as part of the resolution. I can confirm that our resolution strengthens the capacity of the OHCHR to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence. The resolution supports future accountability processes and builds on the investigations conducted under previous HRC resolutions. We are now working hard to build support for our draft, which we hope will be adopted next week.

    Regrettably, the Sri Lankan Government have made clear their opposition to further substantive action by the HRC. None the less, we will continue to seek to work constructively with them on these issues. We will underline the importance of accountability and human rights in our dialogue with the Government of Sri Lanka. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) raised the issue of the hunger strike carried out by Ambihai Selvakumar. We understand that, as has been pointed out, she was able to conclude her hunger strike two days ago. We absolutely recognise the concerns she has raised about the issues faced by the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. We have highlighted these concerns about the lack of progress towards post-conflict accountability and the wider human rights situation.

    A number of hon. and right hon. Members raised the question of sanctions. We established the global human rights sanctions regime in July 2020, and in a statement to Parliament, the Foreign Secretary set out the full scope of the new regime without speculating, importantly, on future designations. We continue to consider further designations under this global human rights sanctions regime, and we keep all evidence and potential listings under close review.

    I acknowledge and welcome the strength of feeling in the House. We are right to be concerned. We will continue to prioritise international efforts to support accountability and reconsideration at this current session of the Human Rights Council, and we are pushing very hard for our resolution to be adopted next week. I must reiterate that we cannot speculate on future designations under the global human rights sanctions regime.

    Finally, I make it clear that we want a positive relationship with Sri Lanka. We share deep historical ties. We work well together on a number of common interests, such as climate change and covid recovery, and we value that partnership, but accountability and human rights must remain high on the agenda—accountability and human rights to provide justice for all the victims of the conflict and the lasting reconciliation and stability that will allow the people of Sri Lanka to prosper.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2021 Speech on Sri Lanka

    Stephen Kinnock – 2021 Speech on Sri Lanka

    The speech made by Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP for Aberavon, in the House of Commons on 18 March 2021.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this vital debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who made truly powerful, moving contributions to the debate. The really strong showing from the Labour Benches shows the central importance of this issue to our party.

    The Labour party puts the rule of law, democracy and universal human rights at the very heart of our foreign policy. We expect those principles to be upheld consistently in every country throughout the world, including Sri Lanka. We will always stand up for the universal rights and freedoms of all citizens when national Governments refuse to live up to their international obligations.

    In 2009, in the final few months of Sri Lanka’s long, brutal civil war, tens of thousands of civilians, mostly from the Tamil community, lost their lives. It is a scar on the conscience of the world that no one has been held accountable for those crimes, which include the deliberate shelling of civilian targets, sexual violence, and extrajudicial executions. The shocking lack of accountability for past atrocities is compounded by the fact that the human rights violations in Sri Lanka continue to this day. Respected non-governmental organisation Freedom from Torture has forensically documented more than 300 cases of torture by the Sri Lankan state since the war ended, and it continues to receive referrals for Sri Lankan individuals today.

    The people of Sri Lanka, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, deserve justice. Those responsible must be held accountable, and peace and freedom must be secured for future generations. The Labour party is therefore deeply troubled by what has been taking place in Sri Lanka since the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa in December 2019.

    First, he has militarised his Government by appointing former soldiers such as Shavendra Silva and Kamal Gunaratne, who both stand accused of crimes against humanity, to key positions in his Cabinet. Secondly, he has done huge damage to his Government’s credibility in the eyes of the international community by withdrawing from UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, which sets out a process for delivering accountability for war crimes. Thirdly, we are profoundly concerned by reports of the forced cremation of victims of covid-19, including those of Muslim and Christian faith, for whom burial rituals and traditions are sacred. The World Health Organisation has issued guidance stating that the burial of covid-19 dead poses no danger to public health.

    On the UNHRC resolution, in recent weeks and months I have written to the Minister twice about these issues and made it clear that, as the penholder on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council, the UK has a crucial and unique responsibility to show moral and political leadership in its approach to co-ordinating the international response. The final version of the draft resolution, which is set to replace 30/1, is certainly an improvement on the zero draft. However, we continue to have real concerns about key aspects of it. Therefore, I have the following questions for the Minister.

    First, the draft resolution fails to incorporate the recommendations made by the high commissioner in her report of 27 January regarding universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction. We should be supporting the high commissioner’s view that the principles of universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction should apply, and that states should pursue investigations and prosecutions in their national courts. Why have the Government failed to include an explicit commitment to that in the resolution?

    Secondly, the suggested evidence-gathering mechanism is clearly a step in the right direction, but it stops short of recommending the establishment of a fully fledged international, independent investigative mechanism. Why have the Government failed to include in their final draft a commitment to IIIM?

    Thirdly, it is clear that there is a strong basis for referring a number of senior members of the Sri Lankan military and Government to the International Criminal Court. Why have the Government failed to include such a recommendation in the resolution? We know that two of the permanent members of the UN will likely block such action, but should the position of the Government really be shaped by the veto-wielding intentions of China and Russia?

    Fourthly, there is nothing in the resolution about prevention. Why does not the resolution include explicit reference to protecting human rights defenders? Are British diplomats travelling regularly to the north and east of Sri Lanka to assess the situation on the ground?

    Fifthly, the draft resolution requests a report on accountability options in 18 months. This is an unacceptably long timeline, given the evidence already available, and it will give the Sri Lankan Government yet more time to obstruct and obfuscate. Why have the Government failed to ensure that the resolution is based on a far shorter report-back timeline of six months, as I recommended in my recent letter to the Minister?

    Moving beyond the UN resolution, there are a number of bilateral steps that the Government should be taking. In my 11 December letter to the Minister, I suggested that a number of Sri Lankan officials should be sanctioned under the Government’s global human rights sanctions regime, yet not a single Sri Lankan Government Minister, official or military officer has been designated. Could the Minister please explain why it is taking so long when the evidence is already widely available?

    In my letter, I also raised the issue of the UK defence adviser’s engagement with the Sri Lankan military. Since arriving in Colombo in January 2020, he has met at least four senior commanders of the Sri Lankan military who stand accused of gross human rights violations. Could the Minister please explain how the activities of the defence adviser will lead to greater accountability for the Sri Lankan military? Are the UK Government vetting who the adviser meets? Is the adviser’s defence engagement delivering tangible results, or is it simply lending a veneer of legitimacy to a military that is committing human rights abuses?

    Thanks to the recent leaking of comments made by the Foreign Secretary, we know that he is perfectly happy to pursue trade deals with Governments who are committing human rights abuses. Are the UK Government pursuing a trade deal with Sri Lanka? Will human rights conditions be applied? As an EU member state, the UK was party to trading arrangements that offered a preferential tariff to Sri Lanka under the general scheme of preferences enhanced framework known as GSP+ because the Sri Lankan Government were supposedly living up to their human rights obligations. Now that the UK has left the EU, will the Government be reassessing their trading relationship with Sri Lanka?

    Here’s one for the SNP spokesperson—to be answered at another time, I guess—if she is still tuned in. Police Scotland has made 90 deployments of officers to Sri Lanka over the past 15 years. Have these deployments achieved tangible results, or are they just lending a veneer of credibility? Finally, what assessment has the Minister made of Sri Lankan soldiers continuing to be deployed in UN peacekeeping missions despite the human rights record of the Sri Lankan military?

    The integrated review is full of snappy slogans and rhetoric, but all it really achieved was to expose the chasm between the stated ambitions and the actual, tangible actions of this Government. If global Britain is to mean anything, it must surely mean consistently standing up for democracy, for the rule of law and for universal rights and values—not just with words, but with deeds. That must start today, and it must start with Sri Lanka.